I think bicycles should have to be compulsorarily insured, just like other vehicles.
What's your opinion?
|
|
Yes please. Lets stop thinking of cyclists as being Miss Marple or Oxford Professors, peddling along with a wicker basket on the front a a shiny bell on the handle bars. Think Lycra wearing lout with the belief that non of our road rules apply to them as they claim the moral ' planet saving " high ground, weaving in and out of traffic on both sides whilst ignoring red lights and stop signs.
|
|
I find my house insurance covers me.
|
I find my house insurance covers me.
Me too - and it's one of the cheap ones (Swiftcover),
|
|
|
|
Think Lycra wearing lout with the belief that non of our road rules apply to them as they claim the moral ' planet saving " high ground weaving in and out of traffic on both sides whilst ignoring red lights and stop signs.
You might ride like that Mr X, but I certainly don't!
|
When i used to cycle to work, I bought "Evans Cycles" insurance, it covered the bike in case of theft but also me incase of accidents, ie if i hit a car, or if i got hit and needed to claim medical expences from the car driver....
i got knocked off by a lady turning out of a side road 2 years ago, even though i had 3 front lights and a hi-viz jacket.
i had a broken elbow....she had a suprise as i bounced off her drivers side window...
paul.
(house insurance might only cover the bike....)
now due to redundancy....i have to drive to work.....28 miles each way so not willing to cycle....oh the cost was about £40 per year.
|
(house insurance might only cover the bike....)
Mine covers any damage I might cause - I checked with the insurance company, as I was about to join the CTC to get cover but found I didn't need to.
|
BTW if you're not covered by household insurance, the £10m 3rd party CTC insurance is included in membership which is £36 per year.
www.ctc.org.uk/
|
|
|
|
SQ
You might ride like that Mr X but I certainly don't!
Nor do I,and I don't peddle anything either.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 02/04/2009 at 11:27
|
|
|
|
|
Waltham Forest have the solution to pesky cyclists: tolls. This time a stealth tax will be used to deal with a growing need. 4x4 driver walking aids:) tinyurl.com/dagz8w
|
|
|
Lets stop thinking of cyclists as being Miss Marple or Oxford Professors Think Lycra wearing lout
Oh honestly. Don't be so silly. What on earth even is "a cyclist"? Almost everyone I know who owns and uses a bicycle also owns and uses shoes and owns and uses a driving licence. I don't know anyone who can be senibly described as "a cyclist" since it is just as likely that the last time they needed to get from A to B they might have walked or driven.
Some people behave inconsiderately and recklessly on their bicycles. I expect that the number of people who do that *only* when they are on their bicycles, and don't carry that sort of behaviour into their cars, the street and the rest of their lives is vanishingly small.
Do you not think it might be just a teensy weensy little bit more constructive, if you must have a group of people to vilify, that you choose inconsiderate people as your target? That way, when the idiot who hares past you on his bike in town, oblivious to the danger he pose gets off his bike and into his car, you won't inadvertently stop hating him. And when Miss Marple gets back home in her little Fiesta from taking presents to her grandchildren and gets on her bike to go shopping for more presents for her other grandchildren, you won't inadvertently start hating her. Just a thought...
Inconsiderate, bigoted cycling zealots are going to hold you in contempt when you're in your motorised transport whatever you do. But persist with the sort of nonsense you displayed here and you might find the only effect is that a whole bunch of sensible, reasonable and considerate people who, amongst many other things own and use a bicycle sometimes, start to think rather less of you too.
|
|
|
Mods, would it be possible to have a filter that prevents the use of "cyclist" and "lycra" together? This might give us more creative and less cliched writing on the subject.
alfalfa
|
|
|
|
|
The reason I asked was because a few months ago a hit-and-run cyclist collided with an elderly friend who was walking in a pedestrianised area. As a result of the injury to her fragile legs she had to have one leg amputated and the other now has ulcers which show no sign of healing. I accept that house insurance might cover the cyclist against claims against him/her, but what should the victim do in the event of a hit-and-run collision such as this?
|
|
Sorry to hear about your friend L'escargot. Did she report the incident to the police? If it had been a car that had hit her I guess the police might be more interested, but she should still try to get some action. And that could include some sort of compensation, couldn't it?
|
Members of both the Cyclists Touring Club and the London Cycling Campaign have 3rd party cover as part of their membership.
|
A hit and run could have occurred just as easily with an insured cyclist.
Being insured doesn't stop accidents happening.
Besides, the sort of rider who hit the elderley friend is probably the sort of person who wouldn't bother with insurance anyway.
How could bike insurance ever be policed anyway?
ps I'm not condoning what he did by the way
Edited by iqn869 on 01/04/2009 at 15:20
|
|
|
|
Isn't the point that if the lady had been hit by an untraced car she would be able to claim compensation from the MIB. This would also be the case if the car driver was uninsured.
If you are injured by a hit and runcyclist or an uninsured cyclist there is no equivalent to the MIB and you will get nothing. I find this cometely unacceptable.
|
|
|
|
"What should the victim do in the event of a hit-and-run collision such as this?"
Is the criminal injuries compensation scheme still running?
|
Is the criminal injuries compensation scheme still running?
Yes but it specificlly excludes vehicles:
A personal injury is not a criminal injury for the purposes of this Scheme where the injury is attributable to the use of a vehicle, except where the vehicle was used so as deliberately to inflict, or attempt to inflict, injury on any person. For the purposes of this Scheme a ?vehicle? is any device by which persons, animals or goods are or can be transported on or under land or water, or by air.
|
I'd generally agree with GJD's analysis. The number of people who deliberately use a bike to risk the life and limb of others is miniscule. There may though be a rather higher number who, having had an accident, flee the scene for fear of the consequences.
One could equally require compulsory insurance of joggers, swimmers/divers or those who stretch hoses or power leads across the pavement. The cost of enforcing insurance (registratio numbers, V5's?)as against the number of miscreants trapped wouls be utterly disproportionate.
My CTC membership includes third party insurance, but for the high excess I'd have claimed on it when my son damaged a car with his bike.
I am however far more likely to need the legal assistance to claim against a motorist.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 02/04/2009 at 23:10
|
I'd generally agree with GJD's analysis. The number of people who deliberately use a bike to risk the life and limb of others is miniscule. There may though be a rather higher number who, having had an accident, flee the scene for fear of the consequences.
Cyclists form a significant proportion of road users are easily capable of causing a serious accident as per the original post. I have myself ended up in casualty with six stitches to my leg as a result of a being hit by a cyclist on a footpath. I appreciate that most cyclists do carry insurance and cyclists are themselves very vulnerable to motor vehicles. The fact remains however that if you are seriously injured by an uninsured motor vehicle you will get compensation via the MIB . If you are hit by an uninsured cyclist who has no money or flees the scene you will get nothing. Although i have no statistics to prove it I would suggest that the number of accidents causing injuries to third parties far exceeds those cause by joggers, swimmers etc. and those persons do not have the capacity to easily flee the scene of an accident.
|
The problem with this idea is that those cyclists who cause the problems (The pavement hopping hooded yoofs on there £99 MTBs) would simply ignore insurance laws and there simply aren't enough policemen about to enforce it. Those of us with bikes worth as much or more than our cars do not go out looking for accidents to have.
|
|
IIRC, in Switzerland, cyclists are required to fix a small registration plate to their bikes - presumably, such a system could include a compulsory insurance requirement.
|
I see that you were thinking the same as me, BiG! That's the major difference between accidents involving cars and those involving bikes... its easier to identify the car!
Though how on earth you'd police it heaven only knows!
|
A bit of googling later ...
The Swiss system is now an anuual vignette/sticker with third party insurance of 2M Swiss Francs. For damage caused by a non-insured rider, there is a central fund. See:
de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velovignette
(in German)
|
|
|
|
|
