Print

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

[Gaffers]

I am pretty sure that your statement is wrong,

What part. If a cyclist lives on his/her own with no home contents insurance, it must follow that unless they have specific insurance to cover them as cyclists then none will be in force for third party liability

And how many fit in to that category do you think?  Certainly not a figure which supports the use of the word 'generally' (which by default means the majority)  It is not as clear cut as you make it out, thus to say that 'cyclists generally do not carry 3rd party insurance' is wrong.  If you had said that cyclists are not required to have any insurance then you would have been absolutely correct.  Also, don't forget that insurance covers your liability, not having insurance does not mean you cannot follow up that person for damages through a legal process to recover losses.

The lycra mob that is so lovingly referred to here* will normally have a nice bike which if it does not have specific cycle insurance will be insured through the house contents.  Either way they will have 3rd party.  I suspect, as sad as it is, that it will be the poorer cyclists who will not have contents insurance and who would be liable to large sums in the event of an incident for which they were responsible.

*I am a lycra cyclist and I can tell you that the generalisations made here are wrong, another case of the minority blemishing the majority.  I go fast but I adhere to the limit, I stop for lights and zebra crossings, I take the primary position when I have to and assist motorists to safely overtake when it is tricky to do so, I do not ride without lights (day or night), I do not ride on the pavement and guess what?  So do the majority of lycra buddies I have.

[Gaffers]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3815343/You-stop-s-LAW-Angry-pedestrian-blocks-cyclist-gives-earful-tries-speed-zebra-crossing.html

 

Good on him for being so controlled, I would have pushed him off.

[Bigron]

Regarding insurance for cyclists, even those rare beasts that actually have any third party insurance will not be covered for illegal acts, e.g. cycling on footpaths or for and damage/injury caused after jumping red lights, etc.

Ron.

[Gaffers]

even those rare beasts that actually have any third party insurance

Talk about not listening to the facts

[Doctor Gollum]

Re the pavement thing... Not at all... When riding along any given shared channel, be it pavement, road or bridleway, everybody has a responsibility to use appropriate speed for the conditions*.

That applies equally for anything other than pedestrians, be it KW ridding his push bike in his flip flops, you in Lycra, the tattooed nutter at work on his sports bike, all the way upto me or Biggriffin in a full fat artic

*Conditions being anything from the weather, surface state, other 'traffic' etc.

There may well be times where it's actually in your interest to ride on a shared path at a lower pace than trying to go faster in heavy traffic on the road.

Being unlicensed, and generally unregulated isn't the carte blanche that some might think. Every mode of transport bears a burden of responsibility, even the more vulnerable.

[aaronjb]

lycra buddies

*shudder*  (unless said buddies are female, 17-30, fit, attractive, leggy, with shapely posteriors.. well there might still be shuddering but it would be the other kind )

That applies equally for anything other than pedestrians, be it KW in his flip flops..

Hold on, does KW in flip flops not count as a pedestrian? Wait.. are you saying KW isn't human?

[Doctor Gollum]

Lol, edited to make a bit more sense

[Gaffers]

Re the pavement thing... Not at all... When riding along any given shared channel, be it pavement, road or bridleway, everybody has a responsibility to use appropriate speed for the conditions*.

That applies equally for anything other than pedestrians, be it KW ridding his push bike in his flip flops, you in Lycra, the tattooed nutter at work on his sports bike, all the way upto me or Biggriffin in a full fat artic

*Conditions being anything from the weather, surface state, other 'traffic' etc.

There may well be times where it's actually in your interest to ride on a shared path at a lower pace than trying to go faster in heavy traffic on the road.

Being unlicensed, and generally unregulated isn't the carte blanche that some might think. Every mode of transport bears a burden of responsibility, even the more vulnerable.

That is where I have to disagree.  If you were to restrict the roads a car could use because of their vulnerability towards HGVs I think there would be a significant reaction.  Lets say A roads and motorways should be for HGVs and car remain on B roads because they are smaller, more vulnerable and they find the narrow lanes easier to negotiate?  Sensible?

Instead, and quite rightly there are no restrictions on which types of roads a motorist can use and if they choose to use the B roads rather than A roads then they must of course go slower due to the conditions.  The same applies to all road users.

Don't forget there are different levels of road user in each category with differing levels of experience.  I have a lot of cycling experience and I would have the confidence to cycle almost anywhere I was legally allowed to, other cyclists would not but it is up to them to decide where their own limits are and where they cycle.  It should not depend on the existence or not of additional infrastructure for cycling and the arbitrary opinion of motorists who have little knowledge of it means to cycle on todays roads because the last time they used pedal power was in their teenage years.

[Gaffers]

lycra buddies

*shudder*  (unless said buddies are female, 17-30, fit, attractive, leggy, with shapely posteriors.. well there might still be shuddering but it would be the other kind )

You need to come to my triathlon club young man 

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

If we need to give cyclists at least 1.5 metres space (I always do), should they also have to give us a similar amount of space ?
I had 3 encounters yesterday where they were less than an inch from the side of my car, and the 3rd one took up position smack in the centre of the road, and seemed to relish the fact that he had a long queue of traffic built up behind him, which couldn't possibly get past without wearing him as a bonnet mascot.

[Doctor Gollum]

I did say the Royal you rather than the personal you but rightly, each person has the responsibility to do what is best for them.

Although the personal you, has taken considered responsibility for your choice of routes. You are fully aware of the risks involved, and based on your experience and ability, you rightly feel both able and entitled to use the road. I would not consider myself fit enough, or now confident enough, to ride on the roads locally, and therefore consciously or otherwise limit my cycling to safe areas (both for me and for others), ie bridleways in the New Forest

By the same token, there are people who won't drive on the Motorways because 'everyone drives so fast' or those who won't do more than 45-50 everywhere and then complain about being bullied by lorries on the dual carriageways and motorways

In the case of the latter, those people could arguably be considered both irresponsible and selfish...

[Doctor Gollum]

If we need to give cyclists at least 1.5 metres space (I always do), should they also have to give us a similar amount of space ?
I had 3 encounters yesterday where they were less than an inch from the side of my car, and the 3rd one took up position smack in the centre of the road, and seemed to relish the fact that he had a long queue of traffic built up behind him, which couldn't possibly get past without wearing him as a bonnet mascot.

An interesting observation for a motorbicyclist

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

I did say the Royal you rather than the personal you but rightly, each person has the responsibility to do what is best for them.

Although the personal you, has taken considered responsibility for your choice of routes. You are fully aware of the risks involved, and based on your experience and ability, you rightly feel both able and entitled to use the road. I would not consider myself fit enough, or now confident enough, to ride on the roads locally, and therefore consciously or otherwise limit my cycling to safe areas (both for me and for others), ie bridleways in the New Forest

By the same token, there are people who won't drive on the Motorways because 'everyone drives so fast' or those who won't do more than 45-50 everywhere and then complain about being bullied by lorries on the dual carriageways and motorways

In the case of the latter, those people could arguably be considered both irresponsible and selfish...should be taken out and shot.

Fixed that for you. 

[Doctor Gollum]

Indeed

[Nick W]

By the same token, there are people who won't drive on the Motorways because 'everyone drives so fast' or those who won't do more than 45-50 everywhere and then complain about being bullied by lorries on the dual carriageways and motorways

In the case of the latter, those people could arguably be considered both irresponsible and selfish...

All of those traits are included in my list.