|
Am I liable??
|
21-12-11, 04:32 PM
(20-12-11, 01:28 AM)richfzs link Wrote: [quote author=pitternator link=topic=1123.msg7922#msg7922 date=1324280242] do not feed the troll... [/quote] I agree with him, why shouldn't they have insurance. They cause enough accidents!! 
21-12-11, 05:15 PM
(18-12-11, 08:52 AM)pitternator link Wrote: all this sort of thing says to me is ...its feckin dangerous to filter ! I hate doing it, though I can remember filtering miles recently when coming down M6 from Liverpool.Its a real dilemma. You just cant trust anyone, or relax at any time.I think towns are particularly bad since it all seems too acceptable and easy to do, folk get complacent. totally agree! i do filter but to be honest, not that much. Plus I'm not one these riders who has to get from A to B as fast as poss, as long as I'm on my bike I'm happy. I don't think pedestrians or cyclists (which i am) should have insurance but situations like these need looking at properly and fairly and if the pedestrian/cyclist are to blame then they should be made to pay. REHAB: hope it all gets sorted (in your favour) 
21-12-11, 07:29 PM
(21-12-11, 04:32 PM)old son link Wrote: [quote author=richfzs link=topic=1123.msg8015#msg8015 date=1324340902] do not feed the troll... [/quote] I agree with him, why shouldn't they have insurance. They cause enough accidents!! [/quote] From what age? Are you going to start No Claims Bonus with a 10 year old? How about for pedestrians too? I've been unlucky enough to see 2 people hit by traffic, one was lucky, the taxi just broke both his legs, the second not so lucky, the bus killed him. But in both cases, it was completely the pedestrians fault, surely the bus company should be able to claim (to get their smashed windscreen replaced, and for the mental trauma their driver no doubt suffered having seen some blokes brains turned to pate in front of him) from the ped's insurance?
21-12-11, 07:33 PM
Note I'm not saying they shouldn't have insurance, as others have stated, it is available, and I do have it (or will have when I get round to renewing my CTC membership). But I am against it being compulsory, we need to be encouraging people onto bikes, not putting them off.
21-12-11, 08:42 PM
I think cyclists should have insurance, it isn't much ( I paid £100 p/a) and that gave me personal injury cover and third party and theft insurance. It also made me look good when people expressed their hatred of everything two wheeled.
It would be hard to make it compulsory. However, more could be done to EDUCATE people, for example, why don't ALL schools make children learn cycling proficiency as a sports lesson? It would be more useful than football or rugby, and would ingrain good habits early. Now in the case of our friend Rehab, the cyclist essentially did pull out, without looking, on him. If we do that in a car or motorbike, we are liable, and therefore, morally, it is the cyclists fault. As rehab has a broken wrist, and probably can't work for while, then there is no reason that he should have to pay for anything else, and should be able to claim from the cyclist. Now because us bikers and drivers are licensed it is easier to enforce responsibility on us, cos we have been taught (whether we remember or not) to always look out for filtering motorbikes, and cyclists during heavy traffic, and to expect pedestrians to step out from in front of buses, and other such hazards. As cyclists aren't licensed, and therefore are deemed as clueless, the law will often rule in favour with the cyclists. This, actually helps keep cyclists ignorant of the rules OR those who know, become complacent and know that a judge will always rule in their favour. I am fully supportive of people taking to two wheels, as I love it myself. However, I get furious when I see people letting the side down, and behaving irresponsibly. Education is the way forward, and cyclists who get caught in accidents, regardless of fault, should be MADE to do a CBT equivalent training day type thing, so they can make an informed choice as to their behaviour. As they have been trained, any further accidents involving the cyclist when they are at fault, should allow people to PERSONALLY claim from them. Sorry for the essay (but I am very, VERY passionate about this) I hope things rule in your favour man. 
23-12-11, 12:03 AM
23-12-11, 01:58 AM
Less than £10 a month isn't much if your cycling. After all, your saving on petrol and public transport. If it also means that cyclists become more accountable, then that can only be good for everyone. Surely??
23-12-11, 12:42 PM
Sounds expensive to me. Join the CTC or if you haven't grown a beard then British Cycling and you get 3rd party insurance. I think joining starts from £30 per year.
However there is no point making insurance compulsory unless it is compulsory for pedestrians too! If the cyclist that hit the car in this story does not have insurance then that fact does not make him any less liable for his actions. Just more likely to be made bankrupt if he can't afford any outcome! People seem to think insurance absolves them of any worry. However if you do something that has such a big cost then you may find your insurance cover is not big enough! Check it out - cover up to x million. But if you swerve onto the runway at Heathrow and cause a plane to crash into an apartment block seriously maiming and killing a few hundred then I reckon the damages will be over the insured amount. Don't actually try this though....
23-12-11, 01:15 PM
I did not know about the £30 insurance at the time, however mine also covered theft up to £5000, and I had a nice bike so I didn't want it stolen like my previous one
(23-12-11, 12:42 PM)alan sherman link Wrote: swerve onto the runway at Heathrow and cause a plane to crash into an apartment block seriously maiming and killing a few hundred then I reckon the damages will be over the insured amount. Don't actually try this though.... This just sounds comedy. :-D
23-12-11, 07:33 PM
(23-12-11, 01:58 AM)Skinbeatersam link Wrote: Less than £10 a month isn't much if your cycling. After all, your saving on petrol and public transport. If it also means that cyclists become more accountable, then that can only be good for everyone. Surely?? I could argue this, but really can't be bothered to do this whole argument (again), especially since I'm going to be off for Xmas tomorrow. Let's just say that it's been looked at and argued over and it's really not feasible, either financially or practically, let alone being enforceable in any meaningful way. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
