The Day When That Round Car Hit Me Citroen C3

I don't own a car but if a brakeless cyclist ran in to me jumping a light i would expect them to pay for the damag.

If anyone runs into you jumping a light they should pay – brakeless or not.

If anyone runs into you jumping a light they should pay – brakeless or not.

true. or if they were on a horse or a steam chariot

Back luck about the frame Stylist, looks like quite an impact, hope you didn't get too mashed up.

Running a red light whilst on a bike with no brakes is never going to be that safe.

i have 3rd party cover through LCC membership.
I don't own a car but if a brakeless cyclist ran in to me jumping a light i would expect them to pay for the damage or at least pay with a kick in the nuts or something similar.

You'd accept them kicking you in the nuts as payment? Takes all sorts, I guess...

I have third party cover via BCF membership (or racing licence, not sure which), which applies even if it is your fault. Useful because imagine squeezing between a bentley and a bus and scratching the door - it'd cost thousands to repair.

me too.

it's in the silver (and gold) memberships. (racing license is separate) so it only costs £30 odd a year

and I clonked the back of a motor in traffic once with my brake lever and made a scratch/dent, (essentially my fault but he slammed the anchors on for no reason when I was looking behind to pull into the lane) I stayed upright but the driver just drove off, his loss.

I think it's most motorists first instinct to run from trouble.

Bad luck dude and hopefully your not in too much pain. I do think that most of the art of red light jumping is knowing when not to do it. Harsh way to learn that lesson though.

This brings up whether all cyclists should be required to have some sort of insurance? If we want to be acknowledged as legitimate road users wouldn't this be a responsible step?

I've just shed a tear at the demise of such a beautiful frame... :(

wa wa waaaaa. unlucky, but that's the risk!

This brings up whether all cyclists should be required to have some sort of insurance? If we want to be acknowledged as legitimate road users wouldn't this be a responsible step?

No way.

I ride a bike to be free from all that crap.

3rd party is probably a good idea, but I don't see why it should be compulsory.

After all, peds don't need it, yet could be responsible for causing damage to cars or bikes (in theory). Probably the same for horse riders.

This brings up whether all cyclists should be required to have some sort of insurance? If we want to be acknowledged as legitimate road users wouldn't this be a responsible step?

No way.

I ride a bike to be free from all that crap.

You will find that in fact a lot of cyclists have insurance, e.g. through LCC, CTC, or BC membership, but also because a lot of people take out insurance because they want to be insured ... It's a driver myth that a lot of cyclists are not insured. In fact, in London it is known that many drivers are uninsured.

As cyclists cause very few collisions (95% or so (I think--I'd have to look up the exact figure--are caused by users of motor vehicles), providing third party insurance to members of cycling organisations is quite affordable and prevents creation of an onerous responsibility on cyclists to take out their own insurance individually. It would make for a real disincentive to cycling if that were the case.

Given the many other membership benefits you get with membership of a cycling organisation, it is certainly worth becoming a member. Being an LCC member, I'm of course biased towards recommending that London cyclists become LCC members, but the CTC and BC are also excellent organisations to be members of, also several of them--I'm a member of both LCC and CTC, for instance. The more cyclists become members, the better these organisations can work for the common good.

Scoober, what about medical & vets bills?

I have 3rd party through CTC but wouldn't like to force anyone to be insured before riding a bike.
Once you start insuring against everything... we all get bit more scared a bit more poor.

3rd party is probably a good idea, but I don't see why it should be compulsory.

After all, peds don't need it, yet could be responsible for causing damage to cars or bikes (in theory). Probably the same for horse riders.

So should we considered in the same vain as Peds?

Not wanting to sound harsh but Stylist just caused an accident which not only damaged someones car but may have also scared the shit out of an innocent driver. I know if I hit someone regardless of the circumstances I would be pretty shook up.

If you are going to ride on the road you need to accept some level of responsibility. For the majority of cyclists RLJ is pointless and dangerous. Couriers are in a rush, they need to save time cause it costs them money but doing it on your 5 mile commute is mostly not needed.

It also makes it a lot harder for you to claim from them.

Uninsured does not equate to not being liable for damage. It just means that the individual would have to pay out of their own pocket more directly.

What if that person couldn't afford to pay?

So should we considered in the same vain as Peds?

Not wanting to sound harsh but Stylist just caused an accident which not only damaged someones car but may have also scared the shit out of an innocent driver. I know if I hit someone regardless of the circumstances I would be pretty shook up.

If you are going to ride on the road you need to accept some level of responsibility. For the majority of cyclists RLJ is pointless and dangerous. Couriers are in a rush, they need to save time cause it costs them money but doing it on your 5 mile commute is mostly not needed.

Yeah but no but yeah but no but ....
Roads aren't some holy lands that only the deserving get to use. Roads are for everybody in this country to get about on.
Cars and lorries need tax and insurance cos they fuck the roads up very badly, cause loads of pollution, and kill and maim tens of thousands each year.
An insurance-for-all policy would be like a runaway train, soon resulting in pedestrians needing 3rd party.
And then how many over-protective parents are going to let their kids out uninsured? All over the country people cycle just to get to the corner shop or to the films etc. including kids and teenagers - an insurance system (like a compulsory h****t law), could arguably put an end to a past-time which, although it doesn't seem like it, is fairly fundamental to growing up in this country.

So should we considered in the same vain as Peds?

In the eyes of the law the pedestrian has more rights than anyone cycling or driving. In an accident the assumption is the driver is in the wrong until evidence showing otherwise is seen.

I think this is right. People matter, not cars.

I have 3rd party through CTC but wouldn't like to force anyone to be insured before riding a bike.
Once you start insuring against everything... we all get bit more scared a bit more poor.

Scared? A lot this people have spent great deal of money on new bikes/parts surely paying a small amount for insurance would not be too much of a struggle.

Perhaps insurance could be bundled in with the cost of any new bike?

How many people ride 'new' bikes each year?

The kid in my post was part of a club ride only he hadn't manage to get through the lights. Some of them had and some hadn't and neither had I. They were all passing on the right and I had allowed them room to do so.
He stopped and fell onto the car. I got out mainly to see if he was OK and then moved the car around the corner so as to not block the junction. Some of the other riders were trying to imply that I was in the wrong and should be paying to fix the kids bike, I offered him a lift home or to the hospital for a check up, but was pretty much told to go jump. I hadn't noticed the damage to the car until after they had all buggered off. Police were called but could offer no help as I hadn't taken any details. Should have found out what club they were in really.

As to the insurance issue I think it should be up to the individual, I will probably get some just in case.
There is a debate about this in kayaking at the moment aswell.

One to take on the chin i guess. You were unlucky, and did the right thing. Hope the kid learned something about riding his bike.

a lot of people don't spent a great deal of money on bikes/parts surely paying x amount for insurance wouldn't happen.

Fixed.

;-)

You will find that in fact a lot of cyclists have insurance, e.g. through LCC, CTC, or BC membership, but also because a lot of people take out insurance because they want to be insured ... It's a driver myth that a lot of cyclists are not insured. In fact, in London it is known that many drivers are uninsured.

As cyclists cause very few collisions (95% or so (I think--I'd have to look up the exact figure--are caused by users of motor vehicles), providing third party insurance to members of cycling organisations is quite affordable and prevents creation of an onerous responsibility on cyclists to take out their own insurance individually. It would make for a real disincentive to cycling if that were the case.

Given the many other membership benefits you get with membership of a cycling organisation, it is certainly worth becoming a member. Being an LCC member, I'm of course biased towards recommending that London cyclists become LCC members, but the CTC and BC are also excellent organisations to be members of, also several of them--I'm a member of both LCC and CTC, for instance. The more cyclists become members, the better these organisations can work for the common good.

+1.

i am a member of all three. in my opinion they are excellent organisations.

relatively inexpensive to join. and insurance included. great value i think.

are there any non-campaging groups that offer insurance, with other benefits, like legal advice?

basicly i want something with all the frills of lcc or ctc membership, with out the campagining, which i'm not really into.