False accusation

DullGreyGuy

caprikid1 said:

"Some Cyclists do not have insurance" Corrected that for you

"Cyclists do not have insurance and you certainly don't need to exchange details." Probably need to revisit the law on this one.

Home Contents insurance includes third party liability cover which may cover cyclists. Similarly some people buy standalone insurance on their bike that includes TP liability.

There is no legal requirement for them to have insurance, doesn't meant that no cyclist has insurance. 

Rover_Driver

Although insurance is not compulsory, it may depend if a cycle is considered to be a 'mechanically propelled vehicle' involved in an accident and the need to comply with s.170, (b),  Road Traffic Act 1988. 

Car_54

Rover_Driver said:

Although insurance is not compulsory, it may depend if a cycle is considered to be a 'mechanically propelled vehicle' involved in an accident and the need to comply with s.170, (b),  Road Traffic Act 1988. 

Insurance is required only for "motor vehicles" [RTA s.143]. That is defined [RTA s.185(c)] as "a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads".

A normal push-bike is clearly not mechanically propelled, but an e-bike is. I've no doubt someone on here will know whether that has been ruled upon.

badmemory

We all know that cyclists undertake all the time.  After I missed hitting the same one 3 times in a week I changed my route home.  I suspected after the 3rd time that it was actually deliberate.  I am sure there are many cyclists who wonder why we don't like cyclists, well you have my reason.

Rover_Driver

Car_54 said:

Rover_Driver said:

Although insurance is not compulsory, it may depend if a cycle is considered to be a 'mechanically propelled vehicle' involved in an accident and the need to comply with s.170, (b),  Road Traffic Act 1988. 

Insurance is required only for "motor vehicles" [RTA s.143]. That is defined [RTA s.185(c)] as "a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads".

A normal push-bike is clearly not mechanically propelled, but an e-bike is. I've no doubt someone on here will know whether that has been ruled upon.

A normal push-bike is not considered to be a motor vehicle, which is why insurance is not compulsory.
As it is propelled by turning the pedals, does that make it 'mechanical'? (as you say, maybe someone will know).  s.170 RTA 1988
refers to mechanically propelled vehicles, not motor vehicles, which may include push-bike if they are.

Car_54

Rover_Driver said:

Car_54 said:

Rover_Driver said:

Although insurance is not compulsory, it may depend if a cycle is considered to be a 'mechanically propelled vehicle' involved in an accident and the need to comply with s.170, (b),  Road Traffic Act 1988. 

Insurance is required only for "motor vehicles" [RTA s.143]. That is defined [RTA s.185(c)] as "a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads".

A normal push-bike is clearly not mechanically propelled, but an e-bike is. I've no doubt someone on here will know whether that has been ruled upon.

A normal push-bike is not considered to be a motor vehicle, which is why insurance is not compulsory.
As it is propelled by turning the pedals, does that make it 'mechanical'? 

No, it doesn’t . If it were, they would all be licensed, insured etc. it’s pretty clear that (at least since the 1933 RTA) the law has interpreted “mechanically” to refer to the source of energy, rather than the transmission mechanism. 

My “someone will know” comment referred to e-bikes, which plainly are mechanically-propelled but must presumably enjoy some loophole. FWIW the CPS guidance is clear that the term includes electrical and steam power!

Aretnap

Rover_Driver said:

Car_54 said:

Rover_Driver said:

Although insurance is not compulsory, it may depend if a cycle is considered to be a 'mechanically propelled vehicle' involved in an accident and the need to comply with s.170, (b),  Road Traffic Act 1988. 

Insurance is required only for "motor vehicles" [RTA s.143]. That is defined [RTA s.185(c)] as "a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads".

A normal push-bike is clearly not mechanically propelled, but an e-bike is. I've no doubt someone on here will know whether that has been ruled upon.

A normal push-bike is not considered to be a motor vehicle, which is why insurance is not compulsory.
As it is propelled by turning the pedals, does that make it 'mechanical'? (as you say, maybe someone will know).  s.170 RTA 1988
refers to mechanically propelled vehicles, not motor vehicles, which may include push-bike if they are.

Mechanically propelled is interpreted to mean that the source of energy for the propulsion is generated by mechanical means - eg internal combustion, steam engines, electric motors etc. As opposed to a vehicle powered purely by muscle.

Can't point to a specific piece of case law but it's clear that the framers of the Road Traffic Act didn't consider bicycles to be mechanically propelled as they frequently refer to them as separate classes of vehicle. See for example RTA s 168

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/168

And also the separate offences of careless driving (of a mechanically propelled vehicle) Vs careless cycling RTA s3 and s29.

Aretnap

Car_54 said:

Rover_Driver said:

Car_54 said:

Rover_Driver said:

Although insurance is not compulsory, it may depend if a cycle is considered to be a 'mechanically propelled vehicle' involved in an accident and the need to comply with s.170, (b),  Road Traffic Act 1988. 

Insurance is required only for "motor vehicles" [RTA s.143]. That is defined [RTA s.185(c)] as "a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads".

A normal push-bike is clearly not mechanically propelled, but an e-bike is. I've no doubt someone on here will know whether that has been ruled upon.

A normal push-bike is not considered to be a motor vehicle, which is why insurance is not compulsory.
As it is propelled by turning the pedals, does that make it 'mechanical'? 

My “someone will know” comment referred to e-bikes, which plainly are mechanically-propelled but must presumably enjoy some loophole. FWIW the CPS guidance is clear that the term includes electrical and steam power!

It's not a loophole - is an exception specifically written into the law which prevents e-bikes being treated as motor vehicles.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/189

That means they don't need driving licences, insurance etc but as far as I can tell they do remain mechanically propelled  vehicles so some aspects of road traffic law which don't apply to pushbikes do apply to e-bikes - including presumably the obligation to stop and give details after an accident.

(I remember a story in my local paper about a woman who was convicted of a s4 drunk driving offence after falling off her e-bike. Amusingly she got th  mandatory ban from driving - but the ban didn't prevent her from riding her e-bikeas it's not a motor vehicle.)

[Deleted User]

The_Unready said:

Android07 said:

You should have stayed in your car and drove off. Trying to be a good person lands in you all sorts of trouble.

When the police contacted you, you could have given the dashcam footage and that's it. Cyclists do not have insurance and you certainly don't need to exchange details.

That bit is incorrect. I, and many others like me, have 3rd party liability insurance through my membership of British Cycling. See here:

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/thirdpartyliability

Other cyclists will have similar policies with other insurers/organisations. I'm not saying that it would cover the scenario above, but I need to correct your statement, which is just plain wrong..

The problem is that there is no obligation to have insurance, or to give your details in case of an accident.

Best thing to do is get front and rear dashcams. If a cyclist does damage your car, you might be able to get their details by exchanging yours. Calling the police is probably a waste of time.

To the OP, if you didn't cause the accident then it's likely that the cyclist did. Shame the police aren't prosecuting them.

[Deleted User]

badmemory said:

We all know that cyclists undertake all the time.  After I missed hitting the same one 3 times in a week I changed my route home.  I suspected after the 3rd time that it was actually deliberate.  I am sure there are many cyclists who wonder why we don't like cyclists, well you have my reason.

It's the lack of identification that is the problem. No number plate.

All you can do is put video from your camera on YouTube and social media. Send it to one of the big channels for me exposure. Unlikely to make much difference unfortunately.