Cycling UK Forum

meic wrote:

KTM690 wrote:

ericonabike wrote:After years of analysis, I've come up with the following distillation of the motorist's view of cyclists. For my money it holds true in any situation, what say you?

'Cyclists are traffic and must behave as such at all times. Unless they hold me up.'

I don't consider cyclists as "traffic" more as funny shaped pedestrians. I percieve them as very soft and squidgy and erratic with the potential to massively increase my insurance premiums and put undeserved points on my licence. In short they're a threat and best avoided and overtaken at the earliest opportunity.

I'm also aware that they're uninsured and unnaccountable and if the scrape the car I'll end up paying the repair bill.


My attitude on a bicycle is a mirror of my fears as a driver. I find cars make good effort to avoid me

This is the CTC forum and everybody in the CTC DOES have third party insurance on their bikes.

Good effort! What % of cyclists are in the CTC? how do I identify one if they scrape my car and scarper off?

Mental note.....make sure you get knocked down by CTC cyclist as they insured.....

Jesting aside that's a very good idea.

Does it cover you for footpaths?

I am not surprised that you consider that Ramblers hate cyclists if you keep riding on their footpaths. If they cant be left in peace there where can they go?

I assume that our third party would cover us for footpaths, as you need the insurance for when you are in the wrong, dont you?

meic wrote:I am not surprised that you consider that Ramblers hate cyclists if you keep riding on their footpaths. If they cant be left in peace there where can they go?

I assume that our third party would cover us for footpaths, as you need the insurance for when you are in the wrong, dont you?

If I recall Motorists need for insurance is laid out in road traffic regulation act and says you need it for ROADS.

The definition of road encompasses public footpaths so motor insurance covers that.

However,,,,,

Cycle insurance may not - check the policy as loss adjusters are everywhere plotting to rip people off,

they aren't the Ramblers footpaths! It's not illegal to cycle on them. The only possibility of problems are if the landowner decides to take action for trespass. Significant use of a footpath by bicycles can change it into a Restricted Byway. Ramblers have access to 100% of the network. They've nothing to moan about.

The motor insurance act does NOT say roads any more. It was amended to all places with public access around a decade ago.
So no more letting the kids have a ride in the pub car park or on a festival field.
Special insurance is available for unregistered vehicles.

I havent checked the details of the third party cover from CTC.

meic wrote:The motor insurance act does NOT say roads any more. It was amended to all places with public access around a decade ago.
So no more letting the kids have a ride in the pub car park or on a festival field.
Special insurance is available for unregistered vehicles.

I havent checked the details of the third party cover from CTC.

WRONG

See road traffic act 1988:

Requirements in respect of policies of insurance.E+W+S.(1)In order to comply with the requirements of this Part of this Act, a policy of insurance must satisfy the following conditions..
(2)The policy must be issued by an authorised insurer..
(3)Subject to subsection (4) below, the policy—.
(a)must insure such person, persons or classes of persons as may be specified in the policy in respect of any liability which may be incurred by him or them in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to property caused by, or arising out of, the use of the vehicle on a road [F1or other public place] in Great Britain, and.


Not far off though

Not far off?

I cant see the difference between a public place and a place with public access.

I chose my words because the law DOES cover private property that is open to the public for any reason. I dont know the proper terms but public place doesnt seem to make that as explicit as a place with public access does.

meic

I think you are right. Remember that when a form of words is used which seems to be clear to the layman, the legal process will often give it a more limited meaning PDQ. An example would be the breathalyser: when the Road Safety Act was new, there was a flurry of cases involving 'public' places like public house car parks with signs saying 'Patrons Only' etc. 'More recently, 'motor vehicle' became so riddled with qualifications that - as irc kindly pointed out to me - it was widely replaced with 'mechanically propelled vehicle' a term previously limited to motor taxation.

Part of the tapestry of life where the legislators try to achieve a result and our learned friends look for so-called loopholes. Sooner or later an old bit of the fabric can become so full of holes they stop patching it and just weave a new bit.

meic wrote:This is the CTC forum and everybody in the CTC DOES have third party insurance on their bikes.

As do members of British Cycling, the Tandem Club, various other clubs and cycling associations, and most people who have building & contents insurance (which will normally people away from home).

In other words, the vast majority of cyclists (maybe a higher percentage than motorists? anyone have numbers on that?) carry third party insurance.

Vorpal wrote:

meic wrote:This is the CTC forum and everybody in the CTC DOES have third party insurance on their bikes.

As do members of British Cycling, the Tandem Club, various other clubs and cycling associations, and most people who have building & contents insurance (which will normally people away from home).

In other words, the vast majority of cyclists (maybe a higher percentage than motorists? anyone have numbers on that?) carry third party insurance.

Er, ALL motorists will have third party insurance (except for the 10% or so that have no insurance whatsoever) - it's the bit you must have. I'd be surprised if many home insurance policies have third party damage cover on their cycle content.

No but the house policy may cover the policy holder and family for third party liability and that would include anything that you did sat on a cycle.

However I agree that Vorpal is probably overestimating the number of people with such insurance policies.

Sorry. I thought I edited that....

If you accidently damage someone's car whilst walking, home insurance should cover it (if necessary), why not when cycling? Many policies specifically exclude liability arising from the use of an electric wheelchair away from home, but not a bicycle.

I carry 3rd party coverage (currently through CTC) to avoid any possible misunderstandings about that sort of thing, but I think unless it's specifically excluded, you arguably are covered under building & contents insurance.

Don't most people carry insurance on their stuff? I have to admit I didn't look up any statistics.

Vorpal wrote:Sorry. I thought I edited that....

If you accidently damage someone's car whilst walking, home insurance should cover it (if necessary), why not when cycling? Many policies specifically exclude liability arising from the use of an electric wheelchair away from home, but not a bicycle.

I carry 3rd party coverage (currently through CTC) to avoid any possible misunderstandings about that sort of thing, but I think unless it's specifically excluded, you arguably are covered under building & contents insurance.

Don't most people carry insurance on their stuff? I have to admit I didn't look up any statistics.

Assuming that most people commute by bicycle in this country because they can't afford a car.

It's quite probable that they can't afford/don't need home insurance either?

KTM690 wrote:

Vorpal wrote:Assuming that most people commute by bicycle in this country because they can't afford a car.

It's quite probable that they can't afford/don't need home insurance either?

KTM690- that is a very big assumption!
I commute by bike and currently own two cars. Most people I know who bicycle commute also own cars.
We commute by bike for convenience, health, fun.... lots of reasons. Cost isn't really the main motivator for me.

Home insurance does (in my case) pay out for a bicycle causing third party damage.
I found this out when I crashed into a parked car and shattered thier rear windscreen with my head!

Mark

SleepyJoe wrote:

KTM690 wrote:

Vorpal wrote:Assuming that most people commute by bicycle in this country because they can't afford a car.

It's quite probable that they can't afford/don't need home insurance either?

KTM690- that is a very big assumption!
I commute by bike and currently own two cars. Most people I know who bicycle commute also own cars.
We commute by bike for convenience, health, fun.... lots of reasons. Cost isn't really the main motivator for me.

Home insurance does (in my case) pay out for a bicycle causing third party damage.
I found this out when I crashed into a parked car and shattered thier rear windscreen with my head!

Mark

That doesn't sound very healthy or convenient for your head! probably not fun either.

Vorpal wrote:Assuming that most people commute by bicycle in this country because they can't afford a car.

It's quite probable that they can't afford/don't need home insurance either?

I did not. Please correct your posts.