but it is heartening to see how few signatures they have garnered. Although I do wonder about the mind-set of the people who start the 'cyclists must have insurance because cars must have insurance' petitions. To me, it shows a massive lack of understanding about what insurance is actually for. If I damage your property, I am liable for the cost of reparation, regardless of whether I have insurance or not; having insurance protects me from a financial claim that I cannot pay myself. Having insurance when driving is because there is the very real possibility of causing damage that you cannot pay - namely, causing life-changing injuries such that a third party requires life-long medical care, which would cost 7 or 8 figure sums.
To me, it seems that the 'cyclists don't have insurance' brigade think that motor insurance is some sort of unfair requirement that they are subjected to, rather than understanding what protections it actually gives them.