Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bessacarr425

Cyclists -- Take out insurance.

Recommended Posts

Those of us who use a bicycle are strongly advised to take out insurance.  It appears that if any person, while staring at their phone, steps off the kerb into the path of someone on a bike and causes an accident,  is entitled to sue the cyclist for damages.  One cyclist is reported to be £100,000 worse off because of this accident.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This case just proves the world really is going mad and the law is an ass.  No-one is expected to take responsibility for their own actions, looking at your phone while crossing the road is deemed acceptable and someone else should pay you for doing it. Good for the lawyers, of course!

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always said cyclists should be insured for any damage to people or other vehicles while on our roads . Example a new Ferrari front wing can set you back 15k if you damaged one .

 

 

Dave

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  I am a cyclist and welcome this ruling due to the amount of arrogant/irresponsible cyclists I constantly witness who think it is their divine right to cycle at speed anywhere without a thought for pedestrians, and +1 for Commander Daves post. Yes people staring into phones can be annoying but hardly haxardous. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, CommanderDave said:

I have always said cyclists should be insured for any damage to people or other vehicles while on our roads . Example a new Ferrari front wing can set you back 15k if you damaged one .

 

 

Dave

I agree with that Dave - my point is that, insurance or not, for a ruling to say someone can walk into the road looking at their phone, not concentrating on the traffic, ignore the shouts and air horn of the cyclist and not be responsible, seems perverse.  Sure, all road users have to be aware of the unexpected but there are limits!!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bobthevanman said:

  Yes people staring into phones can be annoying but hardly haxardous. 

Unless they step out in front of traffic because of not taking their eyes off the screen!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, bessacarr425 said:

Those of us who use a bicycle are strongly advised to take out insurance.  It appears that if any person, while staring at their phone, steps off the kerb into the path of someone on a bike and causes an accident,  is entitled to sue the cyclist for damages.  One cyclist is reported to be £100,000 worse off because of this accident.  

Where has being responsible for ones own safety and actions in this situation gone !!

 

The case of the crazy git that was haring about on a bike with fixed wheel and NO BRAKES at all was a totally different situation - where did that get him ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

last week we followed 6 cyclist, 4 in front and 2 behind . We couldn't pass them as it was a busy narrow road and we had the 'van on the back.  The traffic was building up behind us and one car tried to overtake us and then had to get back in.  Eventually the 2 at the back went into single file and I shouted , thank you , out of my window and then he shouted to the others to let the caravan pass.   I know that I'm probably wrong but when I rode a bike, not so long ago, we always rode in single file on busy roads.  As for insurance, yes,  as a lot of bikes are built for speed now  and there is so much traffic on the roads, yes of course they should have insurance.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, bobthevanman said:

  I am a cyclist and welcome this ruling due to the amount of arrogant/irresponsible cyclists I constantly witness who think it is their divine right to cycle at speed anywhere without a thought for pedestrians, and +1 for Commander Daves post. Yes people staring into phones can be annoying but hardly haxardous. 

 

God forgive the day that one steps out into your path - car,van or bike,I bet that you will suddenly have a whole change of attitude/opinion.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the Telegraph, the cyclist conducted his own defence and didn't claim for damages off the woman pedestrian. The Judge ruled cyclist and pedestrian were equally to blame but only the pedestrian claimed, leaving the cyclist to stump up court costs and compo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Holland - Netherlands  if a cyclist is hit by a car it is the cars fault?  Accident rates between car and  cycle have dropped.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_the_Netherlands

 

The OP's post seems strange, I'd like to know more about the case

 

Sun paper Gemma Brushett, 28, was hit by Robert Hazeldean on a busy crossing as he rode home through central London in 2015.

 

The crossing could be the issue, what type of crossing?  Standard mentions a traffic island but not a zebra crossing

 

If not a Zebra crossing then without know the facts the ruling seems wrong.

 

Insurance is not a bad idea anyway

 

macafee2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, macafee2 said:

 

 

The OP's post seems strange, I'd like to know more about the case

 

Sun paper Gemma Brushett, 28, was hit by Robert Hazeldean on a busy crossing as he rode home through central London in 2015.

 

The crossing could be the issue, what type of crossing?  Standard mentions a traffic island but not a zebra crossing

macafee2

 

Google it, it’s been headline news for the last 2 days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, macafee2 said:

 Holland - Netherlands  if a cyclist is hit by a car it is the cars fault?  Accident rates between car and  cycle have dropped.

 

I feel very uneasy about the idea of sacrificing justice in favour of road safety! There must be a way that preserves both!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m in the Netherlands at the moment, in fact I just spent the last 4 hours and 100 Km cycling on the Worlds best cycling infrastructure. If the UK is serious about getting more people out of cars and onto bikes just copy what the Dutch do.

Everyone in Germany has 3rd party liability insurance for every unwanted eventuality (crashing your bike into someone, your kids damaging someone else’s property, your dog running onto the motorway and causing an accident etc etc), don’t you have that in the UK?

As an avid cyclist I find many pedestrians and increasingly more e-bike riders absolutely gormless 

3 hours ago, CommanderDave said:

I have always said cyclists should be insured for any damage to people or other vehicles while on our roads . Example a new Ferrari front wing can set you back 15k if you damaged one .

 

 

Dave

A new Pinnarello Dogma roadbike with some fancy Zipp Carbon Wheels will cost you more than a Ferrari wing 🤗

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Borussia 1900 said:

I’m in the Netherlands at the moment, in fact I just spent the last 4 hours and 100 Km cycling on the Worlds best cycling infrastructure. If the UK is serious about getting more people out of cars and onto bikes just copy what the Dutch do.

Everyone in Germany has 3rd party liability insurance for every unwanted eventuality (crashing your bike into someone, your kids damaging someone else’s property, your dog running onto the motorway and causing an accident etc etc), don’t you have that in the UK?

As an avid cyclist I find many pedestrians and increasingly more e-bike riders absolutely gormless 

A new Pinnarello Dogma roadbike with some fancy Zipp Carbon Wheels will cost you more than a Ferrari wing 🤗

A new Pinnarello Dogma roadbike with some fancy Zipp Carbon Wheels will cost you more than a Ferrari wing.

 

Ordinary every day club riders that have kit like that are barking - WUFF WUFF.

That is for professional riders  and even that is debatable as whether saving a few grams here and there is really worth the massive cost -better to loose it of the riders body or other kit  and save the expense.

 

The manufacturers and the add men have got the average club rider kidded stupid bordering on insane.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, AWanderingLancastrian said:

A new Pinnarello Dogma roadbike with some fancy Zipp Carbon Wheels will cost you more than a Ferrari wing.

 

Ordinary every day club riders that have kit like that are barking - WUFF WUFF.

That is for professional riders  and even that is debatable as whether saving a few grams here and there is really worth the massive cost -better to loose it of the riders body or other kit  and save the expense.

 

The manufacturers and the add men have got the average club rider kidded stupid bordering on insane.

I agree, I could easily lose enough body weight to make more of an advantage than a whole bike. But the top professionals where every gramme matters makes sense. If you take just 1g off a pedal, over 1000 pedal turns that’s 1kg less lifted, do that over a Grand Tour and minuscule weight reductions make sense.

My post was just to highlight to Commander Dave that many of the bikes on UK roads cost more than many cars. My bikes (I have many) cost around 3 grand each, my old man never pays more than a grand for a car.

Edited by Borussia 1900

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cyclist did not counter claim against the 'in my own world staring at phone screen instead of concentrating on the traffic', hence the financial loss to the cyclist. As far as cyclists obtaining their own insurance is concerned, would this not be covered by your household contents and/or buildings insurance under the public liability section?

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AWanderingLancastrian said:

 

 

The manufacturers and the add men have got the average club rider kidded stupid bordering on insane.

 

You've got that right. 

 

Don't worry though, they'll move on to another sport soon where you can spend as much as you care to on the kit.

6 hours ago, Borussia 1900 said:

Everyone in Germany has 3rd party liability insurance for every unwanted eventuality (crashing your bike into someone, your kids damaging someone else’s property, your dog running onto the motorway and causing an accident etc etc), don’t you have that in the UK?

 

No, we don't. And cycling / walking still remain the only genuinely cheap means of transport. I'd be very wary of any attempt to make insurance compulsory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, svimes said:

 

You've got that right. 

 

Don't worry though, they'll move on to another sport soon where you can spend as much as you care to on the kit.

 

No, we don't. And cycling / walking still remain the only genuinely cheap means of transport. I'd be very wary of any attempt to make insurance compulsory.

It’s not compulsory here, but everyone has it. It’s called “Haftpflicht‘ Pflicht meaning ‘compulsory’ but it isn’t.

Neighbours kid ran into our patio door sliding fly screen, trashed it. About a grand to sort it, their Haftpflicht paid it, no dramas.

Worth having 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

difficult to find the truth as different sites have different information but found this

"Summing up the case and detailing why Ms Brushett should get a payout, Judge Mauger said: ‘When I stand back and ask “how did the accident happen?” it seems to me that Mr Hazeldean owed a duty to other road users to drive with reasonable care and skill. ‘Even where a motorist or cyclist had the right of way, pedestrians who are established on the road have right of way. ‘Mr Hazeldean did fall below the level to be expected of a reasonably competent cyclist in that he did proceed when the road was not completely clear.’"

 

How was her right of way determined? 

This is an assumption.  If a padestrain walks into the road without looking but is greater then x feet from a vehicle travelling at y then right of way swings from being in favour of the vehicle to the pedestrian.  This would seem reasonable.

 

macafee2

 

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, joanie said:

last week we followed 6 cyclist, 4 in front and 2 behind . We couldn't pass them as it was a busy narrow road and we had the 'van on the back.  The traffic was building up behind us and one car tried to overtake us and then had to get back in.  Eventually the 2 at the back went into single file and I shouted , thank you , out of my window and then he shouted to the others to let the caravan pass.   I know that I'm probably wrong but when I rode a bike, not so long ago, we always rode in single file on busy roads.  As for insurance, yes,  as a lot of bikes are built for speed now  and there is so much traffic on the roads, yes of course they should have insurance.

 

Horn not working? :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, macafee2 said:

...

 

How was her right of way determined? 

This is an assumption.  If a padestrain walks into the road without looking but is greater then x feet from a vehicle travelling at y then right of way swings from being in favour of the vehicle to the pedestrian.  This would seem reasonable.

 

macafee2

 

An implied extension of HC Rule 170 which applies to pedestrians crossing at junctions, some of the rule says, "If they (pedestrians) have started to cross they have priority, so (vehicles and cycles) give way."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, hawkaye said:

 

An implied extension of HC Rule 170 which applies to pedestrians crossing at junctions, some of the rule says, "If they (pedestrians) have started to cross they have priority, so (vehicles and cycles) give way."

 

Typical lunacy, I don't disagree that the HC rule states what you have said, but a car driver or cyclist has many things going on as they are travelling down a road, spacial awareness, other vehicles, mirrors etc, yet a pedestrian who's sole activity is/should be crossing a road safely is absolved of any responsibility if they step out without looking.

 

She was very lucky that she stepped out in front of a cyclist doing 15 mph, one because he has a relatively low mass and two he is as vulnerable as she is, had she stepped out in front of a bus or a bin lorry doing 15 mph she would have come off a lot worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when it comes to crossing a minor road at a T junction and a car is on the main road, I did know about the right of way.

A lot of drivers either don't know or don't care.

 

macafee2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pavement is part of the highway, a road user walking along pavement of the main road, crossing the side road has priority over another road user (car driver) wanting to turn off or onto the main road.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...