RootsBooster Posted November 4, 2012 Author Share Posted November 4, 2012 Why is it pure greed? Let's say a cyclist who has no other means to pay smashes into my car and causes damage that will cost a few £k to repair - and yes, that is quite possible. Is it 'greedy' to want him to have an inexpensive policy, which might cost £2 a week, that would pay for the damage to my car? Or do you prefer that I would have to claim from my own insurance and lose my no claims bonus through no fault of my own? The argument against this is that you can take a cyclist to court and persue compensation that way. My response is why should I have to? I don't see why anybody should have to potentially have time off work, pay fees & other costs, travel to to court etc, if none of it was their fault. Not only that, insursnce may provide you with a courtesy car while your car is being repaired. Would an uninsured cyclist provide this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Why is it pure greed? Let's say a cyclist who has no other means to pay smashes into my car and causes damage that will cost a few £k to repair - and yes, that is quite possible. Is it 'greedy' to want him to have an inexpensive policy, which might cost £2 a week, that would pay for the damage to my car? Or do you prefer that I would have to claim from my own insurance and lose my no claims bonus through no fault of my own? But the cyclist is liable, and should be pursued and pay. This should happen more often than it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 The argument against this is that you can take a cyclist to court and persue compensation that way. My response is why should I have to? I don't see why anybody should have to potentially have time off work, pay fees & other costs, travel to to court etc, if none of it was their fault. Not only that, insursnce may provide you with a courtesy car while your car is being repaired. Would an uninsured cyclist provide this? It's your insurance company that should be pursuing the cyclist for the costs of his/her liability, not you. The fact that insurance companies are too lazy to do this, because they can simply spread the costs of uncovered liabilities amongst the honest motorists that's the real problem, not the lack of mandatory insurance for cyclists or pedestrians and uninsured drivers. Incidentally, it's the problem of the latter that dwarfs the others by a huge factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 If they're going to run on the road then maybe Pedestrians do all sorts of things on roads, they walk and run past cars all the times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 But the cyclist is liable, and should be pursued and pay. This should happen more often than it does.You miss the important aspect - what if he can't afford to pay? That's why we have car insurance - we're all liable anyway for what we do with our cars/bicycles/skateboards/golf clubs/model gliders or whatever, but we have to have car insurance because the damage caused is often more than people can afford to pay. The same can happen with a bicycle if the rider causes an accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Why is it pure greed? Let's say a cyclist who has no other means to pay smashes into my car and causes damage that will cost a few £k to repair - and yes, that is quite possible. Is it 'greedy' to want him to have an inexpensive policy, which might cost £2 a week, that would pay for the damage to my car? Or do you prefer that I would have to claim from my own insurance and lose my no claims bonus through no fault of my own? Now lets actually look at how likely it is. Has it ever happened to you? It's never happened to anyone I know. On the other hand I've been hit by cars twice whilst on my bike, and I know quite a few other cyclists who have as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 The argument against this is that you can take a cyclist to court and persue compensation that way. My response is why should I have to? I don't see why anybody should have to potentially have time off work, pay fees & other costs, travel to to court etc, if none of it was their fault. Not only that, insursnce may provide you with a courtesy car while your car is being repaired. Would an uninsured cyclist provide this? Because that's what you have to do if I walk up and kick your wing mirror off, or fall over drunk and dent your bonnet with my face. Or indeed damage any other property through my own negligence. Cycling is just like life, I'm liable for my actions when doing it, and the remedy for a 3rd party is to take me to court if I cause any damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 You miss the important aspect - what if he can't afford to pay? That's why we have car insurance - we're all liable anyway for what we do with our cars/bicycles/skateboards/golf clubs/model gliders or whatever, but we have to have car insurance because the damage caused is often more than people can afford to pay. The same can happen with a bicycle if the rider causes an accident. Car insurance was introduced when the level of motor accidents and people unable to pay became a problem to society. No such problem exists with cyclists, so no requirement for insurance exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted November 4, 2012 Author Share Posted November 4, 2012 Pedestrians do all sorts of things on roads, they walk and run past cars all the times. Other than when they cross the road, or drunk, or where there is no pavement, I've never observed this. Obviously then, it doesn't happen ALL the time Now lets actually look at how likely it is. Has it ever happened to you? It's never happened to anyone I know. On the other hand I've been hit by cars twice whilst on my bike, and I know quite a few other cyclists who have as well. It happened to me Because that's what you have to do if I walk up and kick your wing mirror off, or fall over drunk and dent your bonnet with my face. Or indeed damage any other property through my own negligence. Cycling is just like life, I'm liable for my actions when doing it, and the remedy for a 3rd party is to take me to court if I cause any damage. Unless they have insurance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Other than when they cross the road, or drunk, or where there is no pavement, I've never observed this. Obviously then, it doesn't happen ALL the time Look out of your window, I expect cars are parked on the street. Walk down the street and you will be passing those cars. Push a pushchair in front of you and you'll be passing those cars, possibly within an inch or two with something metallic with sharp bits... Maybe pushchairs should have insurance? It happened to me Unless they have insurance You realise that having insurance doesn't actually alter anything, your sole remedy is still to take them to court for the damages unless they (or their agent the insurer) chooses to settle in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.