Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-04-02, 11:41 AM   #1
AndrewP
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Montreal
Bikes: Peugeot Hybrid, Minelli Hybrid
Posts: 6,521
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
UK Auto insurance to cover bikers

Read this and add your thoughts to the debate.

http://www.observer.co.uk/uk_news/st...769018,00.html

I am not sure if this is just to cover personal injury, or property damage (bike) as well.

I dont think it will encourage geurilla bikers, because no biker will intentionally injure themselves,to collect the insurance payout - the risk of death is too great. Bikers with helmets dont ride more recklessly because they wear helmets. Reckless bikers would still be just as reckless without a helmet.
AndrewP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-02, 11:41 AM   #2
LittleBigMan
Sumanitu taka owaci
 
LittleBigMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Bikes:
Posts: 8,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Insurance companies seem to be fighting this proposed law because it will raise premiums for their customers. That doesn't make sense to me.

What makes more sense to me is that they fear the new law will cause them to have to pay out more cash.
__________________
No worries
LittleBigMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-02, 12:40 PM   #3
Ouch !
It didn't hurt that much.
 
Ouch !'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: South Wales UK
Bikes:
Posts: 201
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by AndrewP
I dont think it will encourage geurilla bikers, because no biker will intentionally injure themselves,to collect the insurance payout
I was told today by a motorist that it would encourage this to happen. I pointed out that cyclists try everything they can to keep away from cars , without deliberately throwing themselves under the wheels to claim a payout.
Ouch ! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-02, 02:29 PM   #4
webist
Huachuca Rider
 
webist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Bikes: Fuji CCR1, Specialized Roubaix
Posts: 4,275
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by LittleBigMan
Insurance companies seem to be fighting this proposed law because it will raise premiums for their customers. That doesn't make sense to me.

What makes more sense to me is that they fear the new law will cause them to have to pay out more cash.
Though there may be other reasons behind premium increases, it is generally true that if the pay out more, they raise rates.

Carl
__________________
Just Peddlin' Around
webist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-02, 04:17 PM   #5
Bikes-N-Drums
Skin-Pounder
 
Bikes-N-Drums's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Clarkston (Atlanta, GA., USA)
Bikes:
Posts: 491
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't understand the nature of this law. It claims to protect those who are STATISTICALLY more prone to....what was it, suffering(?) in certain accidents involving autos - mainly pedestrians and cyclists. Every accident involves mitigating factors. At what point are the circumstances of the accident or the actions of the individual taken into account?
Furthermore, I must regretfully admit that EACH accident I have been involved in on my bicycle was due to something I was or wasn't doing - including a head-on with a guy at a gas station. Even though it would be a nice convenience, why should someone else pay for a mistake that my dumb ass made?
I don't mean to be unruly, but it's stuff like this that makes me glad the US is not part of the "World Court".
Bikes-N-Drums is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-02, 04:42 PM   #6
webist
Huachuca Rider
 
webist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Bikes: Fuji CCR1, Specialized Roubaix
Posts: 4,275
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It's actually been quite some time now since individual responsibility was seriously argued as a good thing.

Certainly there is someone else you can blame, especially if there's money involved.

Carl
__________________
Just Peddlin' Around
webist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-02, 05:02 PM   #7
Bikesalot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Bikes:
Posts: 53
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think that this new law reflects the reality that in every situation, regardless of fault, the car poses the injury hazard to the cyclist and not the other way around. Therefore, if you choose to drive a car, you have to assume the financial responsibility of that inherent hazard. Even if a cyclist was behaving egregiously when struck by a car, it's always the involvement of the car in the crash that results in injuries. If the driver had chosen to take, say, his or her skateboard instead of the car and still hit the cyclist anyway, it's not likely the cyclist would incur the same level of injury. It's not the driver's behavior that's liable, it's the mere fact that cars can very easily cause grievous harm. The hard reality is that cars, even when piloted responsibly, are a hazard to road users that aren't protected by steel cages. It's right thaty auto users should bear the liability of injuries caused to non-auto users.
Bikesalot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-02, 07:42 PM   #8
Feldman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Bikes:
Posts: 863
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Bravo, bikesalot--I'd say the same thing. This could be a long-needed start in reducing the rights and freedom of motor vehicle operators which has gone to terrible excess in ours and many other countries.
Feldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-02, 03:59 AM   #9
Bokkie
Jubalayo Unogwaja!
 
Bokkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bollocks!
Bikes:
Posts: 1,090
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I can see both sides of the argument. I think most drivers and cyclists do avoid each other by intent. There are those who 'provoke' dissent. The group of cyclists I object to are the irresponsible couriers who do treat all road user and pedestrians with contempt. In London not so long ago, my wife and I stepped off the sidewalk to cross the road (the lights were green for us). We had to suddenly jump backwards because an idiot courier cyclist came speeding around the corner against the one-way flow of traffic. He spat at us "****ing arseholes!" and was gone. So who accepts responsibility for that if he'd hit one or both of us?

If he'd hit a car under the conditions of the proposed law change then I'd say the car driver is exempt from being held accountable, and the cyclist deserves all the injury that was self-inflicted. We did not have a steel-cage around us that day. He at least had some protection. It is I suppose, relative to who-hits-who and with what that matters.
Bokkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:00 PM.