Print

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

[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