®
®i©ardo
Guest
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!
> 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!