Who is liable for the damage?

Mr. Benn wrote:
Peter Grange wrote in
:

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:16:15 +0000 (UTC), "Mr. Benn"
wrote:

Don't be absurd. You can as readily unclip from pedals as you can
lift a foot from a pedal. You don't know what you're talking about.
Rubbish.
Based on what? I have no problem unclipping from a pedal.

I certainly have had problems which is why I removed the clips from my
pedals. I have also replaced the pedals with steel ones with serrated
surfaces which I find allow my shoes to grip the pedals better.

I still think pedal clips are a safety hazard. They help you to trasfer
more energy to the bike but at the expense of safety. But I'm not the kind
of person into time trials so I'm not bothered about cycling fast.


I went for plastic toe clips - the bucket or basket type that are bigger
than the usual metal ones and don't really need a toe strap.
Got used to them very quickly and they are easy in and out.
They were a compromise as I knew that cleats and shoes are by far the
best way of ensuring the power is transferred efficiently to the pedals
but as my feet are a bit too wide for yer average cycle shoe I tried
something else where I could use ordinary footwear.
I reckon it's made life so much easier - it seems as I've gained a
couple of gears. When it's damp there's no slippage, going up hill is
easier, starting off at lights etc. is easier and the clips also mean I
can use different foot wear depending on the ride I'm doing (I'm not
wearing Converse to go the the allotment and I'm not wearing boots to go
for a spin round the lanes).

I'm also not in to going fast but they've made cycling so much easier
for me. I need to get some for the bike that tows the trailer, it'll be
like putting a Landie in to low ratio on the gearbox - loads of power
but at low revs. They certainly aren't dangerous, you don't get to hear
of cyclists getting killed all the time becuase of shoes with cleats.
You do see them fall over on very rare occasions but that seems to be
part of the learning process according to those who use them, they
survived and convinced me to at least try the plastic buckets (very
cheap at Halfords)

http://tinyurl.com/ykt7o9u


--
Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 02:06:43 +0000, Derek Geldard
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 00:46:50 +0100, Peter Grange
wrote:


In fact, very many cyclists already have insurance. I have third party
cover from my household insurance

Not all such household liability insurances provide 3rd party cover
for the riding of a bike, whereas provision of car insurance is
regulated.

and as a product of my membership of
the CTC. OK, it's not everyone, but not all motorists have insurance
either.

They are criminals.

There is a difference.
If an uninsured driver or an uninsured cyclist, or even an uninsured
dog-owner, damages you or your property the precise reason for that
non-insurance probably doesn't matter that much.

There may well be a case for saying responsible motorists and
responsible cyclists have insurance.


That would be deliberate obfuscation of the issue. What is to be
gained from this ?

If I run into you on my bike you might gain from it. Would you rather
it was me with insurance, or an irresponsible cyclist without?


Derek

NM wrote:

Fine. If you read back I was asking initially for comment on who was
to blame or not, she clearly maintains she isn't I have previously
stated the I consider blame was on both side, the idiots here have
massaged the facts out of all proportion until we now have a blind
bitch pulling out in front of a cyclist with the intention of
murdering him.

Are we going to have her hung from a lampstandard next?



Well, I'm one of the few that thinks it's 50/50.
No-one really got hurt, both were embarrassed.
Neither part considered the other one might not do what they
anticipated. Only 'I assume they'll do this' and not consider the other
party might take the other option.

I ended up on the bonnet of a car after getting caught by a gust of
crosswind. Was it my fault to not have anticipated the possibility of
wind or the driver's for not being another meter or so further out to my
right?
No-ones fault - we both laughed (as did several other people) and went
on our way happy that no-one was hurt.

Cyclists do it to cyclists, drivers do it to drivers, pedestrians walk
in to each other. Why the need for some to behave like some effing'
ambulance chaser firm?

String 'em both up. I'll find same roofing mastic, you get the duck-down
pillow.




--
Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle

On 25 Oct, 02:06, Derek Geldard wrote:
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 00:46:50 +0100, Peter Grange

wrote:

In fact, very many cyclists already have insurance. I have third party
cover from my household insurance

Not all such household liability insurances provide 3rd party cover
for the riding of a bike, whereas provision of car insurance is
regulated.

and as a product of my membership of
the CTC. *OK, it's not everyone, but not all motorists have insurance
either.

They are criminals.

There is a difference.

There may well be a case for saying responsible motorists and
responsible cyclists have insurance.

That would be deliberate obfuscation of the issue. What is to be
gained from this ?


If you make a mistake or misjudgement which causes injury or damage to
another, then your personal savings, investments, possessions are not
at risk. If you have nothing and are not worth suing, or are very
wealthy and won't notice the loss of a few (hundred) thousands, then
you don't need insurance. In between, it is wise move to have general
third party liability insurance, and especially if you are on the road
(or even more especially the pavement;-) as a cyclist.

The party suffering the damage or injury will get just recompense for
their loss/suffering.

Many people, including cyclists, will already have third party
liability cover either through household insurance, club or
professional body membership, etc. Particularly given the rise in all-
day tv advertising to chavs to contact and sue if someone stands on
your toes, it is a wise precaution which costs little or nothing.

Toom

Clive George wrote:
"Derek Geldard" wrote in message
...

Seriously, so cheap cycling clubs etc could provide it as standard as
part of the benefits of membership.

Seriously, it is that cheap, and it is provided. Check out CTC membership.


AOL LCC

--
Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle

Mike P wrote:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:32:23 +0100, Steve Firth proclaimed:

NM wrote:

You ignorant pig. why do you find it necessary to be so rude.
Indeed, how dare he be rude to some ****ing stupid bitch who doesn't
give a **** about the safety of other road users. A ****ing stupid bitch
who hopes that she can strong-arm her victim into paying for the damage
that was a consequence of her negligence. The cheek of the man to
declare that a ****ing stupid blind bitch needs to get her ****ing
stupid blind eyes tested before she gets behind the wheel of a car and
that she should ****ing well look where she's driving before she kills
someone next time.

I'm just glad that he didn't wish the aforesaid ****ing stupid blind
bitch a session in a pit full of broken glass before being dragged down
the road behind a posse of cyclists who have chosen the road most
covered in dog **** for the experience. Maybe if he'd also asked for the
closet racist supporter of the same ****ing stupid blind bitch to be
subject to the same treatment that would have been approaching rude. But
I doubt it.

BTW, how rude is trying to a kill a cyclist using a car as a weapon?


hands post of the week award to Mr Firth

Fantastic. ROFL.

Mike P

Seconded.

Bill wrote:
In message
, NM
writes


The problem was his feet were clamped to the bike with those stupid
toe grip racing thingys thus he couldn't put his feet on the floor,

So he was not in full control of his vehicle? If you can't put your
feet on the ground to steady your self quickly in an emergency it sounds
very suicidal to me.

he
ended up uninjured sitting across the bonnet of her car still wearing
the cycle with resultant damage to the car's panel and paintwork.

Why should he not pay for the damage? He argues it's her fault and of
course, as is normal, he has no insurance.

A very good example of why cyclists should all have a basic, 3rd party,
level of insurance. There would still be ill feelings after an accident
but at least no one would be seriously out of pocket.

1. This is not an appropriate example
2. Many (most?) cyclists are covered by their household
insurance
3. The cyclist was not at fault (at least as the incident
has been described) therefore there is no need for him to
pay for any repairs.
4. I would be lodging a claim against the motorist if only
to make it abundantly clear that she was negligent.

NM wrote:
On 24 Oct, 17:32, (Steve Firth) wrote:
NM wrote:
You ignorant pig. why do you find it necessary to be so rude.
Indeed, how dare he be rude to some ****ing stupid bitch who doesn't
give a **** about the safety of other road users. A ****ing stupid bitch
who hopes that she can strong-arm her victim into paying for the damage
that was a consequence of her negligence. The cheek of the man to
declare that a ****ing stupid blind bitch needs to get her ****ing
stupid blind eyes tested before she gets behind the wheel of a car and
that she should ****ing well look where she's driving before she kills
someone next time.

Amazing extrapolation, almost an art form.

I'm just glad that he didn't wish the aforesaid ****ing stupid blind
bitch a session in a pit full of broken glass before being dragged down
the road behind a posse of cyclists who have chosen the road most
covered in dog **** for the experience. Maybe if he'd also asked for the
closet racist supporter of the same ****ing stupid blind bitch to be
subject to the same treatment that would have been approaching rude. But
I doubt it.

Yet again you display the manners for which you are renowned, if I
wasn't so used to your bleatings I could take offence instead of
regarding it as manifestation of small man syndrome. Rant on idiot.

BTW, how rude is trying to a kill a cyclist using a car as a weapon?

Relevence?


NM, you don't really find yourself amongst friends here,do you

NM wrote:


Are we going to have her hung from a lampstandard next?

Brilliant idea. Pour encourager les autres.

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 00:09:50 -0700, NM wrote:

My friend, in Catford strangely enough almost at the end of Doug's road,
whilst driving her small shopping trolly car went to enter a side road,
She was entering from the main road by turning right, after allowed the
crossing pedestrians right of way she then pulled forward to enter the
street, at the last moment she spotted a cyclist, who had right of way
being on the main road but going in her opinion far too fast for the
amount of traffic and the general congestion of the area.

She stopped immediatly and as her forward speed was insignificant at this
moment there was still sufficient room for the cyclist to pass along the
main road in front of her however the cyclist made the assumption she was
going to continue across his path so anchored up and lost control, he came
to a stop just as he collided with the car.

The problem was his feet were clamped to the bike with those stupid toe
grip racing thingys thus he couldn't put his feet on the floor, he ended
up uninjured sitting across the bonnet of her car still wearing the cycle
with resultant damage to the car's panel and paintwork.

Why should he not pay for the damage? He argues it's her fault and of
course, as is normal, he has no insurance.

The woman was at fault. She should compensate the cyclist.