Criminals on TV

On 20 Aug, 18:49, JNugent
wrote:

That claim is frequently made by the Lycra-men. Some of the less
extreme among them only claim that a majority of them are insured, but
others insist that the overwhelming majority of them are (the CTC,
OTOH, say that millions are uninsured).


Do you have a link for this CTC statement?

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 04:11:44 -0700, Paul George wrote:

On 20 Aug, 18:49, JNugent wrote:

That claim is frequently made by the Lycra-men. Some of the less
extreme among them only claim that a majority of them are insured, but
others insist that the overwhelming majority of them are (the CTC,
OTOH, say that millions are uninsured).



Do you have a link for this CTC statement?

Probably this one ;-)
http://www.cents-to-care.org/

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

Tony Raven wrote:
®i©ardo wrote:


So, in that there is no specific exclusion under standard "household"
insurance policies, are you suggesting that the illegal action of a
cyclist, resulting in the death or injury of a third party, will still
be covered under the public liability aspect of the policy?


Depends. If he went out with a gun and shot the third party then I
doubt it but if he was cycling within the bounds of normal cycling then
yes.

Are you suggesting that if you were slightly above the speed limit your
motor policy would not cover you?


No, I'm thinking more of cycling through the local shopping precinct at
high speed and hitting a pedestrian whilst screaming "get out of the
f*cking way".

--
Moving things in still pictures!

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:41:59 +0000, ®i©ardo wrote:

Tony Raven wrote:
®i©ardo wrote:


So, in that there is no specific exclusion under standard "household"
insurance policies, are you suggesting that the illegal action of a
cyclist, resulting in the death or injury of a third party, will still
be covered under the public liability aspect of the policy?


Depends. If he went out with a gun and shot the third party then I
doubt it but if he was cycling within the bounds of normal cycling then
yes.

Are you suggesting that if you were slightly above the speed limit your
motor policy would not cover you?


No, I'm thinking more of cycling through the local shopping precinct at
high speed and hitting a pedestrian whilst screaming "get out of the
f*cking way".

Well since you seem to think that is within the bounds of normal
cycling.... ;-)

However pedestrians are very rarely at real risk from cyclists. This is
the sort of thing that is the real risk:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6956249.stm (today)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/6953989.stm (two days ago)

That happens only about once every four years from cyclists.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

On 14 Aug, 08:02, "Brimstone" wrote:
Martin Dann wrote:
The other Troll, there is one you
know...http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/03.htmwrote:

-8- snip -8-

And rule 62, if you are serious about this rule, then you
must live on the plant Zog.

So tell us your procedure for negotiating a large roundabout.

Get into the correct lane early, use signals and looks over both
shoulders. Approach the roundabout in a lane suitable for my exit,
signalling as appropriate. Try to ignore shouted abuse from car
drivers and use of the horn. Be prepared to take avoiding action when
a car driver attempts dangerous overtaking or undertaking.

Give way to traffic on the roundabout, but be aware that car drivers
behind or beside me may do no such thing. Be aware that car drivers
will pass either side and may clip me as they fail to look. Try to
ignore shouted abuse from car drivers and use of the horn.

Take an appropriate lane around the roundabout. Watch out for car
drivers trying to overtake immediately before turning off, undertaking
before swerving in front or straight-lining the roundabout at
dangerous speed. Again, try to ignore or smile at the shouted abuse
and use of the horn.

Look over my left shoulder and signal left as I pass the last exit
before the one I wish to take and move to the left lane. Be prepared
to take avoiding action when drivers try to undertake. Watch out for
drivers overtaking before using the same exit as me or leaving me no
room as they try to apex the exit corner at speed. Try to ignore
shouted abuse and use of the horn.

I think that mostly covers it.

Adam...

Paul George wrote:

JNugent wrote:

That claim is frequently made by the Lycra-men. Some of the less
extreme among them only claim that a majority of them are insured, but
others insist that the overwhelming majority of them are (the CTC,
OTOH, say that millions are uninsured).

Do you have a link for this CTC statement?

It was quoted (and copiously commented upon) just a few weeks ago in
one of these NGs (prolly the one you're posting from).

Some people said the CTC didn't know what they were talking about (of
course, what the CTC was saying rather undermined the "arguments" that
those people were trying to put).

Tony Raven wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:41:59 +0000, ®i©ardo wrote:


Tony Raven wrote:

®i©ardo wrote:


So, in that there is no specific exclusion under standard "household"
insurance policies, are you suggesting that the illegal action of a
cyclist, resulting in the death or injury of a third party, will still
be covered under the public liability aspect of the policy?



Depends. If he went out with a gun and shot the third party then I
doubt it but if he was cycling within the bounds of normal cycling then
yes.

Are you suggesting that if you were slightly above the speed limit your
motor policy would not cover you?



No, I'm thinking more of cycling through the local shopping precinct at
high speed and hitting a pedestrian whilst screaming "get out of the
f*cking way".


Well since you seem to think that is within the bounds of normal
cycling.... ;-)

However pedestrians are very rarely at real risk from cyclists. This is
the sort of thing that is the real risk:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6956249.stm (today)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/6953989.stm (two days ago)

That happens only about once every four years from cyclists.

Is that the reason why most cyclists, contrary to what you have
claimed (but in line with what the CTC have revealed) are not insured
against the risks they pose to third parties?

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 16:41:25 +0100, JNugent wrote:


Do you have a link for this CTC statement?

It was quoted (and copiously commented upon) just a few weeks ago in one
of these NGs (prolly the one you're posting from).

Some people said the CTC didn't know what they were talking about (of
course, what the CTC was saying rather undermined the "arguments" that
those people were trying to put).

I think you are referring to a thread in uk.transport and http://
snipurl.com/1oqqn which says that only 2% of the 5 million cyclists have
"adequate insurance", "adequate" being defined as a CTC [1] cycle policy
including third party liability cover AND legal aid.

That is very different to saying that 4.9 million cyclists are uninsured
for third party liability.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[1] also includes the same policy from British Cycling, the London
Cycling Campaign and the British Triathlon Association.

On 21 Aug, 16:41, JNugent
wrote:

It was quoted (and copiously commented upon) just a few weeks ago in
one of these NGs (prolly the one you're posting from).


I have found it now.
What the CTC actually said was that only a minority have a specific
cycle liability policy (i.e. the equivalent of 3rd party motor
insurance).
They are not saying that home insurance does not provide cover.
I don't think that would surprise anyone since such cover usually
only comes with membership of a cycling organisation.

On 18 Aug, 14:56, Matt B wrote:
Paul George wrote:
On 18 Aug, 10:40, Matt B wrote:

If we also take account of exposure, say pedestrians hit per mileage
travelled by each mode we get a better idea of their relative safeties.

No we don't because cars do the majority of their miles on roads
where there are few or no pedestrians. Bikes are mainly used in
urban environments.

From Transport Statistics GB 2005, we can find that for 2003 (to match
the latest Hansard numbers) the number Billion passenger kilometres
travelled by bike and car were 5 and 677.

Passenger miles is an even worse metric. Risk per passemger mile
tells us that, for a given mile of road, a car with the driver only
poses
5 times as much risk to a pedestrian as one with driver + 4
passengers. Clearly nonsense.

Accepted, I used the wrong table. Let's use the pure "vehicle
kilometres" instead:

Bikes: 4.5 billion
Cars and taxis: 393.1 billion

-8- snip -8-

That doesn't seem entirely sensible.

Presumably motorway miles should be excluded from that? After all, no
bikes there and even the most brain-dead motorist would be hard-
pressed to kill or injure a pedestrian on the pavement there? That's
72.6billion in 2004.

Presumably the same applies to rural A-roads, at least in respect of
the lack of pavements? That counts for 112.3 billion for cars and 0.13
billion for bikes in 2004.

Finally, surely rural minor roads should also be discounted for the
same pavement-free reason? That counts for 52.2 billion for cars and
0.79 billion for bikes in 2004.

Now, unfortunately, I can't find the 2004 edition, so I can't get
those breakdowns for 2003, the last year that the Hansard figures
covered. I also can't find that particular stat (pedestrian deaths as
a function of cars versus bikes). However, I assume that it will not
seriously skew the figures to multiply by a 2003/2004 total mileage
factor for each means of transport.

That leaves:
Bikes: 4.5 - ((0.79 + 0.13) * (4.5 / 3.9)) = 3.4
Cars & Taxis: 393.1 - ((72.6 + 112.3 + 52.2) * (393.1 / 398.1)) =
159.0

So, that leaves a ratio of 0.96: cars are 1.04 times more likely to
injure a pedestrian per pavemented-road-mile travelled.

Adam...