Why fine cyclists for cycling on the pavement?



Nigel Cliffe wrote:
> Alex Heney wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:27:27 +0000, David Hansen
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>> insurance
>>> Most cyclists one sees on the roads have insurance to cover their
>>> third party liabilities.
>> Where on *earth* do you get that ridiculous idea from?
>>
>> I would be amazed if 10% of them do. Normal household insurance cover
>> will not cover them, and it isn't particularly easy to get hold of
>> insurance for "normal" bike riding (it is quite easy to get insurance
>> for competitive riding, and is usually a requirement for entry to most
>> competitions).
>
> I think you are wrong on all the important points above.
>
> "Normal household insurance" has a 3rd party liability clause covering
> actions of the insured and their household.
> That clause has exceptions, including "motor vehicles", but rarely/never
> includes "bicycles" in its list.
> Insurers confirm that third party liability of household policies will cover
> cycling. For example see the Daily Telegraph of Feb 2006, which quotes a
> spokesman for AA Insurance, confirming that their home insurance policy
> would cover a cyclist causing a traffic accident for third party
> liabilities:
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/02/04/cmcycle04.xml
>
>
>
>
> Independently of the fraction of the population covered by their household
> insurance, a significant number of cyclists are members of the CTC or
> similar organisations (both national or regional), which gives explicit
> general 3rd party cycle use cover as part of membership subscriptions.
>
>
>
>
> - Nigel
>
>

Please define a "significant number" and also define "relative to..."

--
Moving things in still pictures!
 
[email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 22:01:47 -0000, "Nigel Cliffe"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In 1999, Home Office Minister Paul Boateng, who was the relevant minister
>> for the topic, issued a letter stating that:
>> "The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists
>> who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and
>> who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police
>> officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many
>> cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the
>> road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required."
>
> Fine words but ignored by the police. I know someone who was
> threatened with a fixed penalty on a pavement by the side of a busy
> road with a 60 mph limit.

Yes, but only for breaking the law. They could have pushed their bike along.

--
Moving things in still pictures!
 
Richard Parkin wrote:
> "Nigel Cliffe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>>> Most cyclists one sees on the roads have insurance to cover their
>>>> third party liabilities.
>>>
>>> Where on *earth* do you get that ridiculous idea from?
>>>
>>> I would be amazed if 10% of them do. Normal household insurance
>>> cover will not cover them, and it isn't particularly easy to get
>>> hold of insurance for "normal" bike riding (it is quite easy to get
>>> insurance for competitive riding, and is usually a requirement for
>>> entry to most competitions).
>>
>> I think you are wrong on all the important points above.
>>
>> "Normal household insurance" has a 3rd party liability clause
>> covering actions of the insured and their household.
>> That clause has exceptions, including "motor vehicles", but
>> rarely/never includes "bicycles" in its list.
>> Insurers confirm that third party liability of household policies
>> will cover cycling. For example see the Daily Telegraph of Feb 2006,
>> which quotes a spokesman for AA Insurance, confirming that their
>> home insurance policy would cover a cyclist causing a traffic
>> accident for third party liabilities:
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/02/04/cmcycle04.xml
>
> I have just looked at my policy; it covers loss or damage to a "pedal
> cycle" ( I am sure that is the correct term, but it still strikes me
> as quaint!) but specifically excludes liability for any incident
> involving a form of transportation under my control.

You will need to quote the relevant bits of your policy. The part to look
at is householder liabilities to third parties. The part on loss/damage to
"pedal cycle" is irrelevant.

You need the definition of "transportation" for the exclusion; would that
include a wheelbarrow ?

Elsewhere you mention NFU Mutual, this is one of their current policy
documents (prominent on their Home Insurance webpages), the relevant pages
are 22 and 23
http://www.nfumutual.co.uk/policy-wording/documents/HM001POL1206-home.pdf

Pedal cycles are not in the exclusion, so the cover appears similar to that
discussed by the AA representative in the Telegraph article.


Obviously, your own policy may be different to the one I am referencing
above.







--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/
 
Richard Parkin wrote:
> "Nigel Cliffe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> If their parents have household insurance, the kids are almost
>> certainly insured for 3rd party. See my other reply on this, with
>> direct quote in a national newspaper from AA Household Insurance
>> spokesman confirming the cover.
>
> I did and commented - did it not show up?

Has now, and I have replied to it. Put it down to the vagaries of news
propogation speeds.



--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/
 
[email protected] said the following on 29/01/2008 01:08:

> They are even worse on shared
> pedestrian/cyclist "facilities", on the paths with a white line
> painted up them they seem oblivious to the fact they are supposed to
> be on one side of it let alone which side.

Legally, pedestrians are not "supposed" to be on one side or the other.
The white line just tells cyclists which side they're not supposed to
be on. Whilst we can't expect everyone to know the ins and outs of our
bizarre legal system, we can expect people to apply common sense, and
personally I would have thought that a pretty white painting of a
bicycle would be a clue to even the densest of dense people!

Yes, this is an utterly ludicrous situation.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
 
Richard Parkin said the following on 28/01/2008 15:47:

> I wasn't - just amusing myself on this here new newsgroup I have been drawn
> into; don't think I have been on a bike since I was about 11 ;)

Ah - the perils of cross-posting :)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
 
graham said the following on 28/01/2008 21:02:

> What makes you say this? - I doubt it.

Because most cyclists are members of one or other of the various clubs,
and membership includes third party liability.

The "cyclists" that most people have problems with, including other
cyclists, are those that wouldn't consider themselves to be cyclists if
you asked them. I do know that there is no legal distinction!

I suppose it's a bit like drivers that go around uninsured, unlicensed
and untaxed, then carve everyone up and cause accidents. Legally,
they're motorists, but in reality they're just anti-social arseholes who
don't give a stuff about anyone else but happen to be in a car instead
of on a bike.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
 
Paul Boyd (Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet>) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

> Because most cyclists are members of one or other of the various clubs,

Rubbish.

Most cycling enthusiasts may well be - but they form a small minority of
cyclists. Most cyclists are people who use bicycles occasionally as a
form of transport.

> The "cyclists" that most people have problems with, including other
> cyclists, are those that wouldn't consider themselves to be cyclists if
> you asked them. I do know that there is no legal distinction!

Ah, the old "cyclists" vs "people on bikes" distinction. It doesn't
exist. Somebody with a bicycle between their thighs is a cyclist. End of.
 
Adrian writtificated

> Ah, the old "cyclists" vs "people on bikes" distinction. It doesn't
> exist. Somebody with a bicycle between their thighs is a cyclist. End of.

You've already worked out that he's using 'cyclist' as a shorthand for
'cycling enthusiast' so just get together, sort out your terminology and
you'll prolly find you agree 100% with each other ;)
 
Adam Lea wrote:
> "bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
>>> Preserving one's own life is not anti-social behaviour.
>> It is if it's at a cost to others.
>>
>> Look up "anti social"
>>
>> BugBear
>
> Although almost everything we do has a "cost" of some sort.
>

Indeed. That would rather be my point.

BugBear
 
"Adrian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Paul Boyd (Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet>) gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying:
>

> Ah, the old "cyclists" vs "people on bikes" distinction. It doesn't
> exist. Somebody with a bicycle between their thighs is a cyclist. End of.

I remember one of my work colleagues telling me how a bike police officer
had flagged him to stop for deliberately skipping a red light. He said he
was very tempted to initiate a chase type senario. As his 10 mile time
trials were only marginally over 20 minutes I think he would have been in
with a chance against one of those heavy police bikes. ;o)

So does he count as a POB or an enthusiast .
 
On 28 Jan, 13:07, Brian Robertson <brian@[nospam].com> wrote:
>
Big Snip
>
> And that is how I intend to continue cycling, despite the howls of
> protest from car drivers and pedantic fellow cyclists.
>
> Brian.

At last someone with the courage to tell it like it is. Well said,
very well said.
 
At 22:41:15 on 28/01/2008, Alex Heney delighted uk.legal by announcing:

> it isn't particularly easy to get hold of
> insurance for "normal" bike riding

Complete and utter nonsense.

http://www.cycleguard.co.uk/
 
Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
>
> As forcing cyclists off the pavement results in many extra deaths
> each year why are the government fining cyclists for cycling on the
> pavement?
> Would be it possible to charge the government with murder?

Because there have been fatal accidents between cycles on the pavement
and pedestrians. Cycles can have top speed in excess of 30mph, especially
downhill, that is no laughing matter. However, there are places where
the pavement is shared; there will is a painted white line, but not
always.
 
Nigel Cliffe wrote:

> In 1999, Home Office Minister Paul Boateng, who was the relevant minister
> for the topic, issued a letter stating that:
> "The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists
> who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and
> who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police
> officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many
> cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the
> road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required."
>
>
> Similar advice was forthcoming from The Home Office in 2004 in respect of
> Community Support Officers prosecuting such offences.

Thanks - saves me googling.
 
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 01:08:14 +0000, [email protected] wrote:

>On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 22:01:47 -0000, "Nigel Cliffe"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In 1999, Home Office Minister Paul Boateng, who was the relevant minister
>>for the topic, issued a letter stating that:
>>"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists
>>who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and
>>who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police
>>officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many
>>cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the
>>road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required."
>
>Fine words but ignored by the police. I know someone who was
>threatened with a fixed penalty on a pavement by the side of a busy
>road with a 60 mph limit.

So the policeman used discretion and didn't issue a ticket. The
advice was not ignored.
 
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:17:07 +0000, Paul Boyd
<usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:

>graham said the following on 28/01/2008 21:02:
>
>> What makes you say this? - I doubt it.
>
>Because most cyclists are members of one or other of the various clubs,
>and membership includes third party liability.

I would b very surprised if as many as 10% of the cyclists on the
roads are members of any club.

Never mind "most".


>
>The "cyclists" that most people have problems with, including other
>cyclists, are those that wouldn't consider themselves to be cyclists if
>you asked them. I do know that there is no legal distinction!
>

Anybody riding a bike is a cyclist.

And I think most people if asked "are you a cyclist" when on their
bike would answer along the lines of "Of course I am - what does it
look like?".

If you knocked on doors at random an asked people "are you a cyclist",
then I would agree that many people who cycle casually would not
answer "yes".

>I suppose it's a bit like drivers that go around uninsured, unlicensed
>and untaxed, then carve everyone up and cause accidents. Legally,
>they're motorists, but in reality they're just anti-social arseholes who
>don't give a stuff about anyone else but happen to be in a car instead
>of on a bike.

But I am quite sure that uninsured cyclists account for a *far*
greater proportion of total cyclists than uninsured motorists do of
total motorists.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
SENILE.COM found: out of memory...
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
 
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:26:35 -0000, "Nigel Cliffe"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Alex Heney wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:27:27 +0000, David Hansen
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>> insurance
>>>
>>> Most cyclists one sees on the roads have insurance to cover their
>>> third party liabilities.
>>
>> Where on *earth* do you get that ridiculous idea from?
>>
>> I would be amazed if 10% of them do. Normal household insurance cover
>> will not cover them, and it isn't particularly easy to get hold of
>> insurance for "normal" bike riding (it is quite easy to get insurance
>> for competitive riding, and is usually a requirement for entry to most
>> competitions).
>
>I think you are wrong on all the important points above.
>
>"Normal household insurance" has a 3rd party liability clause covering
>actions of the insured and their household.
>That clause has exceptions, including "motor vehicles", but rarely/never
>includes "bicycles" in its list.
>Insurers confirm that third party liability of household policies will cover
>cycling. For example see the Daily Telegraph of Feb 2006, which quotes a
>spokesman for AA Insurance, confirming that their home insurance policy
>would cover a cyclist causing a traffic accident for third party
>liabilities:
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/02/04/cmcycle04.xml
>

So one policy covers you.

The implication of that article is that most are unlikely to unless
you pay an additional premium.

And I can't find any way to read my AA policy which would give cover,
since it specifically excludes anything arising from your possession
or use of "Road vehicles or any other mechanically propelled or
assisted vehicles except: ..." :-(

I believe a bicycle is a "vehicle", and is not covered by any of the
things under "except".

That policy document is dated 12/2006.

It is possible that the AA do not consider a bicycle to be a vehicle.

>
>
>
>Independently of the fraction of the population covered by their household
>insurance, a significant number of cyclists are members of the CTC or
>similar organisations (both national or regional), which gives explicit
>general 3rd party cycle use cover as part of membership subscriptions.
>

A "significant number" yes. But not a large proportion.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
 
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:03:11 -0000, "Nigel Cliffe"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Richard Parkin wrote:
>> "Nigel Cliffe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>>> Most cyclists one sees on the roads have insurance to cover their
>>>>> third party liabilities.
>>>>
>>>> Where on *earth* do you get that ridiculous idea from?
>>>>
>>>> I would be amazed if 10% of them do. Normal household insurance
>>>> cover will not cover them, and it isn't particularly easy to get
>>>> hold of insurance for "normal" bike riding (it is quite easy to get
>>>> insurance for competitive riding, and is usually a requirement for
>>>> entry to most competitions).
>>>
>>> I think you are wrong on all the important points above.
>>>
>>> "Normal household insurance" has a 3rd party liability clause
>>> covering actions of the insured and their household.
>>> That clause has exceptions, including "motor vehicles", but
>>> rarely/never includes "bicycles" in its list.
>>> Insurers confirm that third party liability of household policies
>>> will cover cycling. For example see the Daily Telegraph of Feb 2006,
>>> which quotes a spokesman for AA Insurance, confirming that their
>>> home insurance policy would cover a cyclist causing a traffic
>>> accident for third party liabilities:
>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/02/04/cmcycle04.xml
>>
>> I have just looked at my policy; it covers loss or damage to a "pedal
>> cycle" ( I am sure that is the correct term, but it still strikes me
>> as quaint!) but specifically excludes liability for any incident
>> involving a form of transportation under my control.
>
>You will need to quote the relevant bits of your policy. The part to look
>at is householder liabilities to third parties. The part on loss/damage to
>"pedal cycle" is irrelevant.
>
>You need the definition of "transportation" for the exclusion; would that
>include a wheelbarrow ?
>
>Elsewhere you mention NFU Mutual, this is one of their current policy
>documents (prominent on their Home Insurance webpages), the relevant pages
>are 22 and 23
>http://www.nfumutual.co.uk/policy-wording/documents/HM001POL1206-home.pdf
>
>Pedal cycles are not in the exclusion, so the cover appears similar to that
>discussed by the AA representative in the Telegraph article.
>

That one only excludes "motorised vehicles", rather than just "road
vehicles or any other mechanically propelled or assisted vehicles".

So I think you are right on that one covering you for third party
liabilities when cycling.


It is certainly worth checking your policy, as suggested by the
article you linked to previously.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Keyboard Not Found - Press [F1] to Continue
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
 
On 29 Jan 2008 14:42:11 GMT, "Alex" <[email protected]> wrote:

>At 22:41:15 on 28/01/2008, Alex Heney delighted uk.legal by announcing:
>
>> it isn't particularly easy to get hold of
>> insurance for "normal" bike riding
>
>Complete and utter nonsense.

But completely correct.

>
>http://www.cycleguard.co.uk/

Precisely.

You have to go to a specialist insurer. It isn't offered as one of the
main options by most of the mainstream insurer that people will know
immediately.

To me, that means it isn't particularly easy.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Strike any user when ready.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Fine Stainless Steel Pendant KP1128
Replies
0
Views
296
UK and Europe
[email protected]
S
S
Fine Stainless Steel pendant KP0131
Replies
0
Views
258
UK and Europe
[email protected]
S
W
Fine Stainless Steel Necklace KN0307
Replies
0
Views
345
UK and Europe
[email protected]
W
J
Wholesale Fine Stainless Steel Bracelets with Carbon KB4297
Replies
0
Views
357
UK and Europe
[email protected]
J
M
And how's your blood pressure this fine morning?
Replies
6
Views
489
UK and Europe
Alistair Gunn
A
Top Bottom Back