|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Toe clip or not toe clip -- was 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 |
Ads |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Who is liable for the damage?
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 |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Who is liable for the damage?
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 |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Who is liable for the damage?
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 |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Who is liable for the damage?
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 |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Who is liable for the damage?
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. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Who is liable for the damage?
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. |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Who is liable for the damage?
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 |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Who is liable for the damage?
NM wrote:
Are we going to have her hung from a lampstandard next? Brilliant idea. Pour encourager les autres. |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Who is liable for the damage?
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
8 year bike rider accident with truck- who's liable? | [email protected] | General | 74 | December 8th 06 03:48 AM |
Helment Damage. | Evan Byrne | Unicycling | 48 | April 21st 05 04:49 PM |
Tire damage | Roger Zoul | General | 0 | May 4th 04 10:27 PM |
What's this liable to cost? | Doki | UK | 5 | March 12th 04 08:09 PM |
Cycle Event Director criminally liable for Competitor's death | Snoopy | Racing | 78 | September 10th 03 02:55 AM |