OT Cyclists and imperial measurements?

[Andy Burns]

There was a phrase in the programme that started this thread

MAMIL = middle aged men in lycra

[dennis]

Are you paying a pedestrian tax?

[Tim Streater]

+1

Because I've yet to see Dobbin charging down the road going through a red light - and in Cambridge, barging into a pedestrian on a crossing in the process.

[soup]

Nor do you.

[dennis]

They do around here, usually pulling a two man trap.

[Huge]

Or, as I saw at Bank Junction in the City (a favourite place for watching cyclist scofflaws) returning to assault a pedestrian who had just remonstrated with a cyclist who ran the pedestrian phase of the lights.

[Clive George]

I've got two, and I suspect you've got one.

[Clive George]

Read your household contents policy. Do it properly, unlike TMH.

[Clive George]

Which company? Got the policy docs available online? I've not yet met one which doesn't.

[Tim Streater]

You are nodding off. I've already pointed out that me reading my policy is not the issue. Even if I were to do so, and found such a clause, I'd be on the phone the next minute to get that cover removed to reduce my premium. I want a cyclist who believes he *has* such cover, to *verify* the fact. And quote the relevant god-damn clauses here.

[Tim Streater]

I'm not interested in your suspicions about my contents cover. Quote your own here.

[Clive George]

It is, because I'm fairly sure the cover is there in your policy, you just haven't seen it.

3rd party insurance for cyclists costs bugger all - the administration to remove it and make your policy non-standard would cost more than the cover.

I have, and I've done it before. I've never seen a contents policy without it.

26, section 2. Black and white.

"We will pay all amounts you, or any member of your family, become legally liable for as a result of living in your home, or for any other reason, as a result of a) accidental death of or bodily injury to any person; or b) accidental loss of or damage to property; caused during the period of insurance shown in the schedule."

"any other reason" means it includes riding a bike. There are exceptions

- driving motorised vehicles is one, which is why you need separate car insurance for this cover. Riding a bike is not in the exceptions.

Now where's your policy? Are you brave enough to post a reference to it online even if it proves you were wrong?

And yes, I have successfully claimed on a similar policy. The insurance works.

[Tim Streater]

Glory be - a result. Not that it's specifically about bikes, it's wider than that and potentially quite useful - thank you.

Wrong about what? The statement had been made that "home contents cover does it" or words to that effect. I was asking for verification - see above - which you have provided.

Mine is at:

and similar verbiage to yours may be seen on P22.

Course you have to be a home-owner.

[Clive George]

Thank you. I'm guessing you won't be calling in to cancel it :-)

Or a tenant - it's on the contents policy, not the buildings.

[whisky-dave]

Is that a racist comment or a sexual preference ;-)

[Tim Streater]

No because it is far broader 9and therefore more useful to me) than just events occurring while riding a bike.

Good point.

[fred]

True story.

Friend was moving away on a green light when a cyclist cutting the lights i= n the cross stream ran slap bang into him. There was a squad car coming the= other who saw the whole thing. He also got the name and address of the mot= orist behind him as a witness.

Reported it to his insurance company with full details of old Bill and the = witness.

Job done, he thought.

Several months later he checked with his insurance company what had transpi= red and was horrified to find them on the point of paying out =A318,000 for= a claim made by the cyclist.

He employed a solicitor to point out to them the error of their ways and pu= t a stop to the whole farrago.

You have to remember the insurance companies couldn't give a flying **** as= they are spending YOUR money, not theirs.

Wasn't there a law passed recently that declared that in any accident betwe= en a motor vehicle and a cyclist it was always to be taken it was the motor= ists fault.

I cycle regularly, usually on small country roads, and find that the majori= ty of motorists are courteous and accomodating but there is always the odd = bastard who would think nothing of squeezing you into the ditch.

[polygonum]

If you are going to inform of this, please let us have a link of some sort.

[Alan Braggins]

Of course it is. You wouldn't expect a home contents policy to have cover just specifically for cycling, would you?

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

It was in Holland, iirc. Of course, the more unthinking lycras were braying for it to happen in the UK, too.