Forest E-Bikes to Add Third-Party Insurance After Uncompensated London Crashes

Forest's September Insurance Launch and the Victims Who Pushed It

Forest, one of London's largest shared e-bike operators, will add third-party liability insurance from September, covering people injured or whose property is damaged by riders on its bikes — at no extra cost to users. The move follows reporting by The Times that found victims of serious collisions with Forest bikes had received no compensation. Forest operates across 20 of the capital's boroughs and becomes the latest, though not the last, operator to add such cover.

The reporting centred on two cases. Sandy Peters was thrown face-first into a brick wall by a teenager riding a Forest bike on the pavement in Sutton in October last year, spent seven days in hospital and faces around £10,000 of dental repair work after permanent nerve damage; she has been paying her own transport to hospital appointments and private medical bills. Jane Ouartsi spent 36 days in hospital and had to relearn to walk after being hit by a boy on a Lime bike, yet received no compensation even though Lime carried third-party insurance at the time.

Lime, Bolt and Santander already include third-party liability cover in their fares at a cost of roughly one third of a penny per minute. Voi, which runs e-bikes in seven London boroughs, insures its scooters but not its e-bikes. Jansen, quoted by The Times, said Forest could not afford cover when it was founded in 2020; six years on, specialist underwriters have emerged and loss data now exists. Forest says it is working with insurers on a "sensible approach" so that "insurance companies aren't going to be the only winners out of this."

The regulatory backdrop remains uneven: compliant e-bikes meeting the EAPC definition require no insurance under UK law, while e-scooters are subject to a mandatory requirement because of their legal classification. The Government confirmed in a June 2025 Lords debate that it has no current plans to legislate for e-bike registration or insurance, citing concerns about discouraging cycling.

Why Cover on Paper Has Not Meant Compensation for Injured Pedestrians

Having a Policy Is Not the Same as Getting Paid

The Lime case is the sharpest evidence that coverage alone is not the fix. Jane Ouartsi spent 36 days in hospital after being hit by a boy on a Lime bike, yet received no compensation even though Lime carried third-party insurance. The exclusions Phillip Watkins, a former head of insurance at Bolt, identifies explain why: policies typically do not respond when a rider is on the pavement, under age, or went through a red light. Sandy Peters's collision — a teenager on a Forest bike riding on the pavement in Sutton — falls squarely inside those exclusions. Until policy wordings stop letting conduct clauses defeat a third-party claim, the difference between an insured fleet and an uninsured one may not show up in victims' bank accounts.

The Regulatory Asymmetry at the Centre of the Debate

UK law treats e-bikes and e-scooters differently. A compliant e-bike meeting the EAPC definition carries no insurance requirement, and the Government confirmed in a June 2025 Lords debate that it has no current plans to legislate for e-bike registration or insurance, fearing it would discourage cycling. Rental e-scooters, by contrast, require third-party cover as a legal condition of their classification. That asymmetry means Forest's decision is voluntary, Voi can run e-bikes without cover in seven boroughs, and the sector has no mandatory minimum standard for operator liability insurance.

A Market That Can Now Price the Risk

Forest's early inability to insure — the company says it could not afford cover at launch in 2020 amid reluctant providers — has faded as a constraint. Specialist micro-mobility underwriters have emerged, and loss data now exists: a peer-reviewed London hospital study covering 2022–2025 found e-bike injuries carried a 41% higher relative risk of head or neck injury than non-e-bike injuries, with 81% of e-bike riders in the sample not wearing helmets. What has not been built is a policy that responds like motor third-party cover, where a claim cannot be denied because the driver was speeding or ran a red light. Both Forest and Voi say they are working with insurers on more robust policies. That product gap is now the bottleneck — and whether a government mandate or a market innovation closes it first is the open question.

What Forest's Move Changes for Operators, Insurers and Policymakers

Forest's September rollout will be the first real test of whether the new cover changes outcomes for injured pedestrians.

• For Forest: the policy must explicitly respond to pavement riding, under-age riders and red-light breaches — the exclusions that left Sandy Peters and Jane Ouartsi without compensation — or the same claims failures will resurface.
• For Voi: its London e-bike fleet remains without third-party cover while its scooters are insured; the company says it is exploring options, leaving a clear gap across seven boroughs.
• For insurers: the data now exists to price the risk — e-bike injuries carried a 41% higher relative risk of head or neck injury in the 2022–2025 hospital study — and a policy without conduct-based exclusions is still unbuilt.
• For policymakers: with the Government confirming in a June 2025 Lords debate that it has no current plans for e-bike registration or insurance, mandatory cover depends on a future decision despite campaigners' calls for a motor-insurance-style standard.
• For pedestrians and riders: whether compensation is paid can currently depend on where the rider was cycling and their age — anyone involved in a collision should record the location, the rider's age if known, and whether a red light or pavement was involved.