Yes, but that goes without saying anyway. The point is that there are accidents which can not be prevented or foreseen and they can happen to anyone at any time including those caused by cyclists. That's what insurance is for, so why don't they have to have it?
B
Big Tone
Ok! I dont know you big tree!
But if that's a good question, then WHY NOT PEDESTRIANS TOO?
(re: my earlier point).
But if that's a good question, then WHY NOT PEDESTRIANS TOO?
(re: my earlier point).
Nothing to do with it.
That's a good question too I suppose. I can only suggest that pedestrians don't actually need roads to get around on, unlike wheeled traffic.
If there was no traffic pedestrians could walk around much more safely on pavements. So why should a person who doesn't drive have to pay for being jeapordised by other people who do?
If there was no traffic pedestrians could walk around much more safely on pavements. So why should a person who doesn't drive have to pay for being jeapordised by other people who do?
B
Big Tone
Fair point Big So. My point here would be that, like it or not, pedestrians DO use roads and have every right to do so without taking a test or having a licence yet contribute to KSI stats immensely!!!
The only coaching kids get these days on road safety are from an equally incompetent & dysfunctional parent....
TBH, if I had to pick on any single group it would not be cyclists...
The only coaching kids get these days on road safety are from an equally incompetent & dysfunctional parent....
TBH, if I had to pick on any single group it would not be cyclists...
Because they, more often than not, come off worse. It'd be like a bug getting insurance against a collision wih a car window screen.
Is that relevant? If a cyclist causes an accident they are liable in my book, and I'd happily pursue the matter in law if necessary.
If they have no insurance, that's their lookout.
