WeX Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 those were free, they were not the cyclists being self righteous fool! oh right I didn't realise you had to have paid for something to feel smug about it. I must remember that in future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 It doesn't, but given that most of those people didn't have high vis and thought it would make them safer I suspect that they really weren't being self righteous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 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).It was in France, probably still is. Amongst 1st things to do when starting a new school year was take up 3rd party insurance, often arranged by school and insurers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 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). It was in France, probably still is. Amongst 1st things to do when starting a new school year was take up 3rd party insurance, often arranged by school and insurers. I'm against the concept of extending mandatory insurance to cyclists for the reasons I have already given. Also, we seem to be failing to make mandatory motor insurance work never-mind extending it to cover other road users. However, I don't dismiss the idea that we should all carry third-party insurance for everything. I could buy into that idea. Keep it simple, all or nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 You don't cycle when its raining? For personal trips yes, but not when I'm going to work because we have no suitable changing areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereolab Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 I'd say yes. Two examples/reasons. This morning, driving to work on Ecclesall Road, I reached the traffic lights outside the M&S. Three cyclists coming in the opposite direction, two of whom stopped at the red lights. Another went straight through and came worryingly close to taking out a lady with a pram. Hideous negligence on the part of the cyclist, and had he no home insurance, any injuries caused would likely have been unrecoverable. Second, I had a client, an elderly lady, around 75, who was hit by a cyclist in a park, messing around on his bike. The wound to her leg ulcerated, and she ended up losing the leg. He was someone who didn't have his own house/car/job etc, so there was nothing she could do, despite being hit by a negligent cyclist. Policing and logistics would of course prove much, much harder. However - in both of those cases I suspect the cyclists insurance would be worthless - ie - it won't pay out if the cyclist is deliberately jumping red lights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 However - in both of those cases I suspect the cyclists insurance would be worthless - ie - it won't pay out if the cyclist is deliberately jumping red lights. My car insurance would pay out for any accident that was my fault..why wouldn't a cyclist's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 I'm against the concept of extending mandatory insurance to cyclists for the reasons I have already given. Also, we seem to be failing to make mandatory motor insurance work never-mind extending it to cover other road users.I've not read the whole thread, so won't go into that in-depth. As a knee-jerk opinion to the concept, I'll confess that I probably stand opposite to you. A cyclist causing damage, however unintentionally, to someone else's property or -worse- to a person, must accout for their responsibility, and insurance is still the best way of ensuring that that third party will be adequately compensated for their damage/loss/etc. See e.g. Moosey's post quoted above. However, I don't dismiss the idea that we should all carry third-party insurance for everything. I could buy into that idea.Well, if anything, it would be a good palliative for the lack of criminal responsibility of parents in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harmston Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Insurance would be a good idea but who would enforce it , dont say police, they dont enforce the law we have already have i/e light on cycles, been ridden on pavements,not observing traffic laws, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 My car insurance would pay out for any accident that was my fault..why wouldn't a cyclist's? Possibly because the law doenst say that. There is a specific bit in the Road TRaffic Act that basically says that insurers cannot wriggle out of third party claims, even if the insured is being a right dick. You'd need to update that for cyclists I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.