On 03/04/2019 17:51, TMS320 wrote:

On 03/04/2019 16:18, JNugent wrote:
On 02/04/2019 15:28, TMS320 wrote:
On 02/04/2019 12:29, JNugent wrote:
On 02/04/2019 09:47, TMS320 wrote:
On 02/04/2019 01:35, JNugent wrote:
On 01/04/2019 21:02, TMS320 wrote:
On 01/04/2019 18:00, MrCheerful wrote:

There is something very wrong with the mental state of these
dangerous cyclists. Bring on the number plates and insurance for
cyclists.

https://metro.co.uk/2019/04/01/can-h...ement-9079827/

"pushed him into the pavement" reads as though the pensioner was
wandering about in the road.

As far as I know, my cycle insurance would only pay out if I
crash my bicycle into someone or some thing and it is my fault. I
doubt it covers me if I have a mental breakdown.

Motor insurance would cover a driver or motorcyclist in such
circumstances (the law demands that).

My policy only mentions cars, it does not mention body parts.

A common misapprehension. The vehicle is not the thing that is
insured. Although we routinely speak in terms of a vehicle being
insured, it is actually the driver and/or the owner who is insured,
this being clear within the insurer's wording of pilicies,
certificates, etc.

That much is known. You're not explaining how it works outside the car.

What do you mean by "outside the car"?

What it says. Once you get out of your car you cease to be a driver and
become a pedestrian. Your car insurer is no longer interested in your
personal behaviour and you would have to go to your house insurer.

So what?

How does that come into it? How and why is it an issue?

And I have to assume that you are using "car" as a synonym for "motor
vehicle".

"What is covered -
We will cover you for your legal liability to other people arising
from an accident which involves *your car* and..." etc.

Emphasis is theirs.

Yes... but so what?

The issue - raised by you, one might add - was whether cycle insurance
covers a cyclist for his legal liabilities to other people arising
from incidents which involve him and his bike. You suggested that it
might not. We know, on the other hand, that no such arises with
compulsory motor insurance.

Oh dear. Then you haven't read (or, more likely, haven't understood) the
article. It describes a crash and the rider returning to assault the
OAP. There is no suggestion the bicycle was used in the assault, ie, the
cyclist had turned into a pedestrian.

No-one can insure themselves against criminal sanctions. Who envisaged
or suggested that it is possible?