Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Northerner

Cyclists Must Have Compulsory Insurance

Recommended Posts

Not sure how it would work, but the situation is not getting any better.

Cyclists must have compulsory insurance, says husband of woman mowed down in Manchester street
60-year-old writes to Police and Crime Commissioner to demand a change in the law after wife suffers horror injuries in crash. The husband of a woman who spent five days in hospital after a cyclist mowed her down and left her lying in the street has called for compulsory bike insurance. Tom Dervin, 60, has written to Police and Crime Commissioner Tony Lloyd to demand a change in the law to make cyclists more responsible on the roads.

Currently, under Greater Manchester Police’s road policy, incidents involving cyclists are not recorded as a ‘collision’ if there is not a motor vehicle involved. But this is now under review because of the increasing number of bikes on the road.

Mr Dervin’s wife Fam, 40, was hit by a cyclist on London Road, Piccadilly, in Manchester city centre, on her way to the railway station. She was left unconscious on the ground, while the cyclist looked down at her before speeding off. Passers-by called an ambulance to get Fam to Manchester Royal Infirmary, where she underwent complex surgery and a wire was fitted into her arm to treat a smashed elbow. Mr Dervin said: “It’s disgusting. The cyclist picked himself up, saw the damage inflicted, leaped on his bike and rode off. No consideration, no morality and no way of tracing him. My wife’s elbow will take four months to repair, but this cyclist couldn’t even have the decency to stop. He should have waited, made sure she was okay and called the emergency services. That’s what a decent person would have done. But there seems to be no proper laws in place which require him to do that.”

Mr Dervin, from Nantwich, Cheshire, is calling for stricter road rules for cyclists. He added: “Cyclists should be insured to make them more responsible for their actions. "When I reported this to the police they explained it was difficult to investigate but surely there must be CCTV showing what happened. A guy of 12-stone with a helmet came off a pavement and into my wife.”

Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner Jim Battle said: “What has happened to Mrs Dervin is terrible and, clearly, this irresponsible cyclist needs to be tracked down so he can be brought to book for his actions. "I’m sorry to see how badly Mrs Dervin has been hurt and hope she recovers soon. Mrs Dervin’s husband has been in touch with us about some concerns over how police have handled this case. We’ve raised those issues with GMP and asked them to look into them. Clearly all road-users – whether on two wheels or four – need to behave in a way that doesn’t endanger others. Thankfully, it’s only a handful of cyclists who break the rules, but Mrs Dervin’s injuries show the consequences when people don’t respect other road users. We have been working closely with cycling and other groups in Greater Manchester to help make our roads safer for cyclists, motorists and pedestrians alike.”

Chief Insp Rachel Buckle said: “Pedal cycle collisions are not currently recorded as a collision where there has been no motor vehicle involvement under Greater Manchester Police’s existing road traffic collision policy. This policy is currently under review due to the increasing number of pedal cycles on the road network. While there is currently no legal requirement for a pedal cyclist to be insured and there is no legislative requirement for them to stop or provide their name and address following a collision, cyclists should be mindful of their own and other road-users’ safety. They should not ride carelessly or dangerously and must comply with traffic lights, pedestrian crossings and no-entry signs. In this case, officers have established the circumstances of the incident from the pedestrian and have ruled out that the cyclist was cycling dangerously, therefore no offence has been recorded.”

In June, the M.E.N. reported on the case of May Stockley, 81, from Royton, Oldham, who had just returned from a shopping trip with daughter Susan, 57, when she was knocked to the pavement by a cyclist.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/cyclists-must-compulsory-insurance-says-7857649

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"In this case, officers have established the circumstances of the incident from the pedestrian and have ruled out that the cyclist was cycling dangerously, therefore no offence has been recorded.

The cyclist should have stopped - no doubt about that.

However it appears this woman walked out into the road in front of it. Maybe she could try looking next time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All pedestrians, and cyclists must have road/pavement tax paid annually, be insured and pass a test each year to renew their licence.

The economy is SAVED.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"In this case, officers have established the circumstances of the incident from the pedestrian and have ruled out that the cyclist was cycling dangerously, therefore no offence has been recorded.

The cyclist should have stopped - no doubt about that.

However it appears this woman walked out into the road in front of it. Maybe she could try looking next time.

there is a remedy...claim for damages through negligence...whats that you say, the cyclist wasnt negligent??...oh dear, there would be no insurance claim either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This kind of thing is pretty rare for the simple reason that the cyclist is usually also completely f***ed if they hit a pedestrian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see why it would be attractive to impose on the Lycra clad brigade.. but the idea of police fining 5 year olds on their push bikes for doing laps of the local park whilst uninsured is never going to be a vote winner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is a remedy...claim for damages through negligence...whats that you say, the cyclist wasnt negligent??...oh dear, there would be no insurance claim either.

If the pedestrian was at fault - then I imagine the cyclist could be the one claiming for damages - even though they came out of it better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you've just run someone over in your car I'm not sure it's possible to sue them for denting your bumper.

There is an asymmetry between the power (and cost) of a car and someone walking around simply with flesh on their limbs.

Indeed, you could argue that pedestrians are never at fault. It is not their fault if others are wandering around in these weapons of mass destruction.

the operative words here are "ive you've just run someone over"

If you are negligent in that running over, and the person has suffered damage, and it was 100% your fault, the insurance will assign 100% blame to you and pay out according to insurance.

If you were stationary in your car, and the person negligently walked into your car damaging the bumper, you would be able to sue for the repairs from the other party.

However, unlike cars, people dont need to carry 3rd party insurance for damages.

Negligence is key.

I found this out in my recent accident where I was the blameless victim. If the case had continued in the vein of the initial defence of no negligence due to automatism on the part of the driver who took me out, then there would be no payout, my own insurance would have been ticked into fault on my part ( someone has to pay), and the ruling out of any prosecution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the pedestrian was at fault - then I imagine the cyclist could be the one claiming for damages - even though they came out of it better.

Many years ago, a good friend (who was then a student) ploughed into a woman who was crossing the road and jumped backwards into his path.

No serious damage to anyone, and the woman was inclined to be duly apologetic. But another woman took up cudgels and started haranguing my friend, and cyclists in general, and insisting she should take him to court.

Then a policeman who had witnessed the incident quietly suggested that if anyone should be suing for damages it was the cyclist. But since noone was hurt, it made more sense for everyone just to get on with their business and forget about it. Which they did.

However, in this case:

A guy of 12-stone with a helmet came off a pavement and into my wife.

Came off a pavement? Well that would imply he'd been on the pavement and at a speed to injure someone. Illegal and dangerous if true, and there should indeed be more prosecutions of both cyclists and motorists on pavements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ALL road users including pedestrians should have compulsory insurance. Even better ban them all. Then there would be no accidents.

But they do have insurance, the NHS, thats who fixed her up free of charge. What else did they want insuring exactly? some kind of retribution/payout from the not-at-fault cyclist.

Saying that I bet the real problem here was bad hearing and not having a hearing aid, something the NHS are pretty useless for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying that I bet the real problem here was bad hearing and not having a hearing aid, something the NHS are pretty useless for.

Hmmm?

A hearing aid seems to be one of the few things the NHS are good for. My elderly relative recently got one he could never have afforded for a mere prescription charge, which is of course nil for today's pensioners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many years ago, a good friend (who was then a student) ploughed into a woman who was crossing the road and jumped backwards into his path.

No serious damage to anyone, and the woman was inclined to be duly apologetic. But another woman took up cudgels and started haranguing my friend, and cyclists in general, and insisting she should take him to court.

Then a policeman who had witnessed the incident quietly suggested that if anyone should be suing for damages it was the cyclist. But since noone was hurt, it made more sense for everyone just to get on with their business and forget about it. Which they did.

However, in this case:

Came off a pavement? Well that would imply he'd been on the pavement and at a speed to injure someone. Illegal and dangerous if true, and there should indeed be more prosecutions of both cyclists and motorists on pavements.

well, that was what the husband said.

He is really complaining about the immoral conduct of the cyclist...he should have given help...maybe he should have, but it s clear other people were helping the poor lady.

I think the cyclists behaviour was despicable.

but it may be that he felt equally agreived by the lady knocking him off his bike.

CCTV may provide some clues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This kind of thing is pretty rare for the simple reason that the cyclist is usually also completely f***ed if they hit a pedestrian.

There's a silver lining to every cloud.

However, it's iniquitous that a cyclist can cause a road accident then claim against the driver's insurance when the driver isn't in the wrong.

I narrowly missed one recently when indicating right to turn into a car park. A cyclist overtook me (!) cursing as he went. Definitely breaking the speed limit on this downhill section of the road. He either didn't notice my right turn signal, or was going too fast. Only my lifesaver glance in my offside mirror saved him from being hit. I've stopped shaking now.

There used to be a system in Holland where cyclists had to have annual renewable insurance and to display a flash on their front fork to indicate they were insured. I don't know if this is still the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the pedestrian was at fault - then I imagine the cyclist could be the one claiming for damages - even though they came out of it better.

Hard for the pedestrian to be at fault. They have right of way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But they do have insurance, the NHS, thats who fixed her up free of charge. What else did they want insuring exactly? some kind of retribution/payout from the not-at-fault cyclist.

Saying that I bet the real problem here was bad hearing and not having a hearing aid, something the NHS are pretty useless for.

The NHS isn't free when treating RTC's. The insurers pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard for the pedestrian to be at fault. They have right of way.

que?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you've just run someone over in your car I'm not sure it's possible to sue them for denting your bumper.

There is an asymmetry between the power (and cost) of a car and someone walking around simply with flesh on their limbs.

Indeed, you could argue that pedestrians are never at fault. It is not their fault if others are wandering around in these weapons of mass destruction.

Saddam is alive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most claims will, of course, be against other road users...ie. the cyclist gets knocked down.

Not to say that the cyclist isn't partly to blame...assumptions that cars will giveway on roundabouts or turning across your path.

I have to ask is there a peripheral vision problem that you don't get in a car or on foot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got to find more ways of controlling and charging people. If there's even a suggestion that someone might not o feel like they can only doing something with permission and oversight then that needs fixing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard for the pedestrian to be at fault. They have right of way.

Right of way doesn't extend to expecting everyone to get out of your way no matter what, even when it's physically impossible to do so because you've just stepped in front of them.

And what the rules say and who is actually at fault aren't always going to align anyway. Rules (should try to) reflect these things, not define them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure the powers that be are eyeing cycling with interest, trying to work out how they can make money from it.

At the moment in modern Britain, it's pretty damned amazing that you can buy a such a vehicle for less than £100, run it for pennies a month with no need to pay for fuel, parking, insurance, MOT, vehicle excise duty etc; you can get anywhere within five miles or so very easily, and it's also good for your health.

I believe the only reason they allow all this is because they're hoping it will clear the roads a bit for more car users (ie, them) and ease the burden on the NHS through greater health.

I can easily imagine, however, that if 'critical mass' is reached (ie, when more road users are cyclists than motorists) there will be a clampdown, with compulsory insurance, registration, helmets and lots of other nice money making things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've noticed that a small minority of pedestrians tend to step out in front of cyclists.
(I deal with this by assuming that 100% of them are like that and just slowing down, less hassle all round).

I have a theory that they they are subconsciously expecting a moving vehicle to make noise and that they react to the noise. Since a bicycle is silent they step out.

I wonder what will happen when electric cars become more common with much quieter engine noise. Will there be an epidemic of accidents and MPs called for 'noise-makers' to be added to cars to alert pedestrians to their presence ? I expect so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a case for third party insurance for cyclists, but of course they can be personally sued for damages. Given the current unconstrained personal injury culture around car insurance, you wonder how easily fraud could take place given the ease with which a cycle collision could be fabricated, and with little or no evidence and means of investigating it. It could be a straightforward open door to fraud.

Maybe the cyclist was travelling at an inappropriate speed for the conditions, it certainly happens in towns. Bikes can be near perfectly quiet, and of course are not designed to mitigate collision damage- they are all bony bits and sticking out parts. At the same time it is useful to bear in mind that people often just don't look and it can be near impossible to anticipate or avoid everything, especially when the BossyBabe's of this world are using their cars to intimidate you by hanging off your wheel. It would be equally ludicrous to suggest that when a person is run over by a car, that in every instance it is the car's fault.

Brother ran into a pedestrian once, buckled front wheel, sore all over. Pedestrian walked off a pavement straight in front of him with nowhere to go, walked off uninjured. I think he was justified in feeling aggrieved about it. [edit not because of the lack of injury to the pedestrian(!), but because he was given short shrift by someone he felt was completely in the wrong, whilst being hurt]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   211 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.