RootsBooster Posted November 1, 2012 Author Share Posted November 1, 2012 Yes you have. You say that pedestrians aren't fast enough to need insurance but cyclists are, that's completely arbitrary. I didn't say that. You said that pedestrians can cause damage in much the same way as cyclists can, I said show me a pedestrian who can move as fast and I might agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Maybe instead of compulsory insurance there should be more information and warnings that if a cyclist causes damage or an accident, they will be sued, and the onus is on them to either get insurance or ensure they're aware of the consequences. And yes, I'm a cyclist as well as a driver. When I'm not needed to wear a suit in work and it's not raining them I do the commute on the bike. I'm covered under my household insurance policy for accidents. Last year a lad on a racing bike lost control of his bike going down a hill and ran into my car boot. It only caused scratches, but devalued the car. The lad just didn't take in that he was responsible and would have to deal with the situation. When he got home his dad was shouting the odds down the phone at me (I insisted it was an RTA and details must be exchanged) that my own car insurance should cover it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Last year a lad on a racing bike lost control of his bike going down a hill and ran into my car boot. It only caused scratches, but devalued the car. The lad just didn't take in that he was responsible and would have to deal with the situation. When he got home his dad was shouting the odds down the phone at me (I insisted it was an RTA and details must be exchanged) that my own car insurance should cover it. What was the outcome? Did you get your damage paid for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Yep, I sent them the bill. But it was an inconvenience for me to get at least two quotes (to show I wasn't ripping them off), the hassle of dropping the car off, and seeking alternative transport while it was repainted, and then having to pay for it myself before reclaiming the money. My car insurers didn't want to know, unless I was wanting to claim on my own insurance. Although they said the motor legal assistance may look at it if I didn't get payment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 There are more motor-cycles on the roads than cycles. Have you heard of motor cyclists (who are also car owners) getting a discount? Mentioning motorists falling off a bike whilst wearing toe clips obviously wasn't enough for everyone to notice my post was tongue in cheek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isabelle 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? I did think of that. Most people who commute to work on a bicycle (like me) will be wearing a rucksack or some kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 I didn't say that. You said that pedestrians can cause damage in much the same way as cyclists can, I said show me a pedestrian who can move as fast and I might agree. So you are saying that the requirement for insurance (you say bikes should have) is dependent on speed (you say because bikes are faster than pedestrians). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 I did think of that. Most people who commute to work on a bicycle (like me) will be wearing a rucksack or some kind. If only someone could invent some sort of cover to go over a rucksack... jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isabelle Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Maybe instead of compulsory insurance there should be more information and warnings that if a cyclist causes damage or an accident, they will be sued, and the onus is on them to either get insurance or ensure they're aware of the consequences. And yes, I'm a cyclist as well as a driver. When I'm not needed to wear a suit in work and it's not raining them I do the commute on the bike. I'm covered under my household insurance policy for accidents. Last year a lad on a racing bike lost control of his bike going down a hill and ran into my car boot. It only caused scratches, but devalued the car. The lad just didn't take in that he was responsible and would have to deal with the situation. When he got home his dad was shouting the odds down the phone at me (I insisted it was an RTA and details must be exchanged) that my own car insurance should cover it. You don't cycle when its raining? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 The number could go under that self righteous "The Zero Emissions Option" text so many of them wear. Which I have seen worn ironically by a motorcyclist in Sheffield those were free, they were not the cyclists being self righteous fool! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.