Phil Pascoe
Established Member
Everyone who use the roads should be insured, cyclists and horse riders included. I have insurance for my invalid buggy.
Well, that's that sorted!Everyone who use the roads should be insured, cyclists and horse riders included. I have insurance for my invalid buggy.
But insurance against what? Claims against cyclists are virtually non existent - they rarely cause significant damage to anything or anyone....
Insurance is trickier. It's an idea that has merit, ....
Insurance against making car drivers foam at the mouth.But insurance against what? Claims against cyclists are virtually non existent - they rarely cause significant damage to anything or anyone.
Next thing would be compulsory insurance for pedestrians!
Many cyclists are already insured against bike theft
but it is not compulsory for invalid buggies (below certain performance specifications), as they are extremely unlikely to cause damage or loss to anyone...... I have insurance for my invalid buggy.
This is a popular meme, but it doesn't really add up for me. Your grandfather managed to avoid hitting a lamp post, a stationary vehicle or a brick wall in fifty years of atrocious driving, while all around him more skilful drivers were smashing into each other as a direct consequence of your grandfather's driving antics? Really? Were they so amazed at his Mr Magoo exploits that their own concentration was disturbed?The argument that cyclists don't have serious accidents reminded me of my grandfather - he used to say he'd been driving for fifty years and had never had an accident. He was an appalling driver and no one will ever know how many he caused.
I'm perfectly aware there is no compulsion to insure a buggy - I insure it because apart from my peace of mind I believe everyone using the roads should be insured. Misguided I may be, hypocrite I'm not.
The was a case I read a few weeks ago where a pedestrian was killed.But insurance against what? Claims against cyclists are virtually non existent - they rarely cause significant damage to anything or anyone.
Next thing would be compulsory insurance for pedestrians!
Many cyclists are already insured against bike theft
What would have been around to hit back in those days.....your friend's grandfather probably had the only car in the village!!!An old friend of mine's grandfather round Perranporth way, used to drive to and from the pub daily with two wheels on the pavement and two on the road. He was totally blind, and it was the only way he could find his way around. Never had an accident, though
Nobody argues that.The argument that cyclists don't have serious accidents ....
Yep. They end up in court just like anybody elseAnyone behaving recklessly and causing death, injury or damage to another is legally liable.
To what problem exactly?A far more practical solution
What and not take them to court? Motorists would be even more enraged and want the same treatment!may be a a cycle tax on new bikes of (say) £10 per bike. This would raise £20-30m pa which would provide a central fund to compensate those who suffer a material (trivial excluded to reduce complexity and admin) loss - death, serious injury, major damage.
The roads are already disintegrating and it is not caused by bicycles. Moat club cyclists are already covered for 'third party' insurance by their membership of various cycling organizations.Absolutely agree with Phil Pascoe. In Jacob's utopian world of no vehicles on the road the lost taxes would result in roads disintegrating in short order. Then where would be those cycles be used, why the pavements of course. Knock a few pedestrians down who dare to get in their way.
OOps! There goes my resolution never to join a conversation that Jacob features in LoL.
A case in Kingston where the cyclist was prosecuted for "Riding Furiously" on a pavement cycle path, they hit a pedestrian who had stepped onto the cycle path to circumnavigate a couple of people talking on the pavement with two prams, the Magistrates position was, the cyclist could see the obstruction and should have taken appropriate action, they where not jailed, but did occasion a not so substantial fine and costs against them.I believe ther was a rcent case of a cyclist jailed for "furious cycling" or some such term.
Exactly the same as if the person had stepped in to the road. The difference being the survival chances of the pedestrian.A case in Kingston where the cyclist was prosecuted for "Riding Furiously" on a pavement cycle path, they hit a pedestrian who had stepped onto the cycle path to circumnavigate a couple of people talking on the pavement with two prams, the Magistrates position was, the cyclist could see the obstruction and should have taken appropriate action, they where not jailed, but did occasion a not so substantial fine and costs against them.
Enter your email address to join: