Cyclist nuts BMW and causes £6000 of damage

Mike Collins wrote:

On Tuesday, 31 March 2020 22:44:09 UTC+1, Kelly wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 8:22:31 PM UTC+1, Kelly wrote:

I see, so it's going to cost the driver even though their no claims
discount remains intact. Not good news then.

Whenever a driver gets their car damaged by an uninsured motorist, they can get compensation via the MIB. Uninsured drivers add about A?30 to the cost of my car insurance due to a fee payable to the MIB.

https://www.mib.org.uk/making-a-clai...nsured-driver/

That has got to be a good scheme. The web site says the contribution
taken from your car insurance premium also covers you for 'untraced'
or hit and run circumstances. Very reassuring, but it's not just rogue
cyclists but also rogue drivers that you have to pay extra for
protection against.

If a home owner decides not to buy insurance and an uninsured arsonist sets fire to it should other more responsible home owners have to foot the bill?

An uninsured arsonist? You mean other more responsible home owners
would arrange to have their homes burnt down by an arsonist who was
insured?

Only kidding! I know what you're getting at but I don't think that's a
particularly good analogy.

I still think that MIB has got to be a good scheme and if it were
optional rather than mandatory, I would opt in. Even though the cover
does not extend to vehicle damage repair. Personal injury treatment
can cost a fortune - especially now with the NHS as stretched as it
is. It is a pity, though, that responsible road users have to insure
themselves against those that aren't. This urc newsgroup is proving
quite informative. I didn't know MIB existed, let alone how it worked.

On Thu, 02 Apr 2020 15:12:34 GMT, (Kelly) wrote:

[]
themselves against those that aren't. This urc newsgroup is proving
quite informative. I didn't know MIB existed, let alone how it worked.


I'm sure the Men In Black exist; I've seen at least 2 movies.



--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.

On 01:22 1 Apr 2020, Mike Collins said:

On Wednesday, 1 April 2020 01:00:33 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

TRIMMED TO CONTEXT


The Motor Insurers' Bureau is not about repairing damaged vehicles. it
is about paying (some sort of) compensation to people who have been
bodily injured. And that's all it should be about.

I am a CTC member and, like the vast majority of adult cyclists, have
3rd party liability insurance as part of my home insurance. There are
far more uninsured motorists than cyclists.

What's the basis for your claim "there are far more uninsured motorists
than cyclists"?

I would be intrigued to see the data.

On 01/04/2020 01:52, Mike Collins wrote:
On Wednesday, 1 April 2020 01:23:53 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 01/04/2020 01:22, Mike Collins wrote:

I am a CTC member and, like the vast majority of adult cyclists,
have 3rd party liability insurance as part of my home insurance.
There are far more uninsured motorists than cyclists.

So you say, completely without any supporting evidence.

But yet... so what?

Are you claiming there are more uninsured cyclists than motorists? If
so where is your evidence.

I think you trapped yourself with the phrase "There are far more
uninsured motorists than cyclists".

Did you mean to say "There are far more uninsured motorists than
uninsured cyclists"?

Of course, in ukrc, whatever the numbers, it wont make any difference to
the "cyclists are evil" brigade.