BBC: Is this the new age of the train?

Chris wrote:
> On 30 Jun, 10:46, Charlie Hulme <i...@davenportstation.org.uk> wrote:
>>> Same as your car insurance. Try making a claim, saying you knocked
>>> someone over on the footpath!
>>> They'll laugh you into court......
>> Surely your insurance company would have to pay out to the
>> unfortunate pedestrian?
>
> Only if you can prove that you weren't on the pavement
> deliberately.....if they can show that you were on the footpath under
> your own free will, they will not pay!

Remarkable. Does this apply to other rules as well? If I am
knocked down by an impoverished but insured motorist going
at 40 in a 30 mph area, his insurance company will not pay
me any damages?

Charlie

Tony Polson wrote:

>
> The people we are talking about don't commit one single
> offence, they regularly flout the law.
>

But of course they would always scrupulously pay their
registration fees, and never dream of using a false number
plate to flout the law requiring registration.

Charlie

On Jun 30, 12:00�pm, Charlie Hulme <i...@davenportstation.org.uk>
wrote:
> Chris wrote:
> > On 30 Jun, 10:46, Charlie Hulme <i...@davenportstation.org.uk> wrote:
> >>> Same as your car insurance. Try making a claim, saying you knocked
> >>> someone over on the footpath!
> >>> They'll laugh you into court......
> >> Surely your insurance company would have to pay out to the
> >> unfortunate pedestrian?
>
> > Only if you can prove that you weren't on the pavement
> > deliberately.....if they can show that you were on the footpath under
> > your own free will, they will not pay!
>
> Remarkable. Does this apply to other rules as well? If I am
> knocked down by an impoverished but insured motorist going
> at 40 in a 30 mph area, his insurance company will not pay
> me any damages?

Motor insurance is different in that third party insurance is
compulsory. If the motorist is insured the company HAS to pay out but
they retain the option to sue the motorist privately to get their
money back. If he is not insured the Bureau of Motor Insurers (or
some similar name) have a scheme to cover it, which all the honest
motorists pay for through increased premiums. Again they retain the
option to sue the motorist privately to get their money back but the
important thing is that the innocent party gets compensation.
Remember however, that this is third party RTAct only, ie personal
injury not property.

George

On 30 Jun, 12:00, Charlie Hulme <i...@davenportstation.org.uk> wrote:
> > Only if you can prove that you weren't on the pavement
> > deliberately.....if they can show that you were on the footpath under
> > your own free will, they will not pay!
>
> Remarkable. Does this apply to other rules as well? If I am
> knocked down by an impoverished but insured motorist going
> at 40 in a 30 mph area, his insurance company will not pay
> me any damages?

If you are legally entitled to be there, they'll pay.

If you willingly break the law by using a footpath, or cause an
accident on a private road (unless the law has changed), they can
refuse.
But as stated elsewhere, the person you damage gets picked up by the
cover-all scheme instead. You, on the other hand, don't!

Tony Polson wrote:
> Charlie Hulme <info@davenportstation.org.uk> wrote:

>> Remarkable. Does this apply to other rules as well? If I am
>> knocked down by an impoverished but insured motorist going
>> at 40 in a 30 mph area, his insurance company will not pay
>> me any damages?
>
>
> Only if the impoverished but insured motorist is relying on his
> household insurance to provide motor cover ...
>

Ah, I see I rather lost my grip on that sub-thread. I'll
have to go away and check my insurance policy.

Charlie

Tony Polson wrote:
> Charlie Hulme <info@davenportstation.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Tony Polson wrote:
>>
>>> The people we are talking about don't commit one single
>>> offence, they regularly flout the law.
>>>
>> But of course they would always scrupulously pay their
>> registration fees, and never dream of using a false number
>> plate to flout the law requiring registration.
>
>
> At least you are (finally) admitting that there is a problem.

Of course there is a problem. Apologies if I didn't make
that clear. The problem of rogue cyclists is just one
aspect of the general misbehaviour that plagues our lives
today. So is the problem of rogue motorists: many
of those who kill people turn out to have no licence,
tax, or insurance, and the same would the case
if attempts were made to regulate cyclists in the
way you suggest.

Charlie

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:16:13 +0100, Arthur Figgis
<afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote:

>Tony Polson wrote:
>> wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote:
>>> And I, as a cyclist who does not ride on the pavement, through red
>>> traffic lights etc, would prefer that cost to be paid by those who
>>> infringe the law[1], just as happens with pedestrians. There needs to
>>> be strict enforcement and hefty fines set at a level to cover the cost
>>> of the enforcement.
>>
>>
>> Employing sufficient Police and PCSOs to enforce the law would cost
>> many times more than what I have suggested.
>>
>> And my suggestions allow *anyone* to identify and report a miscreant
>> cyclist, not just a police(wo)man or PCSO.
>
>"We've been tipped-off that bike P01 s0n was seen in the High Street
>with a muddy reflector last week. It's a free trip to Cuba for you,
>sunshine."
>
>It's not going to happen, is it?
>
No, it'll be a couple of hours community service.