Cyclist Hit and Run Help!

Norman_Castle

specialboy wrote: »

Another case for cyclists to be insured, although not the cyclists fault at east they would be able to claim.

Plenty of hit and run accidents involve pedestrians. Should they be insured?.

Confusedandneedhelp

I think that cyclist should be insured for 3rd party, and registered, and licenced.

I believe anyone using the road network should be.

It's not a case of sour grapes because im stuck in rush hour traffic and a cyclist can whizz by. I live in a very cycle friendly city. I have just bought my kids their first/second bikes.

The arguement for these changes is purely a legal and proactive one. Similar to car drivers, cyclists are very unlikely to be the cause of an accident in the vast majority of cases. (IE chances are you wont be the cause of an accident during your time on the roads).

But accidents are just that, unpredictable. Surely its better to pay a nominal (and it would be nominal, by comparison to cars) premium, get your bike registered (which would help with theft) and get a licence (which is just common sense) to have a modecom of protection should you accidentally pull out into a junction, or swerve, or whatever, and cause a lot of damage.

At that stage it seems pretty clear that faced with a bill for thousands, or tens of thousands, the insurance would come in handy.

Pedestrians do cause accidents, but are not road users, (or they shouldnt be) and are far less likely to be involved in an accident than a Motorbike, Car, or Bicycle

AdrianC

Confusedandneedhelp wrote: »

I think that cyclist should be insured for 3rd party

What would compulsory third party insurance for cyclists have added to the situation under discussion here?

Clue 1: The driver had a legal onus to have insurance. He didn't have.
Clue 2: The cyclist isn't liable for any third party's losses.

Norman_Castle

Pedestrians do cause accidents, but are not road users

Pedestrians use the highways and have guidance in the Highway Code. They are road users.

geri1965_2

Confusedandneedhelp wrote: »

I think that cyclist should be insured for 3rd party, and registered, and licenced.

I believe anyone using the road network should be.

It's not a case of sour grapes because im stuck in rush hour traffic and a cyclist can whizz by. I live in a very cycle friendly city. I have just bought my kids their first/second bikes.

What about the children? Should they also be insured, registered and licenced?

SailorSam

MIB pay out for personal injuries but i don't think they'll cover your bike.

Update:
I've not read this yet, see if you find anything that helps you.

http://www.mib.org.uk/Motor+Insurance+Database/en/default.htm

Ladypenelope6

specialboy wrote: »

Another case for cyclists to be insured, although not the cyclists fault at east they would be able to claim.

He was insured but only if he caused the accident :-(

Ladypenelope6

Thank you all so much for your help, I don't get email notifications so I have not seen them until now. As it happens we are still very much in the same position - waiting for the police to advise of the reg of the car - so we can attempt to get some of the money back. I will let you all know how it goes and thank you so much for your advice, it is greatly appreciated!

macman

But if the car is unregistered, who do you expect to be able to claim off?
Someone who commits a hit and run is probably not going to be insured anyway-and they're unlikely to be in a position to pay out against a civil claim, especially since they'll be doing time if convicted.
You are best advised to use the MIB and pay the excess-your total losses must be well above £300.

arcon5

Registering and insuring cycles is a ridiculous idea