6 foot tall scumbag cyclist hospitalises OAP

On 04/04/2019 01:13, Simon Jester wrote:

On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 1:01:43 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

No-one can insure themselves against criminal sanctions. Who envisaged
or suggested that it is possible?

If a drunk driver crashes into my car it's insurance will not pay out? Is that what you are saying or would you like to move the goalposts?

Do you actually understand the term "criminal sanctions"?

Either you don't or are pretending not to.

Being civilly liable for loss, injury or damage is not a criminal sanction.

As to civil liability, would it be different if a drunk cyclist ran into
you on a footway and broke your spine (and happened to be insured
against third-party risks)? If it would be different, what is the
purpose of cycling insurance against third-party risks?

On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 1:20:58 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 04/04/2019 01:13, Simon Jester wrote:

On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 1:01:43 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

No-one can insure themselves against criminal sanctions. Who envisaged
or suggested that it is possible?

If a drunk driver crashes into my car it's insurance will not pay out? Is that what you are saying or would you like to move the goalposts?

Do you actually understand the term "criminal sanctions"?

Either you don't or are pretending not to.

Being civilly liable for loss, injury or damage is not a criminal sanction.

As to civil liability, would it be different if a drunk cyclist ran into
you on a footway and broke your spine (and happened to be insured
against third-party risks)? If it would be different, what is the
purpose of cycling insurance against third-party risks?

So you have chosen the goalpost moving option.
No surprise there.

On 04/04/2019 01:25, Simon Jester wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 1:20:58 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 04/04/2019 01:13, Simon Jester wrote:

On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 1:01:43 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

No-one can insure themselves against criminal sanctions. Who envisaged
or suggested that it is possible?

If a drunk driver crashes into my car it's insurance will not pay out? Is that what you are saying or would you like to move the goalposts?

Do you actually understand the term "criminal sanctions"?

Either you don't or are pretending not to.

Being civilly liable for loss, injury or damage is not a criminal sanction.

As to civil liability, would it be different if a drunk cyclist ran into
you on a footway and broke your spine (and happened to be insured
against third-party risks)? If it would be different, what is the
purpose of cycling insurance against third-party risks?

So you have chosen the goalpost moving option.
No surprise there.

No goalposts moved.You just didn't understand what was being said and
can't admit it. No surprise there.

On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 1:30:39 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 04/04/2019 01:25, Simon Jester wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 1:20:58 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 04/04/2019 01:13, Simon Jester wrote:

On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 1:01:43 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

No-one can insure themselves against criminal sanctions. Who envisaged
or suggested that it is possible?

If a drunk driver crashes into my car it's insurance will not pay out? Is that what you are saying or would you like to move the goalposts?

Do you actually understand the term "criminal sanctions"?

Either you don't or are pretending not to.

Being civilly liable for loss, injury or damage is not a criminal sanction.

As to civil liability, would it be different if a drunk cyclist ran into
you on a footway and broke your spine (and happened to be insured
against third-party risks)? If it would be different, what is the
purpose of cycling insurance against third-party risks?

So you have chosen the goalpost moving option.
No surprise there.

No goalposts moved.You just didn't understand what was being said and
can't admit it. No surprise there.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery for which I thank you.

On 04/04/2019 01:34, Simon Jester wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 1:30:39 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 04/04/2019 01:25, Simon Jester wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 1:20:58 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 04/04/2019 01:13, Simon Jester wrote:

On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 1:01:43 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

No-one can insure themselves against criminal sanctions. Who envisaged
or suggested that it is possible?

If a drunk driver crashes into my car it's insurance will not pay out? Is that what you are saying or would you like to move the goalposts?

Do you actually understand the term "criminal sanctions"?

Either you don't or are pretending not to.

Being civilly liable for loss, injury or damage is not a criminal sanction.

As to civil liability, would it be different if a drunk cyclist ran into
you on a footway and broke your spine (and happened to be insured
against third-party risks)? If it would be different, what is the
purpose of cycling insurance against third-party risks?

So you have chosen the goalpost moving option.
No surprise there.

No goalposts moved.You just didn't understand what was being said and
can't admit it. No surprise there.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery for which I thank you.

Have you worked out or looked up the differences between civil liability
and criminal sanctions yet?

On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 1:49:12 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

Have you worked out or looked up the differences between civil liability
and criminal sanctions yet?

Thank you for proving my point.

On 04/04/2019 01:01, JNugent wrote:
On 03/04/2019 17:51, TMS320 wrote:

On 03/04/2019 16:18, JNugent wrote:
On 02/04/2019 15:28, TMS320 wrote:
On 02/04/2019 12:29, JNugent wrote:
On 02/04/2019 09:47, TMS320 wrote:
On 02/04/2019 01:35, JNugent wrote:
On 01/04/2019 21:02, TMS320 wrote:
On 01/04/2019 18:00, MrCheerful wrote:

There is something very wrong with the mental state of these
dangerous cyclists. Bring on the number plates and insurance
for cyclists.

https://metro.co.uk/2019/04/01/can-h...ement-9079827/


"pushed him into the pavement" reads as though the pensioner was
wandering about in the road.

As far as I know, my cycle insurance would only pay out if I
crash my bicycle into someone or some thing and it is my fault.
I doubt it covers me if I have a mental breakdown.

Motor insurance would cover a driver or motorcyclist in such
circumstances (the law demands that).

My policy only mentions cars, it does not mention body parts.

A common misapprehension. The vehicle is not the thing that is
insured. Although we routinely speak in terms of a vehicle being
insured, it is actually the driver and/or the owner who is insured,
this being clear within the insurer's wording of pilicies,
certificates, etc.

That much is known. You're not explaining how it works outside the car.

What do you mean by "outside the car"?

What it says. Once you get out of your car you cease to be a driver
and become a pedestrian. Your car insurer is no longer interested in
your personal behaviour and you would have to go to your house insurer.

So what?

How does that come into it? How and why is it an issue?

And I have to assume that you are using "car" as a synonym for "motor
vehicle".

"What is covered -
We will cover you for your legal liability to other people arising
from an accident which involves *your car* and..." etc.

Emphasis is theirs.

Yes... but so what?

The issue - raised by you, one might add - was whether cycle
insurance covers a cyclist for his legal liabilities to other people
arising from incidents which involve him and his bike. You suggested
that it might not. We know, on the other hand, that no such arises
with compulsory motor insurance.

Oh dear. Then you haven't read (or, more likely, haven't understood)
the article. It describes a crash and the rider returning to assault
the OAP. There is no suggestion the bicycle was used in the assault,
ie, the cyclist had turned into a pedestrian.

No-one can insure themselves against criminal sanctions. Who envisaged
or suggested that it is possible?

Ah, the messsage has finally sunk in but you don't want to admit it.

On 04/04/2019 09:09, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/04/2019 01:01, JNugent wrote:
On 03/04/2019 17:51, TMS320 wrote:

On 03/04/2019 16:18, JNugent wrote:
On 02/04/2019 15:28, TMS320 wrote:
On 02/04/2019 12:29, JNugent wrote:
On 02/04/2019 09:47, TMS320 wrote:
On 02/04/2019 01:35, JNugent wrote:
On 01/04/2019 21:02, TMS320 wrote:
On 01/04/2019 18:00, MrCheerful wrote:

There is something very wrong with the mental state of these
dangerous cyclists. Bring on the number plates and insurance
for cyclists.

https://metro.co.uk/2019/04/01/can-h...ement-9079827/



"pushed him into the pavement" reads as though the pensioner
was wandering about in the road.

As far as I know, my cycle insurance would only pay out if I
crash my bicycle into someone or some thing and it is my fault.
I doubt it covers me if I have a mental breakdown.

Motor insurance would cover a driver or motorcyclist in such
circumstances (the law demands that).

My policy only mentions cars, it does not mention body parts.

A common misapprehension. The vehicle is not the thing that is
insured. Although we routinely speak in terms of a vehicle being
insured, it is actually the driver and/or the owner who is
insured, this being clear within the insurer's wording of
pilicies, certificates, etc.

That much is known. You're not explaining how it works outside the
car.

What do you mean by "outside the car"?

What it says. Once you get out of your car you cease to be a driver
and become a pedestrian. Your car insurer is no longer interested in
your personal behaviour and you would have to go to your house insurer.

So what?

How does that come into it? How and why is it an issue?

And I have to assume that you are using "car" as a synonym for
"motor vehicle".

"What is covered -
We will cover you for your legal liability to other people arising
from an accident which involves *your car* and..." etc.

Emphasis is theirs.

Yes... but so what?

The issue - raised by you, one might add - was whether cycle
insurance covers a cyclist for his legal liabilities to other people
arising from incidents which involve him and his bike. You suggested
that it might not. We know, on the other hand, that no such arises
with compulsory motor insurance.

Oh dear. Then you haven't read (or, more likely, haven't understood)
the article. It describes a crash and the rider returning to assault
the OAP. There is no suggestion the bicycle was used in the assault,
ie, the cyclist had turned into a pedestrian.

No-one can insure themselves against criminal sanctions. Who envisaged
or suggested that it is possible?

Ah, the messsage has finally sunk in but you don't want to admit it.

Not for the first time, you have confused yourself into thinking that
two separate things are the same thing.

Nothing else would explain your diversion into what is or isn't insured
once an individual is no longer acting as a driver (or cyclist) and
trying to compare one sort of insurance with another.

Just for clarity's sake: civil liability (which is what is insured
against) is not the same thing as criminal liability or the sanctions
which might be applied because of it. You can't insure against the
imposition of judicial punishment for an offence and it would be an
offence, at least potentially, for a non-driver or non-cyclist to cause
damage or injury whilst "on foot". Why you ever raised that as an issue
("You're not explaining how it works outside the car") is a mystery.

On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 5:01:07 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 04/04/2019 09:09, TMS320 wrote:

Ah, the messsage has finally sunk in but you don't want to admit it.

Not for the first time, you have confused yourself into thinking that
two separate things are the same thing.


Have you met Shrodinger's cat?

On 04/04/2019 17:01, JNugent wrote:
On 04/04/2019 09:09, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/04/2019 01:01, JNugent wrote:
On 03/04/2019 17:51, TMS320 wrote:

On 03/04/2019 16:18, JNugent wrote:
On 02/04/2019 15:28, TMS320 wrote:
On 02/04/2019 12:29, JNugent wrote:
On 02/04/2019 09:47, TMS320 wrote:
On 02/04/2019 01:35, JNugent wrote:
On 01/04/2019 21:02, TMS320 wrote:
On 01/04/2019 18:00, MrCheerful wrote:

There is something very wrong with the mental state of these
dangerous cyclists. Bring on the number plates and insurance
for cyclists.

https://metro.co.uk/2019/04/01/can-h...ement-9079827/




"pushed him into the pavement" reads as though the pensioner
was wandering about in the road.

As far as I know, my cycle insurance would only pay out if I
crash my bicycle into someone or some thing and it is my
fault. I doubt it covers me if I have a mental breakdown.

Motor insurance would cover a driver or motorcyclist in such
circumstances (the law demands that).

My policy only mentions cars, it does not mention body parts.

A common misapprehension. The vehicle is not the thing that is
insured. Although we routinely speak in terms of a vehicle being
insured, it is actually the driver and/or the owner who is
insured, this being clear within the insurer's wording of
pilicies, certificates, etc.

That much is known. You're not explaining how it works outside the
car.

What do you mean by "outside the car"?

What it says. Once you get out of your car you cease to be a driver
and become a pedestrian. Your car insurer is no longer interested in
your personal behaviour and you would have to go to your house insurer.

So what?

How does that come into it? How and why is it an issue?

And I have to assume that you are using "car" as a synonym for
"motor vehicle".

"What is covered -
We will cover you for your legal liability to other people arising
from an accident which involves *your car* and..." etc.

Emphasis is theirs.

Yes... but so what?

The issue - raised by you, one might add - was whether cycle
insurance covers a cyclist for his legal liabilities to other
people arising from incidents which involve him and his bike. You
suggested that it might not. We know, on the other hand, that no
such arises with compulsory motor insurance.

Oh dear. Then you haven't read (or, more likely, haven't understood)
the article. It describes a crash and the rider returning to assault
the OAP. There is no suggestion the bicycle was used in the assault,
ie, the cyclist had turned into a pedestrian.

No-one can insure themselves against criminal sanctions. Who
envisaged or suggested that it is possible?

YOU DID!


Ah, the messsage has finally sunk in but you don't want to admit it.

Not for the first time, you have confused yourself into thinking that
two separate things are the same thing.

Nothing else would explain your diversion into what is or isn't insured
once an individual is no longer acting as a driver (or cyclist) and
trying to compare one sort of insurance with another.

Just for clarity's sake: civil liability (which is what is insured
against) is not the same thing as criminal liability or the sanctions
which might be applied because of it. You can't insure against the
imposition of judicial punishment for an offence and it would be an
offence, at least potentially, for a non-driver or non-cyclist to cause
damage or injury whilst "on foot". Why you ever raised that as an issue
("You're not explaining how it works outside the car") is a mystery.