Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
thesultanofsheight

They should have had insurance

Recommended Posts

I recall a cyclist damaging one of our company vehicles quite badly when it was parked. The rider was an 11yr old boy who was hurt but not badly. The police reckoned that we could claim off his parents household liability insurance, fat chance indeed, his parents were uncooperative and his insurance company even more so. Our insurance excess was £600 at the time so it was a marginal claim on our own insurance, they were not prepared to follow up on this on our behalf.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Max Power said:

I recall a cyclist damaging one of our company vehicles quite badly when it was parked. The rider was an 11yr old boy who was hurt but not badly. The police reckoned that we could claim off his parents household liability insurance, fat chance indeed, his parents were uncooperative and his insurance company even more so. Our insurance excess was £600 at the time so it was a marginal claim on our own insurance, they were not prepared to follow up on this on our behalf.  

Unfortunately, you get to meet unreasonable people a lot of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MrPB said:

It perhaps should be mandatory third party though for cyclists. 

It should also be mandatory for you to engage your brain before blurting out more rubbish...

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Neil Down said:

It should also be mandatory for you to engage your brain before blurting out more rubbish...

You seem to be even running out of trolling ideas and just resorting to insults. Makes you look silly really if all you can do in reply to posts is just insult people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CaN wE iNsUrE pEdEsTrIaNs ToO. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MrPB said:

You seem to be even running out of trolling ideas and just resorting to insults. Makes you look silly really if all you can do in reply to posts is just insult people. 

Well I must be as thick as people say MrPB is, because I can’t see why everyone who uses the public roads should not have to be insured.

That includes all vehicles, pushbikes, horses and anyone else legally using the roads. It does not matter what age they are, or how often they use said roads.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

That's just ridiculous though. Insurance is personal choice, unless you happen to be driving a large, mechanically propelled vehicle that is highly capable of causing someone serious injury. even then tbh, in my opinion governments should insure the risk. Making something compulsory and then letting private companies (insurance firms) make profit from it is not on, IMO. 3rd party (compulsory) insurance should be covered in your road tax (;)) and if you want to insure further (fully comp) then you can go private. If we all had to insure our toddlers for potential damage caused to others when using their tricycles whilst crossing douglas prom the world would be just that bit sadder and more pathetic. The less compulsory insurance the better. Who ever claims on the damn thing anyway? Most people pay it religiously for 50+ years and never claim. If that money was just put into a government fund for paying out to people who were injured then insurance companies wouldn't be raking off their profit and staff salaries so we could pay less.

Edited by Butterflies
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Barrie Stevens said:

I doubt you will see a bigger travesty of justice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Barrie Stevens said:

If you actually read that all, it's clear that his real problem wasn't the lack of insurance, but the fact he didn't launch a counter-claim against the pedestrian. The rather arcane rules of English Courts meant that he may then be liable for all costs.  The main advantage of being insured would have been that the insurance company would have known to put in a counter-claim and everything would probably have been settled pretty quickly.  Her actual damages were pretty small (£4000) and he would have been able to claim similar, so the case would have been seen as a no-go.

That's not to say that cycle insurance wouldn't be a good idea for someone like him, a regular rider with possibly an expensive bike.  But his real problem was the lack of legal advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

If you actually read that all, it's clear that his real problem wasn't the lack of insurance, but the fact he didn't launch a counter-claim against the pedestrian. The rather arcane rules of English Courts meant that he may then be liable for all costs.  The main advantage of being insured would have been that the insurance company would have known to put in a counter-claim and everything would probably have been settled pretty quickly.  Her actual damages were pretty small (£4000) and he would have been able to claim similar, so the case would have been seen as a no-go.

That's not to say that cycle insurance wouldn't be a good idea for someone like him, a regular rider with possibly an expensive bike.  But his real problem was the lack of legal advice.

I know I read it.. Still relevant to this thread....The injured person would have sued the insurance not the cyclist like with motor insurance...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/19/2019 at 8:07 PM, dilligaf said:

Well I must be as thick as people say MrPB is, because I can’t see why everyone who uses the public roads should not have to be insured.

That includes all vehicles, pushbikes, horses and anyone else legally using the roads. It does not matter what age they are, or how often they use said roads.

That includes all vehicles, pushbikes, horses and anything else legally using the roads. It does not matter what age they are, or how often they use said roads.

Does that include Dogs , Cats, Rabbits, Birds, Wallabies, Cows, Sheep, and Hens ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My dog is insured, his pet insurance for illness covers him  for accidents although always on lead, it is inclusive, makes sense.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LightBulb said:

That includes all vehicles, pushbikes, horses and anything else legally using the roads. It does not matter what age they are, or how often they use said roads.

Does that include Dogs , Cats, Rabbits, Birds, Wallabies, Cows, Sheep, and Hens ?

Your filament has gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I rode in and out along peel rd today and had three near misses, two of which were cycle lane related i.e car / ped crossing because the cars had stopped and not looking for bikes. The other was just shit driving.

I did also see some prick on a mountain bike running a red light. Which wasnt me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...