BBC Breakfast news! N!rmpbcBiyXn8GRV.z60~gpz0J#a0P_LaB.sV

No, but then we come down to questions of relative risk. If baneities on bikes are an indication of the frequency of high-energy collisions then bikers are about 21 times more likely than car drivers to incur third-party costs. (i.e. 18% of all rests for 1% of use suggests 18% of all higher energy crashes for 1% of use which leads to a ratio of crashes of 18:0.828282r ~ 21:1).

Where car premiums are likely to be higher than bike premiums is because cars potentially carry more pbuttengers leading to large third party claims (hence the incredible loading against LWB Land Rovers) and the momentum of the vehicle which tend to increase the risk of injury to third partys in a collision. Bikes compensate for that factor by (usually) being ridden much, much faster.

And then we get to relative risk in that a car is much less likely to be involved in a loss of control accident than a bike. Even if the rider-driver are of the same degree of f***wittedness, it takes a lot more effort to get a car out of shape than a bike.

As I've said before, I've had to buttist in scraping up the remains of bikers after a crash, there's often not much more than a smear and a collection of what looks like raw chicken. However the damage done by their bike can be astonishingly severe.

-- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759