Should cyclists have to take out compulsory insurance?

InsideInsurance

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

It isn't necessary to swerve. It might be necessary to brake. It is ALWAYS necessary to look for ALL road users and anticipate other people's movements, even if these movements are 'incorrect'. When riding I shouldn't have to ride well away from parked cars because legally it's someone else's responsibility not to open doors into my path. However, to stay safe I ensure I'm able to safely anticipate other people's illegal/dangerous actions. This is the same when I'm driving.


If a driver chooses not to drive in a safe manner, and moves their vehicle into the path of another one, or into a wall, that is THEIR responsibility. The presence of someone on a bike, or a horse, or just a dog or child in the road does not change this fundamental operation of a vehicle.

The courts disagree with you, people are not expected to drive at 1mph in all circumstances just in case but to drive appropriate to the road conditions. Inevitably this means that if someone is a complete idiot then swerving is a reasonable thing to do. Negligence is defined as failure to do something that a reasonable person would do or doing something a reasonable person wouldnt do.

Case law is littered with examples. Whilst I cannot remember the names the "test" they always did at the end of liability training back in my claims day was as follows:

Clear, bright, dry day. Straight clear rural A road with 60mph speed limit. Vehicle 1 a bus heading up hill at c40mph. Vehicle 2 a car heading downhill at c75mph. Without warning a tree on the side of the road of the car falls across the road. The bus manages to stop about 1m from the tree. The car is unable to brake in time and swerves to the right to avoid the trunk and to hit the branches. Goes through the tree and hits the stationary bus?

Liability? 100% the farmer who owns the tree. Speed of the car was illegal but not negligent given the road conditions and it was deemed reasonable to swerve to hit the softer part of the tree rather than the trunk even though it resulted in hitting the bus after. The farmer had been warned months earlier the tree was rotten to the core but hadnt done anything about it.

One which we used to have to deal with frequently, car pulling out of a side road turning right onto a single carriage main road. Slow moving heavy traffic coming from the right on the main road. A vehicle, in the case law it was a HGV from memory, slows and flashes for the vehicle to pull out. Car edges out and collides with a motorcyclist that was filtering (aka overtaking) from the right.

Liability? 67/33 against the car. Despite the car having to give way to traffic on the main road the cyclist is still 33% to blame for performing an overtaking manoeuvre at a junction which is inherently dangerous to do

armyknife

I shall continue to recklessly cycle without insurance and take responsibilities for my actions; not too many cycling years left in me, to let them be influenced/ruled by fear, which is what our trolling interlopers in some of the other threads would have us be.

Marco_Panettone

Nice to know that it's always someone else's fault when the person that causes the collision by operating in an illegal manner is inside a motor vehicle.

InsideInsurance

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

Nice to know that it's always someone else's fault when the person that causes the collision by operating in an illegal manner is inside a motor vehicle.

Criminal law and civil law are totally separate and just because something is illegal doesnt make the person liable for the accident.

Had one case where there was a drunk driver, 2-3x the limit. Got to some traffic lights, pulled up on the Red and promptly passed out. The car behind obviously pulled up behind seeing the red light. Light turns to green and the rear car pulls off anticipating the vehicle ahead would be and goes into the rear.

Clearly the lead vehicle was acting illegally due to driving after a drinking session but ultimately the car behind is 100% liable for hitting a stationary vehicle irrespective if it should have been there or if the driver was drunk or not.

lisyloo

but ultimately the car behind is 100% liable for hitting a stationary vehicle irrespective if it should have been there or if the driver was drunk or not.

Quite right too.
If a child or elderly person or anyone falls over in the road it is not ok to run over them.
Whether what they were doing was "right" or not is irrelevant.

Marco_Panettone

lisyloo wrote: »

Quite right too.
If a child or elderly person or anyone falls over in the road it is not ok to run over them.
Whether what they were doing was "right" or not is irrelevant.

Absolutely. As a driver it is my responsibility to only drive into space you know to be clear. This means when visibility is reduced (by fog, the dark, rain, low sun, blind corners, etc) you need to reduce your speed to one where you can stop in time.

InsideInsurance

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

Absolutely. As a driver it is my responsibility to only drive into space you know to be clear. This means when visibility is reduced (by fog, the dark, rain, low sun, blind corners, etc) you need to reduce your speed to one where you can stop in time.

Within reason

What speed do you drive under a bridge on a motorway? 60-70mph?

Anything over 3-5mph and you arent going to be able to stop in time if something (or someone) comes flying off of the bridge landing in front of you just as you are about to go under.

Civil law thankfully is sensible and only expect you to take reasonable precautions and that does mean that at times you will have a split second decision which basically going to be which object you will hit when there is no possibility of avoiding any collision.

Marco_Panettone

There's a huge difference between something (not a road user - like your tree example, or bridge) falling into the road and the presence of other road users.


One of these is entirely predictable. You seem to suggest the presence of pedestrians, or cyclists, or horses is not "within reason" so should not be taken into account by the driver.

InsideInsurance

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

There's a huge difference between something (not a road user - like your tree example, or bridge) falling into the road and the presence of other road users.


One of these is entirely predictable. You seem to suggest the presence of pedestrians, or cyclists, or horses is not "within reason" so should not be taken into account by the driver.

Again no. We are not entirely predictable creatures and sometimes people do really stupid unpredictable things. Whilst as a prudent road user you can give some allowances for what others may randomly do the only way you'd ever avoid all possible collisions is by never getting behind the wheel.

Marco_Panettone

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Again no. We are not entirely predictable creatures and sometimes people do really stupid unpredictable things. Whilst as a prudent road user you can give some allowances for what others may randomly do the only way you'd ever avoid all possible collisions is by never getting behind the wheel.

Are you genuinely claiming that other people simply existing on the road is NOT predictable?


Just wow.