Stupid Pedestrian!

[Behemoth]

When I was going into Truro the other day, I was lining up to filter in (if anyone knows it, when you go towards Treliske hospital there's a big roundabout which straight after it its a merge in) I was on the inside lane so I was lined up correctly.

From absolutley nowhere some twit in a Jag XJ6 comes streaking along the outside lane and rather than slow down so someone could leave a gap for him to merge in he literally forces his way in meaning I have to go evasive. To left of me there's a poor chap on his bike in the cycle lane and as the jag driver realises "Oh I'm going too fast here" he slams on the breaks which means I have to do the same or I'd get the fault for rear ending him and he taps the poor cyclist over and off his bike.

Does he stop ? Does he heck as like he just ignores what he's done and carries on up the road without a care for the poor chap on the bike. I wind my window down and check he's alright, thankfully no damage done to the chap on the bike, he said he's used to that it's the third time this year someone has wiped him out like that and he thanks me for taking the trouble to see if he's alright. I offered to take him and the bike to their destination but he declined my kind offer.

It does make me wonder though, and I'm now wearing my flame proof vest but shouldn't cyclists be made to take some form of insurance against this kind of thing ?

[razer121]

It does make me wonder though, and I'm now wearing my flame proof vest but shouldn't cyclists be made to take some form of insurance against this kind of thing ?

They should but i suppose it would be down to them to prove it, get the person's number plate and such

[Behemoth]

I can see why its going to be such a ball ache doing something like that, but when you think about it, if it's got wheels and on the road and using the road in essence it's no different to jumping in a car with no insurance and having an accident.

Hence why I said I was wearing a flame proof vest, it's a suggrstion thats not going to go down well with everyone.

[Flibb]

I can see why its going to be such a ball ache doing something like that, but when you think about it, if it's got wheels and on the road and using the road in essence it's no different to jumping in a car with no insurance and having an accident.

Hence why I said I was wearing a flame proof vest, it's a suggrstion thats not going to go down well with everyone.

Should pedestrians be insured as well, they are also entitled to be on the roads, crossing as well as traveling along them. In the case of the incident you spotted above the cyclist shouldnt need insurance as the car drives was at fault, and they would be able to go after the car driver for damage to the bike, or injury to themselves without the cyclist holding insurance. If the cyclist is at fault the car driver can make a claim against them, but in most cases the amount of damage a bike can do and the frequency of accidents that result in a large claim are so small thats its not worth bothering with. On the flip side people that are seriously into cycling, often with expensive bikes and doing lots of miles often have insurance through clubs, or personal policies. I have insurance policies for public liablitity upto £3million for some of my hobbies.

[TooNice]

Incidentally, I have a similar story (well, more than one, but the most recent last week) involving a cyclist knocking down an elderly in crutches. And it's not like they (there were two, one managed to avoid - just) crossed out of turn, the cyclist had enough time to slow down but chose not too.

Can't say I have much sympathy if someone got hit if they choose to ignore traffic rules. Whether it is a car getting hit by a truck for jumping a light, a cyclist getting hit by a car for doing the same, or yet, a pedestrian by a cyclist for crossing out of turn. If you are going to do that, then make sure you look.

That's not to say that I would encourage people to hit someone 'in the wrong', and frankly speaking, I find some of the suggestions on this thread rather alarming. Just because bikes are less lethal than cars, doesn't mean that you should intentionally aim to injure the pedestrians. It's one thing to have limited sympathy for those who break traffic rule, but it's quite another to 'get even' by taking the law into your own hands.

[santa claus]

Just because bikes are less lethal than cars, doesn't mean that you should intentionally aim to injure the pedestrians. It's one thing to have limited sympathy for those who break traffic rule, but it's quite another to 'get even' by taking the law into your own hands.

Self preservation can also come into it. Would I swerve into traffic to avoid a pedestrian who shouldn't be there? No. And given that I may have little or no time to make a decision, I choose life. The natural inclination to swerve is one I hope I can control having considered the possible consequences of 'protecting' a pedestrian at my own expense.

[TheAnimus]

It does make me wonder though, and I'm now wearing my flame proof vest but shouldn't cyclists be made to take some form of insurance against this kind of thing ?

Wait what?

Cyclists should have to have insurance in case they are hit by a car? I can't see the point of that myself. Health insurance might be an idea, whilst the NHS is very good for emergency, its not exactly a secret that its lottery for plenty of long term aliments.

Even if I'm really gunning it at 30 mph, odds are I'm never doing that near something that worries me (ie white van parked on side of road where there is a driveway or something obscured) or at lights or a roundabout. Plus I can also stop pretty much on a dime compared to a car. And even if I did hit one at 20mph (unlikely, I'm not fit enough to average this speed) I would probably do nothing more than scratch paint, if that. My bike is very light, I'm squishy.

Also the thing is, half the time accidents happen, whilst the cyclist might be been a tit, undertaking in a small cycle lane when someone wants to turn left for instance, its still the lorry driver who was at fault ultimately. Yes the cyclist was a tit, and paid with his life, but its still the fault of the lorry driver.

[kalniel]

It does make me wonder though, and I'm now wearing my flame proof vest but shouldn't cyclists be made to take some form of insurance against this kind of thing ?

As I said somewhere else, the purpose of mandatory insurance is usually to guarantee you can meet your liabilities to other parties. There's no mandatory insurance to cover your own car in an accident for instance, but it's mandatory to take out insurance to cover damage you cause to another party whilst driving a car.

Should cyclists cover damage to third parties? Certainly - they are liable for them. However the sums are likely to be small enough that there is a reasonable expectation of most people being able to afford them, hence there isn't such a strong need for insurance.

[Behemoth]

Thats why I said I'd be wearing a flame proof vest. I know for a fact that it's going to be next to impossibe to make something like this stick it's just an opinion I have. It's possibly a very narrow minded view and I'll openly admit that.

Do I honestly think this could be made to stick ? No I can't and this I accept also.

[scaryjim]

In reality the most a cyclist can do to a car is badly dent the passenger door when the idiot turns right in front of you then stops when he sees you coming. Yes, I do have personal experience of this. It hurt. And given that it was the driver's fault, he wisely chose not to persue the matter.

That is the only incident in 25 years of regular biking in which I did any amount of damage to anything other than myself or my bike. I was about 15, and frankly I could probably have paid for the panel beating out of my pocket money even if he had pushed it.

It's not a question of whether it would be enforceable, it's about whether there is any need for such a move. And, frankly, mandatory insurance for cycling makes no sense. The only people I can see supporting it are the insurance companies - they'll get to charge millions of people for doing nothing and paying out no money at all. Otherwise it's just going top put people off getting on their bikes, which is hardly a good thing...