Per a reader's letter in CW this week - and it makes for interesting read and perhaps discussion ...
It seems the reader (lady called Elaine) stongly advises cyclists participating in time trials to take out a third party insurance at the very least.
Lady apparently has a policy - butwhilst riding in an eeening '10' - shje was hit from behind by a very fast rider. He was reportedly "going some" - 40 mph. She hear the "whoosh" of his diosc wheel and then a bang.
The lady was
seriously injured" - two nights in hospital and 5 weeks recevery - off work. This left her out of pocket to the tune of a couple of thousand pounds. interestingly she writes:
Quote:
If she had been a car driver - her car would have been mended quickly and her injuries compnsated by the other driver's insurance company. Or - if her bike had been hit by a car - she would have had some redress from the driver's insurance ...
That is - of course - assuming driver was insured given that stats issued today are showing chancers still on the rise
Writer continues:
Quote:
The cyclist who hit me was [i] not insured - but as this was a time trial hje was given third party cover by the CTT. Because of the seriousness of this accident - the local CTT held a hearing for him to answer a case of dangerous cycling. Their findings? Unproven... thus "not guilty" for insurance purposes.....
Strange that, because what is dangerous cycling if hitting someone from behind at a freee travelling speed of 40 mph whilst on a bike istnt?
Hmmm! If this occurred in normal traffic conditions .. we would not be so lenient... As we know from the other thread - Telford police and CPS decided there was a case to answer for something a lot less than this one ... and the outcome - along with the details we don't know of yet - is awaited with some interest by cyclists and drivers alike ..
Lady has my sympathy on this one.. as she continues that her claim for recouping her financial loss is going through the CTT inurance company - who - true to type are telling her that the findings of this hearing - "unproven" does not mean the same as it would under Scottish Law. (Ie - Not proven means "guilty as hell but we cannot nail you - at this moment - but will re-try if and when we can find something ) - but in their eyes "not guilty"against"
Elaine is cynical about the CTT bias in hearing this case and perhaps the insurance system should be completely independent of this body.
But yep - I insured my bikes.. they did cost me a fair amount of cash - and I have taken out a third pary insurance in case I do manage to prang someone for whatever reason.
Of course - use COAST - so would hope this and my intense training would help avoid incidents anyway. But in any case - this seems prudent to me to do so.