The Adviser: Is it time to require insurance for cyclists and dogs?

Friday 26 October 2018

Should cyclists and dogs be insured? Express columnist Advocate Olaf Blakeley thinks so.

Insuring cars, now that seems obvious, but islanders are also required to get it for surfboards too.

The thing they have in common is their ability to cause harm. But, if that's the case, shouldn't we take things even further?

That's the view of Advocate Olaf Blakeley, who stated his case for extending the requirement to bikes and dogs...

"I don’t think there is one morning when I am in the Magistrate’s Court, when there is not at least one person appearing charged with some motoring offence or other.

Careless driving, driving while under the influence of alcohol (or drugs), failing to report an accident or driving without insurance. While each offence differs in severity, and is dependent on the particular facts, driving without insurance is up there near the top.  

Sentences for driving without insurance are severe, and can include imprisonment. The actual sentence handed down is dependent on a range of factors, but the courts are very disapproving in general. The reason is simple: the consequences of not having insurance can be devastating. A third party (such as a pedestrian) injured by an uninsured driver can have life changing injuries and if the driver is uninsured and impecunious, the victim is left with no recourse (apart from a general policy which has been put in place between insurers). However, such occurrences are, thankfully, rare. But should we be thinking of other situations in which something like this can happen and putting in place safeguards? 

For instance, insurance requirements are in place for surfboards for the same reason as those for motor vehicles, but what about bicycles?  

Pictured: Advocate Blakeley says cyclists can potentially knock pedestrians over and cause injury.

Recently, I have been approached by two different people in the space of about a week, one having been involved in an accident with a cyclist, and the other witnessing one. One person told me the cyclist was cycling fast downhill the wrong way (the opposite way to the one-way road) and hit a car, but then remounted and cycled off.  The car was damaged, and the driver shaken up and distressed.  

Just think for a moment: it is not farfetched to imagine a scenario in which a cyclist hits a pedestrian and knocks them over, causing them serious injury. In fact, death is possible. What recourse does the pedestrian or his/her family have in such a situation?  Well, they can sue the cyclist in a civil claim for damages but if the cyclist has little or no financial worth, then such legal proceedings are pointless (probably).  

With the increase in the number of bicycles on our road there is a real argument to require their riders to have policies of insurance against third-party risks. I know that many cyclists will say that it is just another expense, they are responsible riders and therefore the need to insure is unnecessary. I am sure they are very responsible and safety conscious but so too are the vast majority of vehicle drivers.

Pictured: Advocate Olaf Blakeley was recently contacted by someone who had been in an accident with a cyclist, who then left the scene.

I am not advocating the need for insurance because of irresponsible riders, I am simply pointing out there is a danger which is worth insuring against. I cannot imagine the premia for such insurance would be prohibitive in cost. And the argument gets stronger – because the risks increase – as cyclists and pedestrians often are in close proximity on ‘shared’ paths, or each use paths which are next to one another.   

The whole reason the law imposes a requirement to be insured for certain risks, in particular circumstances, is because of the fear someone may be injured, and the legislature wants to make sure those liable are covered financially to compensate the injured party. It’s for that reason employers are required to have employers’ liability insurance. The question always is whether there is an appreciable risk (as opposed to one which is fanciful), which could result in serious harm.  

Pictured: A former dog owner, Advocate Blakeley also thinks dogs should be insured in case they injure someone.

Taking that argument forward, is there also a need – along with insurance for cyclists – for dog owners to have similar policies? We know people (sometimes young children) get bitten by dogs as well as dogs attacking other dogs. There have also been reports of dogs running loose on farms and killing livestock. The same comments apply: if the owner has insufficient money a law suit is a worthless exercise; you can’t get blood from a stone. Insurance may be the answer. As a former dog owner myself, I wouldn’t bark at being required to have insurance in place. 

While the risks of injury from a dog may not be on all fours with the risks posed by vehicles, the danger is appreciable enough to warrant at least some thought being given to the issue."

Read more from Advocate Olaf Blakeley in each month's edition of Connect here.