Loony cyclists on the road & accidents

Cornucopia

lisyloo wrote: »

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.

In which case there may be a legitimate case (where injury or non-trivial damage has been caused) for the cyclist to be detained until their identity can be satisfactorily established.

TBH, I despair somewhat at the ineffectiveness of the authorities on the issue of rogue cyclists. A few token prosecutions for red-light and pedestrian crossing offences would soon sort things out.

somethingcorporate

Cornucopia wrote: »

In which case there may be a legitimate case (where injury or non-trivial damage has been caused) for the cyclist to be detained until their identity can be satisfactorily established.

TBH, I despair somewhat at the ineffectiveness of the authorities on the issue of rogue cyclists. A few token prosecutions for red-light and pedestrian crossing offences would soon sort things out.

Thousands of prosecutions every year for drivers speeding etc but it still hasn't really helped.

Unless you started making the punishments incredibly severe - like chopping off arms or something, people will still chance it (as they do in cars).

Nine_Lives

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Is this relevant?

I can't win.

When i give a story i either get moaned at by members for giving too little information or too much information.

Can't please everyone. I'd rather get moaned at for giving too much information than too little.

geri1965_2

Cornucopia wrote: »

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.

Most household contents insurance covers personal liability. This has been explained at least twice in this thread.

Cornucopia

geri1965 wrote: »

Most household contents insurance covers personal liability. This has been explained at least twice in this thread.

It's not true, though, is it?

Here's a typical summary of home insurance cover... http://www.aviva.co.uk/home/summary-of-cover.html

If we routinely held general personal liability insurance, why would we ever need third party insurance for driving a car?

rs65

Cornucopia wrote: »

It's not true, though, is it?

Here's a typical summary of home insurance cover... http://www.aviva.co.uk/home/summary-of-cover.html

If we routinely held general personal liability insurance, why would we ever need third party insurance for driving a car?

Yes it is true - see 'personal liability' in the link you gave.

Home policies exclude anything to do with motorised vehicles as more specific cover is available for motor risks.

geri1965_2

Cornucopia wrote: »

It's not true, though, is it?

Here's a typical summary of home insurance cover... http://www.aviva.co.uk/home/summary-of-cover.html

If we routinely held general personal liability insurance, why would we ever need third party insurance for driving a car?

My God, it's like banging your head against a brick wall.

Cornucopia

Have you both read the link I gave?

It means liability to the victim's person. And it covers claims arising from bits of your house causing loss or injury to others.

geri1965_2

Cornucopia wrote: »

Have you both read the link I gave?

It means liability to the victim's person. And it covers claims arising from bits of your house causing loss or injury to others.

No, it does not. It covers your legal liability to other people, whether you are in the house or not.

I don't normally pull rank but I am a liability loss adjuster so I do know what I am talking about!

dugsy

Calling cyclists "loony" is out of order. cyclists are more vulnerable and should be given every consideration in every situation.