Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gaffers]

I am starting to get more involved with my local MP and councillors about various subjects and one very dear to my heart (for reasons most of you are aware) is that of road safety.  My intention is to lobby them directly from inside the relevant parties in order to get something done.  This is what my parents did when the 2nd child was killed by 2 motorists who were racing through the village.  Eventually they convinced the late Gwyneth Dunwoody to change the speed limit.

I think it is time to overhaul how we look at road design, policing and education so I have a been drafting something on the quiet for a bit.  I fear that it is heavily biased to ward the cyclists view point and thus I would encourage feedback from the view point of a pedestrian or a horse rider.

I am going to post it here and on cycling forums to gauge responses, thoughts and feedback which may develop the idea further.

THIS IS NOT A CYCLIST BASHING THREAD - there are plenty of other places you can do that (ie get your own thread )  Admins/Mods I apologise in advance if this creates more work

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Road Safety Legislation Proposal

1. Introduction of a Presumed Liability enshrined in law that places the onus of the less-vulnerable road-user to prove they were not at fault.  Currently the system is in reverse placing the onus on the victim and usually results in a long and costly legal battle to get their basic human rights to be upheld.

Why?

• The current system requires the insurers to take a decision, one which could cost them money and they are allowed to make this decision without 3rd party oversight.  If the victim decides to contest a decision they face an uphill struggle and normally end up in court.  This is costly and high-risk yet the insurance companies seem to rely on victims apathy and not wishing to take that on.  More often than not, only those with the determination and respective legal assistance get the compensation they require to make amends.  This should not be the de facto process in order to uphold your basic human rights which are enshrined in European and UK law.  It should be noted that we are often talking about life-changing injuries which seriously affect income and future prospects and this process should not be left to hinge on what seems a purely financial incentive.  Claims between motorists are decided at cross-company, independent panels which are there to avoid every claim going through the courts.  There is no representation for cyclists on these panels.  This is not the case for incidents involving other road users and the decision is left to the insurance company to decide on blame.
• This could see more cyclists getting public liability insurance (above and beyond what they automatically have on other policies such as home insurance) because if they knew that they could be held responsible for a mistake which affected a pedestrian they would want to ensure they are protected.
• The reason so many people use dashboard and helmet mounted cameras is due to the fact that they do not trust the current system.

2. Improving the process of ensuring that new roadways, junctions and traffic features follow a national framework in terms of minimum safety features for all road users.  This would include mandatory measures to provide a minimum of safety measures that allow all road users and pedestrians to safely navigate features which are known to present a danger.  This would be enforced on local authorities at the planning stage and each application should go through a specialist panel ensuring the road safety of all users.  For example:

• A minimum width for cycle lanes on roads that takes in to account drains and manhole covers (metal when wet is extremely slippy and a serious danger to cyclists) or even making it illegal to have such items in a cycle lane (civic responsibility)
• Moving cycle ways a safe distance from vehicle parking spaces.
• At large junctions and traffic lights, ensure that vulnerable road users can turn right safely, either through intelligent road design or by implementing a cycle phase to the traffic lights.
• Provision of a safe crossing point for bridleways and footpaths that intersect with a road.

Why?

• Many features designed to improve road safety actually create an equal or worse danger by consequence.  E.g. Shared cycle/pedestrian ways with tight and blind corners thus reducing the cycle traffic on the road but increasing the danger to pedestrians in the process, not to mention increasing the chance of a head-on collision between cyclists.
• Due to this many cycle ways are not used because they are either not convenient (ie having to stop and dismount 3 times to negotiate a roundabout instead of just riding through like a vehicle) or are a danger to themselves and other users.  This is a waste of resources and only increases frustration between user groups who do not understand the other’s viewpoint.
• Often it seems that cycle ways and other well-intentioned safety infrastructure have been implemented with tunnel-vision and not by envisioning the entire picture
• The current situation sees much funding set aside for road safety either being untouched or wasted by schemes which do little to improve the situation.

[Gaffers]

3. Stricter enforcement of the rules of the road for every sub-section of the vehicle demographic regardless of whether it is powered by an engine or pedals.  Such as:

• Enforcement of cyclists infringing traffic laws in line with penalties given to motorists
• Set a minimum distance for passing a vulnerable road user in to law.  Automatic penalties for those who fail to adhere.
• Include a rule forbidding cyclists to pass between large vehicles and an obstruction (verge, kerb, other vehicle, etc)
• Identify the punishment-pass dealt to cyclists and horses by motorists as a specific offence with a suitably harsh penalty.

Why?

• A common rant of the motorist is that pedestrians and cyclists in particular flaunt the rules of the road and they are not held responsible to the same level as they are.  While a large portion of cyclists conduct themselves in a lawful manner, there are at least two other groups of cyclists which do not; those that believe that they can break the rules for reasons of road safety and self-preservation; and those who know they will most likely get away with it.  80% of cyclists hold a driving license so it can be presumed that many also drive a car, if they knew that they could be held to the same level of punishment as if they were driving a car it would reduce a lot of the risk-taking behaviour seen by cyclists.  More importantly, it could also reduce the frustration of motorists towards cyclists and could help contribute to a safer more respectful environment on our roads.
• Currently Rule 163 of the highway code is ambiguous and states “give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car”.  While well-intentioned this statement is open for interpretation and leaves vulnerable road users dangerously exposed when they are overtaken by larger heavier vehicles often travelling at considerable speed.
• Inexperienced cyclists, and indeed many experienced ones, do not seem to understand the dangers of lager vehicles and their blindspots, thus a new rule should be included that distances vulnerable road users from the dangerous areas around them.

[Gaffers]

Annex A:

A.1  A323 in Aldershot.


 
This section of pavement has been designated a shared foot/cycle path but the markings are not clear.  It is possible that the lines are to increase the separation of vehicles on the road and traffic of the foot/cycle pathway but it can be interpreted as cyclists use one lane and pedestrians the other as the space of the left is not wide enough for a cyclist and pedestrian to pass each other safely.
 
A.2 Fleet road, Fleet.


 
This is an example of a typical cycle lane that was not properly thought through.  It is too narrow and places the cyclist too close to the kerb.  This also takes away from the rest of the carriageway and encourages motor vehicles to pass without leaving sufficient clearance.
It also fails to take in to account drainage covers which are a significant danger to cyclists, as shown in A.3.
 
If the cyclist moves out to avoid they encroach on motor traffic that is already too close and does not understand why the cyclist is moving out of the lane.  Note also how the lack of a centre line when passing parked cars causes motor traffic to move over in to the cycle lane.
 
A.3  Fleet road, Fleet.



This is a classic case of narrow cycle lanes with hazards for cyclists.  Most motorists will not understand why a cyclist has to leave the lane and the misunderstanding could lead to frustration between road users.  Also by defining narrow cycle lanes you effectively prohibit a cyclist from 'taking the lane' when it is too narrow for a motor vehicle to pass.  Lanes like these only increase the danger to cyclists.  Where the road is too narrow for effective lanes there should be none or there should just be undesignated lanes (cycle lane symbols painted in to the street without lines marking the borders) which highlights that all road users should share the space.

A.4  A325 Farnborough



This is where poor planning a lack of forethought (or even a risk assessment it appears) leads to increasing the possibility the pedestrians and cyclists collide with potentially serious consequences for them both.  The blind corner (where it is obvious pedestrians cut the corner) is further made dangerous by confusing and misleading markings for cyclists.  The design takes the cyclists attention away from the dangerous blind spot, and unnecessarily puts pedestrians at risk.

A.5  A325 Farnborough



As per A.4.  Such paths lead cyclists not to use them because of the dangers they present.  Yet by choosing not to use a path (which is 100% legal) can increase frustration with drivers of motor vehicles who may not have experience of using such lanes and be unaware of the dangers they present.

A.6  A325 Farnborough



As per 4 and 5.

To be developed with further case studies of risks to pedestrian and equestrian traffic

[BazaJT]

I would certainly agree that a lot more thought/planning should be given to proposals designed to enhance safety for all road users-and I'm including pedestrians in this.Sadly I think that any measure that requires some form of enforcement would be difficult[at best] to implement what with cut backs to policing and even council services.

[Broomies Mate]

Dear people who like peddling and things,

Roads are for Cars.  Fast ones.  Anything other than a fast car should use the pavement.  I include Wagons, Tractors, Disabled People and Cyclists.  All of you should use Pavements and allow us people in fast cars to go about our daily business.

Furthermore, all roads (solely to be used by fast cars) should be lined with speed cameras.  Anybody, ANYBODY, ANY FECKWIT driving below a set speed for that road (say 70?) will pay a fine and have points on their 'Fast Car' license.  Once a license of a 'Fast Car' owner reaches 12 points, they will be resigned to the Pavement like the rest of the tossers on the road.... erm.... pavement.

This is a very simple thing to enforce.... anybody who wishes to protest should stand in the middle of he ROAD.  The protest will be over within seconds.

Kind Regards

Me 

[Gaffers]

I take it you're not signing a certain petition then

[jimbobmccoy]

IMHO for any progress to be made, and for all parties to be on board with any changes, there needs to be the implementation of parity among all road users. All road users should be licenced, taxed, insured, and moderated equally (obviously 'pro-rata-d' depending on vehicle/method used in the road).

Until this system is realised, you will never get harmony between motor vehicle users and anyone else on the road.

The only way to apportion accountability to other road users is to expand the motorised systems to cover all road users, and work up from there.

I agree that the majority of your suggestions are good, valid, and should be implemented, but you need to overcome the 'us and them' mentality before you have any hope of full scale and meaningful adoption of them.

[05omegav6]

Last sentence written like a true motorist Jimbo

A very reasoned and well planned proposition Matt

You might struggle getting it seen/acknowledged by the powers that be in parish/local government without some sympathetic connections, but certainly has potential imho

[Marks DTM Calib]

Your proposal would only really work on new build, the costs and impacts associated with retrofit is more than likely to result in fewer designated cycle areas to be installed with the potential to result in some being removed.

[Gaffers]

I know it's a bit of a pipedream but rather than just sit and grumble about things I would rather try and do something about it.

WRT retrofitting, these are exactly my thoughts.  It could only work if applied to new roads/upgrades the idea being that over time the effect would permeate across the whole infrastructure.  Maybe I should make that clearer in the wording?

[Marks DTM Calib]

Its the sort of requirement that should be targeted at building regulations and planning type area as this governs new build.

Forget retro fit, we already have a large proportion of old narrow highways and byways and if you started to lace this up, things would just be removed or fall into disrepair resulting in a backwards step. 

[Sir Tigger KC]

1. Introduction of a Presumed Liability enshrined in law that places the onus of the less-vulnerable road-user to prove they were not at fault.  Currently the system is in reverse placing the onus on the victim and usually results in a long and costly legal battle to get their basic human rights to be upheld.

I don't agree with this as it contravenes the basic principal of English Law. ie: Innocent until proven guilty.  My disagreement is nothing to do with cyclists, but if we introduce 'Presumed Guilt' into one area of our legal system, then it might spread to others.   

[Kevin Wood]

I think the majority of cycle lanes / features should be removed from the roads, at least outside major cities where the traffic is most intimidating for cyclists.

Most of them are not fit for purpose for cyclists who ride at more than walking pace anyway due to the aforementioned bend radii, blind bends and the need to dismount every 50 yards, and their presence reinforces the view in some drivers' minds that cyclists should not be on the road / should stick to their lane.

They reinforce the "us and them" issue. Cyclists should be safe using the main carriageway and they shouldn't cause disruption to other traffic if both parties treat each other with respect.

The other issues you raise have some merits, however, IMHO.

[Gaffers]

1. Introduction of a Presumed Liability enshrined in law that places the onus of the less-vulnerable road-user to prove they were not at fault.  Currently the system is in reverse placing the onus on the victim and usually results in a long and costly legal battle to get their basic human rights to be upheld.

I don't agree with this as it contravenes the basic principal of English Law. ie: Innocent until proven guilty.  My disagreement is nothing to do with cyclists, but if we introduce 'Presumed Guilt' into one area of our legal system, then it might spread to others.   

There is a significant difference between presumed liability and presumed guilt

[aaronjb]

1. Introduction of a Presumed Liability enshrined in law that places the onus of the less-vulnerable road-user to prove they were not at fault.  Currently the system is in reverse placing the onus on the victim and usually results in a long and costly legal battle to get their basic human rights to be upheld.

I don't agree with this as it contravenes the basic principal of English Law. ie: Innocent until proven guilty.  My disagreement is nothing to do with cyclists, but if we introduce 'Presumed Guilt' into one area of our legal system, then it might spread to others.   

There is a significant difference between presumed liability and presumed guilt

One bankrupts you and the other sees you in the clink?

[Terbs]

It does not work giving cyclists use of pavements. Classic example is the road from The Bakers Arms roundabout into Wareham, Dorset. God knows how much the council spent doing the pavements up by widening, putting in lowered crossovers at junctions, roundabouts, etc. Its all clearly marked.
And where do the cyclists ride....on the road.
Right, I am going to alter that statement slightly, in as much to say, that 'general cyclists' if that's the correct terminology, do use it.....those that don't....the men in Lycra.
The council took,  IMO the correct steps to try to minimise danger to cyclists, and they abuse it. Traffic still queues up....as there are trading estates along the route, heavy goods vehicles are a regular feature, as are HGV's transporting Holiday homes and some very large boats. I have seen some very close encounters along that stretch, and you would not get me riding along there for all the tea in China.
So it shows....when the authorities try to make things safe, they virtually get the two fingered salute.
Cycle lanes along that stretch would be accidents waiting to happen.
Not meant as cycle bashing, but just showing...don't always bash the councils, some do try

[Gaffers]

I think your statement is anti-lycra more than anything else.  What's up, Daz left his mark on you?

On a serious note, that is part of the reason for wanting to change things.  There are very very few cycleways I would actually use due to the level of danger they put towards pedestrians.  I can cruis eat 25mph and reach up to 35mph on the flat (I have had 47mph on a downhill) and so can many other 'cyclists in lycra', do you really want me doing those speeds on the same pavements that you or your children use?

For too long local authorities have been, for the most part, just painting to white lines and calling it a cycle path without any thought of the usage, suitability or the dangers it creates.  But they apply for cash from central Govt to pay for it then they can boast about having spent X pounds on cycling infrastructure (that nobody uses) it's 'dangle berries' and it has to stop.

Anyway, we're veering away from where I would like the discussion to go.  I would rather we discuss the content rather than the actual situation because I think we can all agree it cannot go on as is

[Terbs]

No  its not a go a lycra...its an observation on that particular stretch of road, which I might add, is mostly pedestrian free.
The only safe way are cycle routes well away from roads

[Sir Tigger KC]

1. Introduction of a Presumed Liability enshrined in law that places the onus of the less-vulnerable road-user to prove they were not at fault.  Currently the system is in reverse placing the onus on the victim and usually results in a long and costly legal battle to get their basic human rights to be upheld.

I don't agree with this as it contravenes the basic principal of English Law. ie: Innocent until proven guilty.  My disagreement is nothing to do with cyclists, but if we introduce 'Presumed Guilt' into one area of our legal system, then it might spread to others.   

There is a significant difference between presumed liability and presumed guilt

One bankrupts you and the other sees you in the clink?

No I don't think there's a significant difference at all. As Aaron points out it's civil and criminal law, but once you strip out the presumption of innocence in one area of the law, it won't be a massive leap to apply that to other legal fields.    The principal of 'Innocent until proven guilty' has been the bedrock of English Law for centuries and I wouldn't want to see that eroded in any way! 

It's got nothing to do with Human Rights either, it's simply a matter of establishing who was right and who was wrong.   

[Gaffers]

So I am supposed to have the burden of proving that in the event of an accident my innocence and the guilt of the driver yet berated as a vigilante for wearing a helmet camera.

I don't get it

Also I don't feel you fully understand the current situation.  Say I am cycling down the road perfectly legally and correctly and a car hits me from behind, as it currently stands I have to prove that I was in the right to be able to receive any sort of compensation.  Even then the battle is immense.  I could lose my job, my house and my entire livelihood because of the actions of a motorist yet I would find myself in a 'his word against mine' situation with their insurance company.

Plus I think you may have your wires crossed, the presumed responsibility proposal only counts for insurance, not for criminal law. 

http://www.roadpeace.org/change/fair_compensation/stricter_liability/

http://www.roadpeace.org/resources/RoadPeace_Strict_liability_discussion_paper.pdf

[Sir Tigger KC]

So I am supposed to have the burden of proving that in the event of an accident my innocence and the guilt of the driver yet berated as a vigilante for wearing a helmet camera.

Why not?  What makes cyclists a special case?    I had a non fault accident on my motorbike a few years ago and had a hell of a fight to prove it wasn't my fault.    Looking back I wish I'd had a helmet cam!    If you worry about being called a vigilante then you should get a thicker skin.... or wear another layer of lycra!    

Also I don't feel you fully understand the current situation.  Say I am cycling down the road perfectly legally and correctly and a car hits me from behind, as it currently stands I have to prove that I was in the right to be able to receive any sort of compensation.  Even then the battle is immense.  I could lose my job, my house and my entire livelihood because of the actions of a motorist yet I would find myself in a 'his word against mine' situation with their insurance company.

If a car hits you from behind then then that driver is at fault, irrespective of the vehicle you are driving/riding.  No?     And I'm not saying it should be compulsory, but if you worry about losing your house etc, then you should really think about getting a third party liability insurance policy.    I sure there are policies tailored for cyclists.   

Plus I think you may have your wires crossed, the presumed responsibility proposal only counts for insurance, not for criminal law. 

No not at all. It's just that if we start to erode the principal of 'Innocent until proven guilty' in any area, then it could spread to other areas of civil law and indeed criminal law.    That's what bothers me. 

I'm not anti cyclist Guff, but I don't agree with the idea of 'Presumed Liability' as then every Scrote, Dick and M'fanny would be crashing into lorries for a compo claim!   

[05omegav6]

I buried my first Omega in the back of a Vw Polo that had left.a queueing lane without so much as a cursory glance, let alone indicating, about ten feet in front of me. Fortunately a witness came forward from two cars behind the Polo, and that was that...

Point is, being hit from behind does not automatically absolve the front/leading vehicle of blame

Obligatory third party liability for any form of transport would go along way to levelling the playing field.

[Andy B]

....

Obligatory third party liability for any form of transport would go along way to levelling the playing field.

does that apply to Little Johnny on his trike/bike with stabilisers?  and if not .... when do things change? age? size of bike?

[05omegav6]

It should apply regardless, with parental responsibility ending with the issue of an NI number, and to all forms of transport... Bikes, horses, carts, arguably anything being used on a public right of way as a means of getting from A to B regardless of purpose of journey.

Say an extra 1% on NI, and any costs caused by public negligence ie local authority for failing to anticipate/maintain a public thoroughfare to be recouped from said authority.

[Rods2]

I'm not in favour of any law that makes you guilty until you can prove you are innocent. This is not, thank goodness, how Anglo Saxon law works and it why it was always superior to the French Napoleonic law model.

IMO cycle lanes on roads are much more preferable than sharing pavements with pedestrians because:

1. It gives the wrong message to far to many cyclists who think all pavements are cycleways. They are not and this message needs to be got across, that riding on a pavement that is not a cycleway in breaking the law.

2. Bicycles are very quiet and you also get pedestrians wearing Walkman's etc, children use them as a roadside playground and you also have dog walkers, where a bicycle is an interesting thing for a dog to jump up at and have a play with. None of these are fun when 44 ton lorries are driving past a 50mph a couple of feet from you. All of these factors not only endanger the pedestrians and dogs but also the cyclists.

3. When there are many side road junctions, on a pavement cycleway you can't make reasonable progress, where you have to give way every 20 yards.

Very little thought is made at times when planning for pedestrians and cyclists. The A331 roundabout on the outskirts of Aldershot is very dangerous for both. This has made what used to be a safe road for pedestrians and cyclists walking or riding from Aldershot to Ash or vice-versa into a very dangerous one. We need much better planning for pedestrians and cyclists, where they are all too often an afterthought even though they are much more vulnerable when interacting with other road users.

Car drivers need to understand that virtually all cyclists and pedestrians are taxpayers and voters.

[steve6367]

1. Introduction of a Presumed Liability enshrined in law that places the onus of the less-vulnerable road-user to prove they were not at fault.  Currently the system is in reverse placing the onus on the victim and usually results in a long and costly legal battle to get their basic human rights to be upheld.

I don't agree with this as it contravenes the basic principal of English Law. ie: Innocent until proven guilty.  My disagreement is nothing to do with cyclists, but if we introduce 'Presumed Guilt' into one area of our legal system, then it might spread to others.   

There is a significant difference between presumed liability and presumed guilt

Neither are a good idea though - the burden should always be to prove guilt / liability not assume it. (In a road context that's why I have dash cams in both cars)

[LC0112G]

I don't see how compulsory 3rd party insurance for all road users would addresses Monsieur Guffer's problem. If a car driver runs up M.Guffers chuff whilst he's on his bike, that car driver is (well should be!) insured for 3rd party damage. So if M.Guffer wants to, he can sue the driver for damages - whether he has his own 3rd party insurance is irrelevant. His own 3rd party insurance would only cover him if he causes damage to someone else's property.

I think what M.Guffer is saying is that the costs of suing the other driver for damage to his bike is prohibitive. The other driver will have the might of their insurance company behind them, whereas M.Guffer is on his own. If M.Guffer loses in court, then he'll have to pay the costs of the other parties defence, which could be many thousands of pounds.

I suspect the answer to this is the same as it is for any car vs car accident - some form of fully comprehensive policy. That way damage to your property (bike) is covered by your insurance co, who will then attempt to claim from the 3rd party.  I have no idea if fully comp insurance is available for bikes, and if it is I'll bet it's expensive.

The changes M.Guffer is proposing mean that the cyclist wouldn't have to pay for fully comp insurance, and automatically make the 3rd party liable. For the reasons others have stated, I'm afraid I couldn't support that part of the proposal.

[05omegav6]

You misinterpret me... compulsory third party minimum insurance means that it should be alot easier for Mr G to claim against the person who has just run him up the chuff, as you put it... this can only be good.

Also, if the liable party in the case of shite planning/poorly implemented or maintained infrastructure is brought to bear for their negligence, then this could see a thorough and effective reappraisal of the road network on a local level

If local authorities were held to account for items such as the siting of either the drain or the cycle lane in Matts example then they would hopefully apply a bit more thought to the schemes rather than simply treating them as box ticking exercises

[steve6367]

My personal position is that all road users should be insured and registered, whatever they are riding / driving. This would greatly simplify any disagreement.

[LC0112G]

You misinterpret me... compulsory third party minimum insurance means that it should be alot easier for Mr G to claim against the person who has just run him up the chuff, as you put it... this can only be good.

No - Third party insurance pays out (and will pay for your defence) if someone else sues you. It won't normally pay for you to sue someone else. If you want to sue someone else then you either need first party insurance (aka comprehensive) or some kind of un-insured loss policy. Or a no-win no-fee after the event lawyer who is prepared to take on your case.

The person who runs Mr G up the chuff already will have compulsory third party cover. That's the minimum allowed for a motor vehicle driver. So you can sue him in an attempt to recover your losses, or compensation for injury - if you can afford to do so.

[Gaffers]

Indeed, I am unaware of any insurance for a cyclist that gives me that kind of cover.  Thus to recover my losses I need to be in a position to undertake a long a legal battle, without income, against an insurer who will try everything to get out of paying for what I am entitled.

As for human rights, there is no suggestion that a person's right to be considered innocent until proven guilty will be eroded by the introduction of presumed liability, nor will your human rights be violated (sigh).  Nor will it automatically pay out to any cyclist hurt by a vehicle, especially one trying to pull a fast one.  This proposed principle (which already exists across europe) levels the playing field for all road users whereas currently the pedestrian, horse rider and cyclist are all at a significant disadvantage.

Under this proposal, if a pedestrian/cyclist/horsey-type  commits a mistake and is injured then he will not be able to automatically claim compensation from the other party's insurance, he/she can try but will most likely fail.  Where it does differ is that the same road user who is not at fault and suffers financially will not automatically be assumed to have committed an error, which is the current situation.  The status quo is massively in the favour of the motorist.

If the argument of human rights is considered valid*, then when you take in to account my last statement, you have to ask what about the human rights of non-motorist road users? Discrimination? Right to life?





*but it isn't because the human rights act talks about being held guilty of an offence.  This proposal has nothing to do with criminal law.

[Sir Tigger KC]

Here you go Guff, a selection of insurance policies for bicyclists some of which include legal expenses cover. 

http://www.money.co.uk/bicycle-insurance.htm

When I had the aforementioned non fault motorbike accident, the firm of solicitors that were appointed by the insurance company were brilliant and without them I don't think I'd have won. 

[Gaffers]

Not a single one of those policies provides legal assistance.  Bikmo provides 'Free legal Advice' but that is very vague and sounds like a "feeder-with-a-financial-kickback" type of arrangement.  Plus I can get 30 mins free advice from almost any lawyer willing to hear my case.

Sure they all provide public liability but that means diddly-squat when I am trying to claim off someone else.

The maximum payout for death or serious injury I can see there is £150k.  Now I am not being greedy, but if I was incapacitated permanently in an accident I would be looking for several times that in order to replace the income I have now, the care I would need and to support the missus.

I am insured with such policies several times over through various clubs, associations etc but none give me the cover necessary to cover legal bills if I wish to pursue a financial heavyweight such as an insurance company for a claim.  I know the market very well and I do not know of one product that gives me that legal assistance outside of public liability.

Trust me.  This is a cause that I have spent a couple of decades working on and I know the situation, the market and both sides of the argument very well.  Dont forget I am also the owner of 2 (very soon to be 3) cars.  I just dont think that a non-motorist road-user should be penalised for someone else's mistake and then not get the compensation they need to recover.

Just think.  Statistically, more than 8 pedestrains/cyclists are likely to have had a serious injury today alone.  Of all accidents involving motorist vs pedestrain/cyclist it is known that the motorist is at fault in nearly 3 quarters of them.  Thus you have 5-6 people lying in hospital, through no fault of their own and most are likely to lose income or have life-changing injuries.......with zero ability to recover this financial loss.  Just think about that for a second, please.

[LC0112G]

Legal Expenses Cover
If you have a cycling accident giving rise to a claim, our legal team is on hand 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to offer specialist advice and, where appropriate, take over the claim on your behalf. Cover is up to £100,000.

Isn't that what you're asking for? Up to £100K for a Lawyer to fight your case, if your case is considered strong enough?

[Gaffers]

Legal Expenses Cover
If you have a cycling accident giving rise to a claim, our legal team is on hand 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to offer specialist advice and, where appropriate, take over the claim on your behalf. Cover is up to £100,000.

Isn't that what you're asking for? Up to £100K for a Lawyer to fight your case, if your case is considered strong enough?

Missed that one.  It's extremely rare to see though

Still doesn't level the playing field though.

[Sir Tigger KC]

Not a single one of those policies provides legal assistance. 

The ASSETSURE policies includes £100,000 of Legal Expenses cover. 

http://www.assetsure.com/bicycle-insurance/?introducer=209039

[Mr Gav]

As regarding the drain covers in the cycle lanes I find it hard to put them anywhere else as the edges of the road are the lowest points and thats the only place they would work to drain water.

In Malmo, Sweden the cyclists share the pavements with pedestrians, which have clearly marked lanes for each user, it works well and is a hell of a lot safer for cyclists.

[BazaJT]

The idea of compulsory insurance for cyclist,horse riders etc. is a good one but I think ultimately unworkable.Let's face it how many uninsured cars are there out there-and they're carrying registration plates!The idea of some kind of compulsory "driving" test would also be nice but again ultimately un workable.I would say that at least 95% of cyclists round here ride on the pavement,I can't recall the last time I saw/heard any cyclist having any kind of warning device[bell,horn etc]and very few actually bother with lights either.It has to come down to planning and the will to spend money/time accommodating the needs of cyclists safety,however with cutbacks in council funds/spending I rather suspect that such things will come way down the list.

[05omegav6]

As regarding the drain covers in the cycle lanes I find it hard to put them anywhere else as the edges of the road are the lowest points and thats the only place they would work to drain water.

In Malmo, Sweden the cyclists share the pavements with pedestrians, which have clearly marked lanes for each user, it works well and is a hell of a lot safer for cyclists.

Exactly. Germany is the same, I recall a complete netework of cycle lanes around Munster and the surrounding villages.

The drain covers serve to highlight the lack of thought to either the routing of cycle paths and also the materials used in their construction... Making departments accountable for poorly implemented/executed schemes should be an effective way of dealing with this.

Unfortunately, due to the way bureaucracy works, you have to take a piecemeal approach, and MGs offering has to be one the most rational presentations put forward.

[aaronjb]

Still doesn't level the playing field though.

Doesn't it?

If you're riding along, head down, full on MAIML Tour-de-France mode and you go flying through the back window of my car (it's happened, not to me, thankfully!) and I want to claim off you .. I either need deep pockets to pay a lawyer or legal cover from my insurance.

Same difference, surely? OK so the consequences on me and my finances are different (smashed window and trauma of seeing cyclist splattered over the interior of my car vs. cyclist with broken limbs under the front wheel of a van) but the "it's harder for me to claim" argument doesn't really stack up.

[Gaffers]

But it is this difference which makes all the difference.  A dent in the boot of your and the remains of a MAMIL to wipe off does not compare to death or life-changing injuries.  You are right, motorists are not obliged to have legal cover, they are obliged to have 3rd party cover because they are driving a vehicle which can cause serious harm to another person.  Cyclists are not obliged to have 3rd party insurance but most have it without realising it as it is included in their home insurance policy.  Intra-motor vehicle accidents and claims are dealt with through the insurance panel which is made up of people from the motor insurance companies and you can bet your 'arris they will be looking out for themselves.  So when A pedestrian or a cyclists tries to make a claim there is no avenue to have their case seen by this panel and thus the only way to get ahead is to launch legal action, probably about 1-2 years of legal fight during which time your have no income.

So, from what I gather from the consensus here is the majority of you would advocate that in order to level the playing field all cyclists should be obliged to take out legal cover insurance (I do not mean 3rd party insurance) in order to protect their right to fair compensation when somebody else makes a mistake that affects them?

I am only trying to put forward the facts and gather opinion.  This exchange is very interesting and will be used to shape the avenue(s) I take to try and get this proposal put forward to those who have the ability to make the change

[Sir Tigger KC]

I think if you are a regular cyclist and use your bike to commute to work say or regularly cycle along busy roads, then you would be advised to take out appropriate cover.  I wouldn't say it should be mandatory as that's kinda the 'Nanny State' and the government sticks it's tenticles into our lives too much as it is. 

If you don't have cover and have an accident where you have to sell your body to get compensation because you didn't have insurance, then that's your fault!    But I can't really see any difference to any other road user who has an accident where it's not clear cut and struggles to prove liability. 

[Gaffers]

Noted

[05omegav6]

Compulsory basic third party insurance, paid for through NI, whilst not perfect, is more realistic than trying to insist on individuals having cover.

It would offer a level of protection to those who need it against those who otherwise wouldn't bother, and those who would bother would have better coverage in place anyway. And if everyone had a level of cover, then top up premiums would be significantly lower for those that were fully insured

[Sir Tigger KC]

Compulsory basic third party insurance, paid for through NI, whilst not perfect, is more realistic than trying to insist on individuals having cover.

It would offer a level of protection to those who need it against those who otherwise wouldn't bother, and those who would bother would have better coverage in place anyway. And if everyone had a level of cover, then top up premiums would be significantly lower for those that were fully insured

So would your 'NI 3rd party insurance'  cover me for all eventualities Al?  ie in my car, on my motorbike etc 

[LC0112G]

So, from what I gather from the consensus here is the majority of you would advocate that in order to level the playing field all cyclists should be obliged to take out legal cover insurance (I do not mean 3rd party insurance) in order to protect their right to fair compensation when somebody else makes a mistake that affects them?

Obliged - No. Advised - Yes. Like it or not, cycling on a public highway is a high risk thing to do compared to driving a car. If you are worried about being injured (or worse) whilst cycling, then you should take out insurance to protect yourself. If you are injured, then it'll pay out whatever you're covered up to - £100K seems typical. And if you can show that someone else is responsible for your injuries, then much greater sums may be available by going to court and suing the other party.

 

[LC0112G]

Compulsory basic third party insurance, paid for through NI, whilst not perfect, is more realistic than trying to insist on individuals having cover.

It would offer a level of protection to those who need it against those who otherwise wouldn't bother, and those who would bother would have better coverage in place anyway. And if everyone had a level of cover, then top up premiums would be significantly lower for those that were fully insured

Awful idea. Every Tom Dick and Harry would be suing the state (who administer the NI system) for injuries. The state would have to either just pay out, or employ armies of lawyers to investigate and defend against spurious claims. Either way it would cost a fortune, and it's and the tax payer - you and me - that foots the bill.

[05omegav6]

Those that can/do have insurance already  pay for that cost... Both in premiums and taxation.

Anyways, back to the Op...

[Kevin Wood]

The thing is, car insurance has been completely sewn up by the insurance companies. They effectively pay out for your losses and sort it out amongst themselves as to who pays, and how much, covering their own arses first.

It's not just cyclists..  A friend of mine ended up in the middle of a 3 car crash in a car that was insured 3rd party by a foreign insurer (long story but the car is registered in Dubai and he was driving it in Scotland on the only insurance he could obtain).

The incident was purely the fault of the car following him, who punted him into the back of a car carrying a heavily pregnant woman, simply because he was not paying attention. Neither of the insurance companies would even talk to him about covering his losses. They were keen to talk to his insurer about seeing if they could fit him up for the woman's compensation, and dealing with the fact that they'd opened her car up like a tin can to get her out, however. 

The car insurance business in this country has become a totally self-serving cartel which needs to be sorted out, IMHO.

Anyway, compulsory insurance for cyclists is too daft to even be talking about. Politically, the last thing that will ever happen in today's climate is such barriers to be erected in the way of a healthy and green means of transport.

Car insurance companies need to be obliged in some way to compensate third parties if their clients have been found at fault, IMHO, because you'll have the same problem claiming for anything unless you have a bottomless pit of legal cover to call on.