Loony cyclists on the road & accidents

lisyloo

There was about 5 cyclists that were cycling in the middle of the lane (before the road got tight) so they were holding everyone up.

It's always difficult to picture things from descriptions, but if I was a cyclist and a narrow part was coming up where it was not SAFE for a car to overtake me, then I would attempt to prevent them from doing so by taking a central position. If they have to wait 10 or 20 seconds then so be it, the roads are a shared resource and it's not SAFE to overtake then you should not be doing so. I would move over before and after to allow overtaking and only (attempt to) prevent it where it's NOT SAFE, so I am all for courtesy where it's SAFE. I am a car driver and motorcyclist too so no bias towards any group.

From what you describe it seems to me that the cyclist wanted to prevent 3 abreast (2 lanes of cars plus 1 bike) on a narrow section of road.
Car drivers can understimate the space required. This is of little consequence to a car driver who is in a metal cage but potentially life changing to a cyclist or motorcyclist whose leg is in contention.

Many cyclists would be insured through their home insurance or possibly through some cycling insurance although it is indeed not like the obligations under the Road Traffic Act for motoring.

You can also pursue someone through the civil courts and you may have legal insurance to do so however you cannot get blood out of a stone, so if the cyclist doesn't have insurrance or any money then you are stuffed.

I agree it's unfair but there are simply not loads of pedestrians/cyclists horse riders causing issues, so it would be overkill to force everyone to have insurance IMO, although I understand it's a slightly unfair burden on motorsists.

alexanderalexander

Nine_Lives wrote: »

If i have a bump with another car, we exchange details & all is well. However, what happens if a cyclist has caused damage?

As others have said, it's the same situation as when you hit a car -- and a surprisingly large proportion of cyclists will be covered by some form of insurance. I, for example, am insured for third party damage through my membership of the London Cycling Campaign. And if the cyclist scarpers without leaving any details, it's the same situation as when a car driver doesn't leave details.

Nine_Lives wrote: »

I don't have an issue with cyclists that don't obstruct the road.

This statement betrays an anti-cyclist bias. There is nothing in the Highway Code which says that motor vehicles have a greater right to the road than cyclists. Cyclists are fully entitled to position themselves in the safest position on the road, and if that does delay the motor vehicles behind them then so be it.

Or to put it another way, as I was cycling to work through central London this morning my cycling speed was significantly impeded at several points by the large number of motor vehicles moving very slowly through the congestion, but I had to put up with that!

*Scarlett

rs65 wrote: »

I thought the liability cover under a buildings policy only generally related to risks arising from owning/occupying the property.

Happy to be corrected though....

Usually the buildings cover comes with public liabilty as stated above.

If you also have contents cover you usually have personal liability for things like your dog biting someone or causing an accident by running into the road, accidentally hitting some one with a golf ball (this happened to me while walking on a beach near a golf club no injury- just major squealing!) or an accident caused while cycling.

Cornucopia

*Scarlett wrote: »

Usually the buildings cover comes with public liabilty as stated above.

This is public liability for the building - not its occupants.

*Some* household policies will come with general legal expenses add-ons - that would cover a cyclist for legal expenses involved in fighting a claim. Other than that, I don't think that most cyclists will be insured for damage caused on the road, whether accidental or deliberate.

Disclaimer: I am both a cyclist and a motorist.

There have always been bad drivers, and the proportion is growing, IMHO.

There is also a new breed of cyclist whose emergence is probably linked to the speed capability of modern bikes. They seem to have forgotten a number of the rules of road - including the most important one: being technically right doesn't help you when you are in a hospital bed (or worse). For a cyclist to ride in such a way as to be totally reliant on others to protect them from their own aggressive riding is very short-sighted indeed.

Nine_Lives

CLAPTON wrote: »

what speed did you want to travel at in this tight spot?
how fast were the cyclists going?
how long do you estimate they held you up?

The answer to all 3 is pretty much - what does it matter?

This is not a debate on that specific incident, because you will get anti cyclists who will side with the driver, you will get cyclists who will side with the cyclists, all regardless of information & nobody will get anywhere. Not to mention the fact that any information i provide (you should know that i can't possibly answer your second question) will only be instantly dismissed by the pro cyclist community, regardless of whatever i say.
But it comes back to the fact - this is not a debate over that incident. It is asking what happens if your property is damaged by a cyclist.


Lissyloo - At the point the cars overtook the cyclists, it was safe to do so.

Norman_Castle

There was a time a short while ago where i was in a traffic queue under a bridge. The road is tight enough." There was about 5 cyclists that were cycling in the middle of the lane (before the road got tight) so they were holding everyone up. We had to wait on oncoming traffic stopping before we got past." Is this relevant?

We get under the bridge where it's tight. I positioned a bit from the wall but the car in front was up close to the kerb.

The cyclists came past & got past me & tried squeezing in between the kerb & the car in front. There's no way you'd dare attempt it but this idiot did ............. and cycled right into the stationary car.

If a cyclist, motorist or pedestrian causes damage they are liable to pay. If insured for third party damage they can use this insurance to cover their liability. If not they are personally liable. Motorists are legally required to have insurance due to the potential for much higher claims than pedestrians or cyclists.
The vast majority of cyclist are law abiding and would not condone damaging a car, but, like good driving, good cycling goes un-noticed.

DKLS

I saw an idiot cyclist yesterday, he was pedalling furiously up the inside against traffic that was waiting at the lights, he hit his face on a trucks wing mirror he fell off and immediately kicked off at the driver.

Until someone at the bus stop opposite pointed out it was entirely his fault once he had finished laughing.

lisyloo

And if the cyclist scarpers without leaving any details, it's the same situation as when a car driver doesn't leave details.

Apart from the fact that most vehicles have a registration plate which will mostly identify the registered keeper (obviously there are exceptions) whereas there is vitually no way to identify a cyclist.

Other than that, I don't think that most cyclists will be insured for damage caused on the road, whether accidental or deliberate.

As Scarlett sid household contents will cover liability to 3rd parties (buildings is for property related e.g. someone slipping on our property). Not all cyclists will have contents cover but a lot will.

*Scarlett

Cornucopia wrote: »

This is public liability for the building - not its occupants.

*Some* household policies will come with general legal expenses add-ons - that would cover a cyclist for legal expenses involved in fighting a claim. Other than that, I don't think that most cyclists will be insured for damage caused on the road, whether accidental or deliberate.

Disclaimer: I am both a cyclist and a motorist.

There have always been bad drivers, and the proportion is growing, IMHO.

There is also a new breed of cyclist whose emergence is probably linked to the speed capability of modern bikes. They seem to have forgotten a number of the rules of road - including the most important one: being technically right doesn't help you when you are in a hospital bed (or worse). For a cyclist to ride in such a way as to be totally reliant on others to protect them from their own aggressive riding is very short-sighted indeed.

Most legal expenses add on products will cover you if you wish to pursue a claim against someone else ie if you had been injured in an accident caused by a motorist or indeed a cyclist. They generally do not cover claims that someone else is making against you. For that you need liability insurance.

Cornucopia

*Scarlett wrote: »

Most legal expenses add on products will cover you if you wish to pursue a claim against someone else ie if you had been injured in an accident caused by a motorist or indeed a cyclist. They generally do not cover claims that someone else is making against you. For that you need liability insurance.

Indeed. There is misinformation on this elsewhere in this thread.

As a general rule, a cyclist is not insured for claims against them unless they have specific liability insurance.