Bod considered Thu, 28 Aug 2014 14:16:07 +0100 the perfect time to write:
Yes.
If I had a dog it would also be covered by the same household contents policy as covers any liability I may incur when cycling.
The reasons are different though. In the case of the (hypothetical, in my case) dog, the risk is offset by the benefit of security - burglars don't like houses with dogs, as they make a noise. In the case of the cycling, it's that the risk is so low that it's simply not worth separating from that of any other personal liability.
Of course, they don't cover liability when operating a motor vehicle, as the risks are vastly higher, which would make the cost of their policies uncompetitive.
Though, strangely enough, not next (or near) to each other. Most odd.
You _will_ find the word `vehicle' on there. Many times---and usually in conjunction with `tax'. Yet you have conveniently omitted to mention that. Also the acronym `MoT', even though this has been a bit of a legal fiction for some decades now.
If there is a dropped kerb then the adjacent bit is shared, but the driver has to giveway. If there is no dropped kerb the driver isn't allowed there at all, even if he has a drive.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.