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

They should have had insurance

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Neil Down said:

I doubt you will see a bigger travesty of justice

yes,  if the hottie yoga tart was on the bike  and ugly beardy weirdy was the pedestrian the cyclist would have won no question.

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WTF said:
11 hours ago, Neil Down said:

I doubt you will see a bigger travesty of justice

yes,  if the hottie yoga tart was on the bike  and ugly beardy weirdy was the pedestrian the cyclist would have won no question.

Biting my lip tight. I mean real tight.( as in driving or riding at a speed or a distance you can see to be clear and stop in )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, dilligaf said:

Biting my lip tight. I mean real tight.( as in driving or riding at a speed or a distance you can see to be clear and stop in )

Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just seen a report on Sky News online (sorry, can't link)..a cyclist who hit a woman pedestrian who stepped in front of said cyclist has been hit for £100k damages..says he can't pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Non-Believer said:

Just seen a report on Sky News online (sorry, can't link)..a cyclist who hit a woman pedestrian who stepped in front of said cyclist has been hit for £100k damages..says he can't pay.

Dear lord... keep up at the back

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Just seen a report on Sky News online (sorry, can't link)..a cyclist who hit a woman pedestrian who stepped in front of said cyclist has been hit for £100k damages..says he can't pay."

Perhaps he should have done what any responsible road user should do and spend a few pounds on liability insurance . People in all walks of life insure against risks  to third parties . Just because you are a cyclist doesn't mean you are never responsible for your own actions .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, emesde said:

"Just seen a report on Sky News online (sorry, can't link)..a cyclist who hit a woman pedestrian who stepped in front of said cyclist has been hit for £100k damages..says he can't pay."

Perhaps he should have done what any responsible road user should do and spend a few pounds on liability insurance . People in all walks of life insure against risks  to third parties . Just because you are a cyclist doesn't mean you are never responsible for your own actions .

seems he is being held responsible for her actions though.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5k damages. The rest on legal costs. 

Share this post


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

"Just because you are a cyclist doesn't mean you are never responsible for your own actions .

I think that’s what most cyclists in this thread are pretty much suggesting. They aren’t responsible for anything so why should they be made to insure themselves? After all they never cause accidents, never injure people, and are responsible for anything really because they’re cyclists who should be able to just do what they want! 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, WTF said:

seems he is being held responsible for her actions though.

Surely the general logic under the Highway Code is that it’s there to protect pedestrians so they are top of the food chain when it comes to accidents. So anyone who collides with a pedestrian is by default pretty much responsible for that act. 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thesultanofsheight said:

I think that’s what most cyclists in this thread are pretty much suggesting. They aren’t responsible for anything so why should they be made to insure themselves? 

You so want that to be true. Gives you an excuse to hate some a group of people. And score some likes.

The point of not taking (voluntary) insurance out is, if I do something wrong, I'll personally pay for it. If something happens that isn't my fault, the other party will. Whether it's through court or their insurers is not my issue.

Not everyone has house contents insurance. Or house insurance for that matter. Pet insurance is optional. Critical illness cover. etc. These are all choices. 

3rd party auto insurance is a legal requirement because of massively increased chance of causing death - which very few people could personally cover. 

 

Your opening salvo mentions "gay lycra gear and ludicrously expensive bikes". Says so much about you....

The irony is, the majority of the racing crowd (i.e. gay lycra wearers) have insurance through their race licences. 100% have insurance during an actual race.

But even where they do, why claim off their own insurance when it was someone else's fault?

If someone else were to write-off your Lamborghini while you were sitting in it wearing a rainbow t-shirt, you're telling me you'd say "Don't worry mate, I don't need your insurance details, serves me right for wearing a 'gay' shirt and having such a ridiculously expensive car; I'll claim off my own. Bye!"

Bullshit. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, WTF said:

seems he is being held responsible for her actions though.

No really - he's being held responsible for his own.  Ultimately pedestrians have right of way[1] and those directing vehicles have to take into account that they might do something unexpected and stupid.  The judge[2] allocated blame 50-50[3], not to the cyclist alone and it's only because he didn't counter-sue the pedestrian that he might end up responsible for all her costs[4] and that the (pretty small) damages awarded wouldn't have been offset by those awarded to him against her.

Of course, with all the fuss from people saying that this means cyclists should have insurance, rather ignores the fact that you could make exactly the same arguments from it for pedestrians, and people should be arrested for walking from your front door to your car without the required paperwork.

 

[1]  This is a a really old legal principle - I think dating back to UK common law and pre-motorised transport.

[2]  Who incidentally was a woman, rather casting doubt that the belief that  if the hottie yoga tart was on the bike  and ugly beardy weirdy was the pedestrian the cyclist would have won no question.  Indeed the judge was extremely sceptical about the complaints from the pedestrian that her life had been ruined by a tiny scar on her lip from the accident.  Admittedly if there had been fewer photographs involving this lady in a leotard that were available to take for free from the internet, some of the newspapers might have been less interested.

[3]  Which is basically judge-speak for "Why the F*** are you bothering me with this?".  As with many legal cases that the press get excited about as being terribly important (there's a lot of claims that it sets some sort of legal precedent when it does nothing of the sort), this should never have got to Court.

[4]  Despite all the fuss in the media, costs haven't been awarded yet (the system gives time to let the two sides sort something out privately) and it's possible that the judge might find the pedestrians costs inflated or that she should be responsible for some of them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

No really - he's being held responsible for his own.  Ultimately pedestrians have right of way[1] and those directing vehicles have to take into account that they might do something unexpected and stupid.  The judge[2] allocated blame 50-50[3], not to the cyclist alone and it's only because he didn't counter-sue the pedestrian that he might end up responsible for all her costs[4] and that the (pretty small) damages awarded wouldn't have been offset by those awarded to him against her.

Of course, with all the fuss from people saying that this means cyclists should have insurance, rather ignores the fact that you could make exactly the same arguments from it for pedestrians, and people should be arrested for walking from your front door to your car without the required paperwork.

 

[1]  This is a a really old legal principle - I think dating back to UK common law and pre-motorised transport.

[2]  Who incidentally was a woman, rather casting doubt that the belief that  if the hottie yoga tart was on the bike  and ugly beardy weirdy was the pedestrian the cyclist would have won no question.  Indeed the judge was extremely sceptical about the complaints from the pedestrian that her life had been ruined by a tiny scar on her lip from the accident.  Admittedly if there had been fewer photographs involving this lady in a leotard that were available to take for free from the internet, some of the newspapers might have been less interested.

[3]  Which is basically judge-speak for "Why the F*** are you bothering me with this?".  As with many legal cases that the press get excited about as being terribly important (there's a lot of claims that it sets some sort of legal precedent when it does nothing of the sort), this should never have got to Court.

[4]  Despite all the fuss in the media, costs haven't been awarded yet (the system gives time to let the two sides sort something out privately) and it's possible that the judge might find the pedestrians costs inflated or that she should be responsible for some of them.

So that it fits in nicely with the anti cyclist brigade. Let’s ignore the fact that the stupid bint was more concerned with her phone than her surroundings 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

So that it fits in nicely with the anti cyclist brigade. Let’s ignore the fact that the stupid bint was more concerned with her phone than her surroundings 

I really cannot see anything in what Roger M says that is anti cyclist . 

Like most people here there is concern for the cyclist that a minor accident (collision) could lead to his suffering a loss of tens of thousands of pounds  due to legal costs.

However he did have a choice as to whether he should have insurance or not and I presume chose not to, for whatever personal reasons. 

Had he made a different choice for a few pounds a year he would not be in this unenviable position now, 

Its no good shouting now that all cyclists are victims . 

This was never an anti cycle thread but a pro insurance thread . 

 

  • Thanks 1

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...