Bicycle, crash hat and accident

Bod considered Tue, 26 Aug 2014 20:32:50 +0100 the perfect time to write:

Don't you have household contents insurance? If so, that will cover you (but you do need to be aware of that to make a claim).

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.

Yes I do have household insurance and it does cover bicycles.

Then cycling must pose very little risk. The insurance industry would not provide this cover for `zero money' otherwise. Not for long, anyway...

How do you know it is not the same 25 percent of homes which do not have any cycles or do any cycling?

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.

Assuming you had one, and assuming that you know what it is/was (not a safe assumption, I accept), what is your point?

Then they should have or at least discrete mirrors each side of the driveway.

What, 50% of people in the UK install a mirror, how impractical and utterly over the top.

Totally practical and a helpful aid. Either that or lower the obstacle.

Funny how virtually nobody does that. Why should the driver, on his own property, give way to a pedestrian?

Not in my post.

Care to venture an answer to the question?

Or is it to be left as a rhetorical observation?

The pedestrian isn't on the motorist's propery. He's on the public highway (the part reserved for pedestrians).

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.