"Dave Kahn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Tim S" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Have been thinking about this & maybe I should get insured (daily
commute
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
only) what sort of costing does the CTC membership run at ?
GBP25 for an adult, or GBP40 to cover yourself, SO and any number of sprogs living under the same roof. If you're a regular cyclist with no other cycling club or organisation you definitely should be in the CTC. Apart from the 3rd party insurance you have their lawyers on your side should you need them.
In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...
Quoted message said:
"Dave Kahn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
GBP25 for an adult, or GBP40 to cover yourself, SO and any number of sprogs living under the same roof. If you're a regular cyclist with no other cycling club or organisation you definitely should be in the CTC. Apart from the 3rd party insurance you have their lawyers on your side should you need them.
"Tim S" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
You've sold me, what's the number / website ?
I'm sure I seem to remember something on my household contents insurance about 3rd party liability cover to the tune of £1 Million. Perhaps I was imagining it I will have to look at my policy again.
In article <[email hidden]>, dkahn400 @yahoo.co.uk says...
Quoted message said:
"Tim S" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
Have been thinking about this & maybe I should get insured (daily commute only) what sort of costing does the CTC membership run at ?
GBP25 for an adult, or GBP40 to cover yourself, SO and any number of sprogs living under the same roof.
28.50 and 46 respectively this year.
Colin
Cheap at twice the price. You know it makes sense! Plus you get a discount off YHA membership.
-- Guy === I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.
Cheap at twice the price. You know it makes sense! Plus you get a discount off YHA membership.
I must admit that juggling membership discounts can be a nightmare. I am a member of several organisations which offer discounts off membership of other organisations such that sometimes it is better to use the discounts in one particular direction. I've not managed to complete a cycle of these discounts yet but I'm trying.
Anyway, I have joined the forces of good in their efforts to smite the unbeleiver (& bibshorts of course).
Hurrah! Only thing is, not only do they not take part in bibshorts pogroms, they actually sell the things in their shop.
-- Guy === I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.
Most household contents policies will include 3rd party insurance for instances like this IME.
My house contents insurance excludes motorvehicles. I've never attempted to find out if this is just if you are _driving_ a motorvehicle or if it would cover me if I rode into the side of one.
OTOH, there are no exclusions that I can see for running over pedestrians.
Regards,
Tim.
-- God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
Colin Blackburn <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<MPG.18b59b35fb8bee56989777@localhost>...
Quoted message said:
28.50 and 46 respectively this year.
Quite right - I was looking at an out-of-date source. Sorry for the misinformation. It's still a very good deal IMO.
My membership for this year was only a tenner, mind. I've not received half the magazines, though, but I think that's quite likely to be the Royal Mail's fault.
"Ian Walker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
One sentence in particular struck me. "After lengthy deliberations, magistrates said Mr Brady was an experienced cyclist on a high-quality
bike
Quoted message said:
and could have avoided the accident." Would they have said the same to an experienced driver in a high-quality car?
How do you lot read it?
What bothers me is that there is nothing in the story mentioning independent witnesses so it's one parties word against the other. The cyclist may or may not have been riding dangerously, the peds may or may not have stepped out in front of him without looking. It seems to me that both parties may have contributed to the collision but who knows in what percentages, thin ice on which to convict one party unless of course there are aspects of the case not covered in the report.
The cyclist may or may not have been riding dangerously, the peds may or may not have stepped out in front of him without looking.
I still bet you a quid he was on the tri-bars, though.
Guy === ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗ (BT ADSL and dynamic DNS permitting) NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer work. Apologies.
I still bet you a quid he was on the tri-bars, though.
He claims to have been braking, doesn't he? It generally takes two to cause a crash, and this looks like no exception. Not sure what crime the pedestrian could be considered to have committed but she certainly shares (IMO has the lion's share of the) liability.
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Peter B said:
The cyclist may or may not have been riding dangerously, the peds may or
may
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
not have stepped out in front of him without looking.
I still bet you a quid he was on the tri-bars, though.
I can easily imagine the cyclist tazzing down the hill and leaving little margin for error, however we don't convict people on the basis that we can imagine them committing a crime. (Except the Guildford Four etc. etc.....)
In article <[email hidden]>, one of infinite monkeys
at the keyboard of 'Peter B said:
margin for error, however we don't convict people on the basis that we can imagine them committing a crime.
Nope, we just lock them up without bothering to convict them. Keywords "mental health" (for Brits we don't like), "terrorism" (for foreigners).
Quoted message said:
(Except the Guildford Four etc. etc.....)
The Irish are only very slightly foreign here (they're white/european; they speak English). Not half as foreign as (say) Libyans convicted under similar circumstances.
The cyclist may or may not have been riding dangerously, the peds may or may not have stepped out in front of him without looking.
If they did look, either they didn't see him, or they saw him and thought "oh, it's just a cyclist, he doesn't matter/he'll have to avoid us". If they weren't on a pedestrian crossing, it's hard to see how it wasn't at least partly their fault.
Which doesn't mean the magistrates were necessarily wrong when they said the cyclist could (and should) have avoided the accident. Maybe they were clueless about cycling, maybe with more access to the facts than a newspaper report they reached the right conclusion.
On 18 Feb 2003 13:53:12 +0000, Alan Braggins scrawled: ) Which doesn't mean the magistrates were necessarily wrong when they ) said the cyclist could (and should) have avoided the accident.
I recall a similar case, where a driver knocked down an infirm pedestrian. It was implied that vehicle users should be aware of the unpredictability of (especially older) pedestrians, and that the pedestrian constituted a visible hazard that the driver assessed badly. The driver was found guilty of driving without due c&a. Of course, the situation and chronology of the incident was different, and so in this case it may be unfair to the cyclist.
J-P -- Give 'em to your grannie and watch the beggar go
