I was horrified by the recent case of a jay-walking pedestrian who was hit by a cyclist. the cyclist has ended up with a bill of £100k!!
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/cyclist-who-hit-yoga-teacher-who-stepped-into-the-road-while-staring-at-her-phone-faces-bankruptcy-a4172661.html (https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/cyclist-who-hit-yoga-teacher-who-stepped-into-the-road-while-staring-at-her-phone-faces-bankruptcy-a4172661.html)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7166305/Cyclist-Robert-Hazeldean-left-bankrupt-yoga-teacher-Gemma-Brushett-knocked-London.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7166305/Cyclist-Robert-Hazeldean-left-bankrupt-yoga-teacher-Gemma-Brushett-knocked-London.html)
Has anyone any suggestions for cycle insurance ??
NickR
Decades past I had insurance via the Cyclists' Touring Club, which has since been rebranded as Cycling UK (https://www.cyclinguk.org/).
Yep I have insurance too, my bike is worth more than my car!
I am a wee bit concerned by this as well as since Mini Skyline arrived I am a cyclist to work (ok it's an e-bike but it's 16 miles a day and all weathers).
I have already witnessed one kid get knocked (not hit, was less than walking pace) on a shared cycle / pedestrian path because he wasn't paying attention on his phone.
I am fortunate in that over 90% of my commute is cycle path BUT it's shared with Ped's. After this (baffling?!) ruling I am doubling my caution, if in doubt stop and let the fool (on the phone, listening to music, chatting or general dythering) work our what they are doing.
With shared use paths I accept pedestrians have the right of way (more than one hard core Lycra clad gent overtaking at Mach 3 should remember that), but on a ROAD?!
Skyline2uk
Personally I think the judgement was ridiculous,
However my brother was ridden into by a bicycle while walking on a pedestrian only pavement and the front mud guard cut into the back of his leg, requiring an ambulance, many stitches, and an overnight stay in hospital.
I believe all bicycles should be insured
A lot will have third party insurance through their house insurance. Whilst I've not looked at every provider I've not seen one that doesn't offer it.
British Cycling or Cycling UK are the obvious candidates for more comprehensive cover. BC membership starts from £15 and get you 10% off at Halfords (only on cycling stuff now annoyingly) and Evans Cycles, among others.
I had cause to claim on mine 15 years ago and it was excellent.
Worrying indeed.
I'm with Bikmo and British Cycling.
I was previously uninsured but learned the hard way after having both of my bikes stolen from my home (along with everything else).
Quote from: Railwaygun on June 21, 2019, 04:34:28 PM
I was horrified by the recent case of a jay-walking pedestrian who was hit by a cyclist. the cyclist has ended up with a bill of £100k!!
...
Quote from: Skyline2uk on June 21, 2019, 08:23:55 PM
..
With shared use paths I accept pedestrians have the right of way (more than one hard core Lycra clad gent overtaking at Mach 3 should remember that), but on a ROAD?!
...
Quote from: The Q on June 22, 2019, 08:05:41 AM
Personally I think the judgement was ridiculous,
...
I'd encourage all who think the judgement against Robert Hazeldean to be a travesty, to donate to this GoFundMe appeal (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=659.msg574592#msg574592).
A travesty indeed. :veryangry:
And from the Independents web page:
QuoteBut [the judge] said Mr Hazeldean would have been entitled to damages as well if he had chosen to sue Ms Brushnett, who was "equally to blame for the accident".
Mr Hazeldean said he now "can only regret" not instructing lawyers sooner, "delayed as I was by my lack of legal knowledge and concern about the costs".
He had not wanted to counter-sue Ms Brushnett because he disliked "claim culture," he added.
Levi Solicitors, which has since taken up Mr Hazeldean's case, said the claimant "took advantage" of his reluctance to claim compensation in what the company described as "a total abuse of process".
Emma Farrell, head of the firm's personal injury team, added: "If Mr Hazeldean had been insured, the claimant's legal costs would have been limited to a mere £6,690. If he had come to us sooner, we would have advised him to enter a counterclaim given that he has been left with permanent scarring, both physically and mentally. He would then have had protection under the law against a large costs order."
So for us cyclists, the message is clear - get insured, get wise, and sue!
It's a mad, mad world we cycle in.
As. I Understand it, 3d party insurance only covers injuries/ damage to 3rd parties..the problem is the cyclist's legal bills - look for separate cover for legal costs ( of £100k or so!!)
Few policies offer this so watch out!
Quote from: Railwaygun on June 22, 2019, 03:18:06 PM
As. I Understand it, 3d party insurance only covers injuries/ damage to 3rd parties..the problem is the cyclist's legal bills - look for separate cover for legal costs ( of £100k or so!!)
Few policies offer this so watch out!
Yes, you'll only have cover for damage/injuries through your home insurance, but you can stop most stuff going to court by just paying! There's no excess after all!
Some British Cycling memberships include legal cover, maybe only Gold?
Makes you wonder if investment in a front mounted wide angle go-pro camera would be wise, more and more businesses and individuals use them these days, from the trains we ride or work in, the shops you visit to the driver who installed them to catch the kids keying his car.
I haven't read all the notes that go with the case, but I can only assume he was approaching a crossing that had been red and had turned to green. the key thing seems to be about the pedestrian being "established" on the road, but I've not seen a definition of this. On the face of it it seems a dangerous precedent.
It's much easier to see fault if the cyclist effectively rode through a bunch of people who were a bit slow crossing a pelican crossing that had reverted to green than if she just stepped off the pavement in front of him.
I don't know how accurate the newspaper articles are, but they suggest that people were on the crossing but about to step onto the pavement and that he sounded his horn to warn others not to step off, but she was concentrating on her phone, looked up, panicked and stepped back into his path.
Yes, but the judgement also says he "knew his path wasn't clear", which implies the opposite.
Surely if he had time to sound his horn and shout at people, he should have be slowing right down to stop if needed?
Don't get me wrong, the woman was clearly an idiot. A clash of idiots by the sounds of it.
I drive a HGV and have driven many times around London, and pedestrians crossing in hordes even when the lights are green is a constant nightmare. If I were to just sound my horn a shout at people but still plough through, well I wouldn't be looking at a big court cost, I would be going to jail for a long time!
I have a policy with Assetsure who have been pretty good for me. I had a total loss from a Park and Ride cycle locker a few years ago, which they dealt with straight away. Legal protection is an add on to the policy, but only something like £10.
I don't have third party insurance. I have to say that any vehicle user has a duty of care to not hit pedestrians no matter how stupid or ignorant those pedestrians may be. If you have this duty of care in your mind all the time (and you should) you don't need insurance.
Personally I think that's a bit naive. Presumably you don't bother with fully comp car insurance either? Because if you're careful you won't need it. Ditto house insurance etc.
Quote from: M4tt on July 02, 2019, 07:28:05 PM
Surely if he had time to sound his horn and shout at people, he should have be slowing right down to stop if needed?
There various articles are not clear, but I got the impression that the light was green for him, the pedestrians that were still on the crossing (including her) were just about to step off and he sounded his horn to warn others not to step out, but that she panicked and turned back into his path.
That's got to be the most likely, I agree. Hence the reference to being "established on the road", if a judgement was made that a pedestrian who has literally stepped out in front of him has right of way that's a very dubious judgement.