BillyHunt:
I have never heard of cycle insurance and I cant imagine anyone paying for it unless they have a ridiculously priced bicycle. I am planning on buying the cheapest mountain bike I can get my hands on but I wont be insuring it. The cycle lanes round here are on the pavement anyway but that is beside the point
[/quote]
Thereby becoming part of the problem & not the solution.
[/quote]
you can waffle on as much as you like. it will not make you right
Rikki-UK:
To me it doesn’t matter which party suggested the idea, if it is getting an airing, or if its civil or criminal- the basic tenant remains the same we in this country hold a presumption of innocence unless proved otherwise, it is always up to the " prosecution " to prove an offence has taken place, not the defendant to prove they have done nothing wrong.
There is no “prosecution” in a civil case, nor is there any proof that an offence has taken place. Neither is there any requirement for either party to prove that the other did anything wrong. Apart form that - right on!
Have a read of this, as you will see it’s not all it’s cracked up to be, and won’t prevent any incidents happening whatsoever. I just find it odd that in a country where drivers will slow down, give time & room to horses, cats, dogs, ducks and just about any other animal, that they won’t give the same to another human being.
Summary of the claim
“The Netherlands and Denmark have a law of ‘strict liability’ to protect vulnerable road users from more powerful road users. Under this law, in crashes involving vulnerable road users, unless it can be clearly proven that the vulnerable road user was at fault, the more powerful road user is found liable by default. This makes Dutch and Danish drivers more cautious around cyclists and pedestrians and is responsible for their safe roads.”
The weak version of this claim goes on to state that strict liability is a necessary component of the Dutch model and of growing cycling rates. The strong version of the claim states that strict liability alone is sufficient to create civilised streets and grow cycling rates.
Example sources
Strict liability laws are widely supported by British cyclists and cycling campaigns, though the strength of the claims that are made for them varies. Through Chinese whispers, exaggerations and misunderstandings, there are several different ideas in circulation for what strict liability actually is.
“Strict liability: why it’s a life-saver” (link is external), at the I Pay Road Tax campaign, is typical of the strong claims made for the power of strict liability, and this Brighton newspaper article (link is external) typical of the coverage of those claims. The CTC’s claims about strict liability (link is external) are more muted. This blog post (link is external) includes a typical example of the misunderstandings and incorrect definitions of strict liability that are common, and the claims that are associated with those definitions.
Summary of responses
In this country, “strict liability” is often portrayed as a very strong legal tool. In fact, it is very weak. It does not refer to criminal liability, only to civil liability — i.e., primarily to matters of insurance in the event of injury. It is often mistakenly believed that “strict liability” would be relevant in the cases of cyclist deaths in which the motorists involved have received no or lenient punishment. In fact, the personal consequences of strict liability for the motorist are minimal to none.1
Motorists are already liable in crashes where they can be shown to be at fault; if this is not a deterrent to dangerous driving, it is unlikely that strict liability will be.
Most Dutch people are simply not aware of the “strict liability” issue for exactly this reason. It is something that is taken care of by insurance companies behind-the-scenes. It is certainly not a factor in their driving style.3
The UK already has “strict liability” for one specific type of crash: two-car rear-end shunts, in which the driver of the rear car is presumed liable unless there is clear evidence of fault from the driver of the front car. This law does not mean that rear-end shunts no longer occur, or that drivers are more cautious because of it.2
Many of the British campaigners who are rightly outraged at the lax investigation and punishment of dangerous driving in this country are therefore campaigning for the wrong solution, mistakenly believing that when they ask for “strict liability” they are asking for changes to the criminal law or to its application.4
Strict liability only came into force in The Netherlands in 1992, years after the majority of the current cycle infrastructure was put into place and after the resurgence in cycling had already been firmly established.5
The Netherlands and Denmark are not the only jurisdictions to have strict liability. Many European countries have the same law, but do not have the same safe cycling conditions or high cycling rates that are said to result. Even Ontario, Canada, has a law equivalent to strict liability; it has had no obvious effect on the high road danger or low cycling rates in the province.6
Proposals for strict liability in this country have received rabid responses from the right-wing tabloids.7 The fight for strict liability is likely to be a hard one and one that generates bad press for those who fight for it. None of that is worth it for such an insignificant technical change to the law. Campaigners should either aim higher, for more far reaching legal and law enforcement changes that are really worth the fight and the fightback, or should spend their time and effort on campaigns that are likely to have a greater effect on cyclist’s safety and cycling rates.
scanny77:
BillyHunt:
I have never heard of cycle insurance and I cant imagine anyone paying for it unless they have a ridiculously priced bicycle. I am planning on buying the cheapest mountain bike I can get my hands on but I wont be insuring it. The cycle lanes round here are on the pavement anyway but that is beside the point
Thereby becoming part of the problem & not the solution.
[/quote]
you can waffle on as much as you like. it will not make you right
[/quote]
I can also suggest this for you, I care about your safety, even if you don’t. You’re welcome 
Why choose Cycleguard?
As a specialist Cycle insurance provider, we allow you to tailor your policy to suit your own individual needs. It doesn’t matter if you ride on road, track or for leisure we know how much your bike means to you. And we understand how you would feel if something happened to it.
Table of benefits
Theft and accidental damage cover up to £12,500 (higher upon referral)
Replacement on a new for old basis for bikes up to 3 years old
Bicycle Hire
UK, EU or Worldwide cover
Competitive Racing - Optional
In-Vehicle Cover
Roadcare – Public Liability and Personal Accident - Optional
Rescue – Road side recovery - Optional
Modified Bikes can be covered on an Agreed Value basis (available through the call centre only)
Family cover available