On 30/05/2015 13:18, Bill wrote:
> In message <schax.654076$lV1.1...@fx05.am4>, Mrcheerful
> <
g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>> Well at the moment it seems the political consensus is that it would be
>>> better if there was more cycling and less driving. So you appear to be
>>> pissing into the wind.
>>>
>>> I'm betting we have an default assumption of liability for motorists in
>>> collision with a cyclist before we see any of your 11 proposals.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If assumed liability comes in, cyclists will automatically be deemed
>> responsible for their collisions with pedestrians, so insurance will
>> be a must have.
>
> Imagining a situation where a cyclist causes life changing injuries to a
> child, as could so easily have happened in the above case.
> There could well be a court case where damages are awarded against the
> cyclist that include a substantial sum for the continued care of the
> child into it's adult life and beyond.
Imagine a case where a man owned a knife and ran out
of his house stabbing folk. Does that mean that all
knife owners must have insurance, is it that common
an event?
> If it was a motorist in a car
> causing this then their insurance would pay out. If it was a cyclist,
> without insurance, it could cause them to loose their home and they may
> be paying for a very long time.
Of course fast cyclists, professionals are insured
by their team. Those with jobs which involve cycling
are probably covered by their companies liability insurance.
As for the rest who hug the curb and travel at walking pace,
they are most unlikely to run over and kill someone.
There is of course the jay walker who leaps blindly into
the road or cycle lane. Who need to be watched.
As for a cyclist running into a car or truck and killing
that person, it must be rare as the one who'll come
of worse is the cyclist.
> I know that no one ever goes out
> intending to harm someone else, well not often anyway, but "accidents"
> do happen.
Where the driver is protected in some tonnage of truck
going some hundred of miles, or some car driver whipping
around a roundabout. And just common flow traffic speed
is breaking the speed limit, accidents happen.
where the gas is mistaken for the brakes, accidents happen.
But your cyclist isn't protected behind layer upon layer
of metal. And there's no pedal button that gets accidently
pressed to excelerate them from zero to 60mph.
> I am amazed that cyclists do not voluntarily take out
> insurance for their own protection and that of their families. Perhaps
> some do, but all too often you hear tales of them saying it isn't
> legally required, so they don't. Maybe they should consider the
> consequences of not having it.
I must have been cycling for getting on for 40 years.
And I still haven't run into a pedestrian or hit a car.
Now how many times have you drivers claimed on your insurance,
if you had it, 5, 10 times? Done for speeding, 5, 10 times?
There seems to be the idea here that there is no cycle
insurance around what so ever. So go on google and you'll
find some.