RootsBooster Posted November 1, 2012 Author Share Posted November 1, 2012 A pedestrian can damage your car and be untraced in much the same way a cyclist might. Maybe everyone should wear a ridiculous bib with a number on it at all times, and be required to carry papers that must be produced on request, citizen. Show me a pedestrian who can run as fast as a bike can move and I might agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 The cyclist that did £1000 of damage to RootsBooster's car is liable and should have paid, not him or his insurance company.What if he couldn't pay, or didn't want to? But the same applies to any tort against you, so I don't see why cyclists should be singled out rather than the owner of a property you might visit. I would like to see everybody pay for their torts, including the cyclist who caused £1000 damage to your car. If he wasn't pursued, most likely because your insurer couldn't be bothered, then that's a shame. The question is where do we draw the line, and make third-party insurance mandatory. I'm only aware of it with motoring and certain business risks, where the third-party risks are realistically larger that the individual's ability to meet. If you extend the line to cyclists then why stop there? It could be argued that cyclist's are more likely to get away with their torts precisely because of compulsory motor insurance which makes drivers less likely to pursue damages correctly. It could be argued that we actually take the line further back, rather than extend it, and remove compulsory motor insurance altogether. If we all drove with the risks of huge liabilities and/or jail from driving negligently then it would make the roads much safer for all users. As for the £2 per month you have been quoted for cycle insurance, it is indeed cheap and I would think it's a very good idea for any cyclist to seriously consider it. But it's only cheap because it's voluntary, and it operates alongside a compulsory motor insurance system, so only kicks in as a last resort safety net for the cyclists that have it. Make it compulsory and I would expect the cost to rise tenfold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Show me a pedestrian who can run as fast as a bike can move and I might agree. Why have you chosen an arbitrary speed as the threshold for requiring insurance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dvp82 Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 But the same applies to any tort against you, so I don't see why cyclists should be singled out rather than the owner of a property you might visit. I would like to see everybody pay for their torts, including the cyclist who caused £1000 damage to your car. If he wasn't pursued, most likely because your insurer couldn't be bothered, then that's a shame. The question is where do we draw the line, and make third-party insurance mandatory. I'm only aware of it with motoring and certain business risks, where the third-party risks are realistically larger that the individual's ability to meet. If you extend the line to cyclists then why stop there? It could be argued that cyclist's are more likely to get away with their torts precisely because of compulsory motor insurance which makes drivers less likely to pursue damages correctly. It could be argued that we actually take the line further back, rather than extend it, and remove compulsory motor insurance altogether. If we all drove with the risks of huge liabilities and/or jail from driving negligently then it would make the roads much safer for all users. As for the £2 per month you have been quoted for cycle insurance, it is indeed cheap and I would think it's a very good idea for any cyclist to seriously consider it. But it's only cheap because it's voluntary, and it operates alongside a compulsory motor insurance system, so only kicks in as a last resort safety net for the cyclists that have it. Make it compulsory and I would expect the cost to rise tenfold. That is an excellent point, if 3rd party cycle insurance was made mandatory we all know the insurance companies would get £ signs ringing in their eyes and that £2 a month would ballon to god knows what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Let's be honest here......it's unworkable. Do we really expect a child to be insured riding his new bike at Christmas? What about skate boards and childrens scooters? All have the potential to cause damage to vehicles, or worse to people. It's the way things are....it's life. All adults should have some form of third party liability insurance, children should be covered under their parents policy (I could be wrong but think this is already mandatory in some European countries). jb ETA: I was thinking of the Netherlands. It is not compulsory there but 9 out of 10 adults have it. http://www.expatica.com/nl/finance_business/pensions_insurance/guide-to-third-party-liability-insurance-756.html It's an old article but one policy cost around NGL80-120 (£50ish?), and "one policy covers a whole family, including relatives, pets and houseguests, worldwide". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted November 1, 2012 Author Share Posted November 1, 2012 Why have you chosen an arbitrary speed as the threshold for requiring insurance? I haven't . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 So how does a special bib work when, like me, you have a rucksack over your back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted November 1, 2012 Author Share Posted November 1, 2012 But the same applies to any tort against you, so I don't see why cyclists should be singled out rather than the owner of a property you might visit. The owner of a property isn't maneuvering the thing around at speed on public roads, amongst lots of other objects maneuvering at speed. I would like to see everybody pay for their torts, including the cyclist who caused £1000 damage to your car. If he wasn't pursued, most likely because your insurer couldn't be bothered, then that's a shame. Are you saying that my own insurance company could have dealt with this? (dealt with getting the cyclist to pay, I mean) The question is where do we draw the line, and make third-party insurance mandatory I would say draw the line at any transport which uses the public roads and is capable of causing damage. . I'm only aware of it with motoring and certain business risks, where the third-party risks are realistically larger that the individual's ability to meet. If you extend the line to cyclists then why stop there? Don't stop! Make sure all road transport is insured! It could be argued that cyclist's are more likely to get away with their torts precisely because of compulsory motor insurance which makes drivers less likely to pursue damages correctly. It could be argued that we actually take the line further back, rather than extend it, and remove compulsory motor insurance altogether. If we all drove with the risks of huge liabilities and/or jail from driving negligently then it would make the roads much safer for all users. As for the £2 per month you have been quoted for cycle insurance, it is indeed cheap and I would think it's a very good idea for any cyclist to seriously consider it. But it's only cheap because it's voluntary, and it operates alongside a compulsory motor insurance system, so only kicks in as a last resort safety net for the cyclists that have it. Make it compulsory and I would expect the cost to rise tenfold. If a motorbike was built, which was as light as a mountain bike and limited to 60mph, do you think that should be exempt from insurance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted November 1, 2012 Author Share Posted November 1, 2012 So how does a special bib work when, like me, you have a rucksack over your back? Oooof that one throws a real spanner in the works! It's a toughy, but I'm sure that somebody somewhere will invest a vast amount of money into developing some advanced technology, to overcome this obstacle. Like, say, a high-vis patch. Elastic/velcro/other fastener type included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 I haven't . Yes you have. You say that pedestrians aren't fast enough to need insurance but cyclists are, that's completely arbitrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.