Fast Legal Bike

[KTM Bike Industries UK]

Col,

Cyclists get sued all the time do they?

Let's have some examples, should be dead easy, you are in the trade and it happens all the time.

I've done thousands of miles and never hit anyone, let alone come close to causing injury or serious injury.

You've done more miles than me, I think, how many people have you clouted?

I resent being patted on the head and told I don't understand by someone who has a big axe to grind and a long history of scaremongering.

People can make up their own minds/do their own research.

2 seconds on google, and I get to the British Cycling Page, which shows the Third Party insurance they offer for members.

http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/membership/article/memst-Third-Party-Liability-Insurance-0

----------

Third Party Liability Insurance - the details

If you are involved in an incident causing injury or property damage that was (or is alleged to have been) your fault your insurance cover may indemnify you in respect of the legal costs of defending a third party claim and any resulting damages awarded against you. Cover is up to a limit of £10 million and British Cycling will pay any insurance excess that applies.

Just a quick email to say many many thanks to British Cycling and the underwriters for dealing with this, the whole process has been completely hassle-free with only minimum contact needed.

Andrew Wilson

--------

So there is one example - a Mr Andrew Wilson, found within 20 seconds.

It does happen, just because it hasn't happened to you yet, doesn't mean it wont., or it won't happen to someone else.

 

[RobF]

If you're involved in an accident and you're on a vehicle that isn't considered safe to be used on UK roads... of course its going to have an impact on your liability. )

If I break a pedestrian's leg, his damages claim is the same, no matter what I am riding when I did it.

The claim could be substantial, but he is not off work for longer/has longer term injuries, just because I am riding a dongled ebike.

 

[RobF]

2 seconds on google, and I get to the British Cycling Page, which shows the Third Party insurance they offer for members.

http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/membership/article/memst-Third-Party-Liability-Insurance-0

----------

Third Party Liability Insurance - the details

If you are involved in an incident causing injury or property damage that was (or is alleged to have been) your fault your insurance cover may indemnify you in respect of the legal costs of defending a third party claim and any resulting damages awarded against you. Cover is up to a limit of £10 million and British Cycling will pay any insurance excess that applies.

Just a quick email to say many many thanks to British Cycling and the underwriters for dealing with this, the whole process has been completely hassle-free with only minimum contact needed.

Andrew Wilson

--------

So there is one example - a Mr Andrew Wilson, found within 20 seconds.

It does happen, just because it hasn't happened to you yet, doesn't mean it wont., or it won't happen to someone else.

Of course, we've no idea what the underwriters dealt with on behalf of Andrew Wilson.

From what I can gather, most cyclists sign up for British Cycling or CTC insurance for access to the legal helpline after some clot motorist wipes them out and refuses to pay.

That scenario, sadly, is much more likely.

 

[KTM Bike Industries UK]

Of course, we've no idea what the underwriters dealt with on behalf of Andrew Wilson.

From what I can gather, most cyclists sign up for British Cycling or CTC insurance for access to the legal helpline after some clot motorist wipes them out and refuses to pay.

That scenario, sadly, is much more likely.

ok... so you asked for an example - I gave you one, but now you've raised another point, which you are saying is much more likely.

So lets say you're that cyclist who has been wiped out by the clot motorist and they are refusing to pay your legal and medical bills. Do you really think the fact your riding an sPedelec is going to help your case? Because we've checked, and you'll go from being the victim to the cause, so you'll be liable for the any damage to the vehicle, the accompanying whiplash case from the driver, and your own costs, which can be quite high. Oh and you'll loose your driving licence as you'll probably get reported for using an illegal vehicle on the road.

But as this time its you who said "much more likely" is it it you whose scaremongering

I've got no problem with people taking their own risk... but its upsetting when so many don't seem to understanding what they are risking.

 

[mike killay]

For 30 years I have reversed my cars and campervans out of my winding drive with no trouble.
Last week in the dark and rain, I scraped the gatepost.
Likelihood=very low indeed,
yet misfortune chose to strike.

 

[RobF]

ok... so you asked for an example - I gave you one, but now you've raised another point, which you are saying is much more likely.

So lets say you're that cyclist who has been wiped out by the clot motorist and they are refusing to pay your legal and medical bills. Do you really think the fact your riding an sPedelec is going to help your case? Because we've checked, and you'll go from being the victim to the cause, so you'll be liable for the any damage to the vehicle, the accompanying whiplash case from the driver, and your own costs, which can be quite high. Oh and you'll loose your driving licence as you'll probably get reported for using an illegal vehicle on the road.

But as this time its you who said "much more likely" is it it you whose scaremongering

I've got no problem with people taking their own risk... but its upsetting when so many don't seem to understanding what they are risking.

Practically, the chances of liability being reversed are very low, not least because the dongle will likely be never seen or be smashed/lost in all the kerfuffle.

As d8 posted, a wise dongle owner might whip the thing off in the aftermath if the opportunity arose.

Even if it remains, there are still many humps for the other party to get over.

Someone needs to ask the question - why would they?

Did the dongle contribute to the accident?

Was the dongle working?

Hook wriggling you might say, but the battery on mine went flat and I did several (uneventful) journeys with it not working.

I did a couple more with the sodding thing in my pocket while I was trying to find a new battery.

So it could have been lying in the road among the other debris after an accident, probably with me rolling around on top of it.

Again practically, investigations are not that thorough in the case of a routine bump.

You may know more than me, but assessors are rarely sent to look at the bike to check the damage, the insurance company will meet the claim - or not - on the strength of their reading of liability from the accident report and some bike shop quotes.

 

[mike killay]

So,
The grand finale is:-
Are you honest or dishonest
Do you care if a fellow citizen is cheated out of compensation rightfully theirs?

 

[KTM Bike Industries UK]

Practically, the chances of liability being reversed are very low, not least because the dongle will likely be never seen or be smashed/lost in all the kerfuffle.

As d8 posted, a wise dongle owner might whip the thing off in the aftermath if the opportunity arose.

Even if it remains, there are still many humps for the other party to get over.

Someone needs to ask the question - why would they?

Did the dongle contribute to the accident?

Was the dongle working?

Hook wriggling you might say, but the battery on mine went flat and I did several (uneventful) journeys with it not working.

I did a couple more with the sodding thing in my pocket while I was trying to find a new battery.

So it could have been lying in the road among the other debris after an accident, probably with me rolling around on top of it.

Again practically, investigations are not that thorough in the case of a routine bump.

You may know more than me, but assessors are rarely sent to look at the bike to check the damage, the insurance company will meet the claim - or not - on the strength of their reading of liability from the accident report and some bike shop quotes.

ok, you seem happy to live in a world of assumption and guess work to give you the comfort you need. Good luck with that.

Because .... the crucial thing you're STILL missing is.

Someone needs to ask the question - why would they?

Because they are an insurance company, and its their job to get out of paying the xThousand pounds of medical bills for their client if they can, and pass the cost onto someone else.

AND - the point you need to realise, which is crucial.

Did the dongle contribute to the accident?

IT DOESN'T MATTER. The bike shouldn't be on the road. It only takes the argument that had you not had the dongle, you'd have been slower and therefore not in the place where the accident happened at the time it happened, to hopefully prove to you that it does contribute to any accident. If you're on an illegal vehicle, it being the cause doesn't matter one bit, it shouldn't be there, and its your choice to ignore the law to register and insure it.

What would your defence be? I took a risk and hoped my lord? I was informed, but I told the company warning me that they were scaremongering.

Think of it like drink driving... if you were involved in an accident, even if it wasn't your fault and you were over the limit - you loose all legs you have to stand on legally.

 

[KTM Bike Industries UK]

So,
The grand finale is:-
Are you honest or dishonest
Do you care if a fellow citizen is cheated out of compensation rightfully theirs?

That with the addition of .... "are you feeling lucky?"

Because it will just be a matter of bad luck or good luck to see if your the first person in the UK who is the test case for this kind of thing.

 

[trex]

...
Think of it like drink driving... if you were involved in an accident, even if it wasn't your fault and you were over the limit - you loose all legs you have to stand on legally.

now that's scaremongering. If it wasn't your fault then you are entitled to compensation. Drunken or not is a matter for mitigation, not for the perpetrator to wriggle out of his liability. If I run over a guy on an illegal bike, I don't expect to get away with it.

 

[RobF]

if your the first person in the UK who is the test case for this kind of thing.

So you accept your doomsday scenario has yet to happen?

I agree, it probably has not, although we can never be certain about that.

The reason it hasn't happened is because it is vanishingly unlikely.

Your risk as a retailer is entirely different.

You may have noticed I have not commented about that, it's your business and you have made your decision.

Equally, the ebike user has to assess the risk from their point of view.

 

[KTM Bike Industries UK]

now that's scaremongering. If it wasn't your fault then you are entitled to compensation. Drunken or not is a matter for mitigation, not for the perpetrator to wriggle out of his liability. If I run over a guy on an illegal bike, I don't expect to get away with it.

it was an example. I clearly wasn't saying riding a bike with a dongle is as bad as drink driving. The law isn't that simple, and I'm afraid its not even up to the police to decide really who is responsible as far as liability goes.


If you ran over a guys on an illegal bike, you wouldn't "get away with it" you could still be done for dangerous driving or any number of things things. The liability for the costs of the accident are what we're talking about here and that would be argued between insurance companies. If one party in the accident was found to be on a vehicle that is not certified as safe on the UK roads... you'll find its a pretty clear case.

If you doubt me, check.

 

[KTM Bike Industries UK]

So you accept your doomsday scenario has yet to happen?

I agree, it probably has not, although we can never be certain about that.

The reason it hasn't happened is because it is vanishingly unlikely.

Your risk as a retailer is entirely different.

You may have noticed I have not commented about that, it's your business and you have made your decision.

Equally, the ebike user has to assess the risk from their point of view.

Yes, I've never argued that it has happened yet have I? I've said since day 1 that it hasn't happened, but an accident involving a powerful eBike is inevitable. It will happen, the seriousness of the accident is the debatable bit, and the bit that anyone riding an illegal eBike is chancing their luck on.

But I do agree completely with your last point that the user clearly has to assess their own risk.... but what I do feel is that we as a forum and an industry should be educating the public about that risk... and not simply saying "you'll probably never get caught" which seems to be the current approach from those who are pro illegal bikes.

 

[RobF]

Yes, I've never argued that it has happened yet have I? I've said since day 1 that it hasn't happened, but an accident involving a powerful eBike is inevitable. It will happen, the seriousness of the accident is the debatable bit, and the bit that anyone riding an illegal eBike is chancing their luck on.

But I do agree completely with your last point that the user clearly has to assess their own risk.... but what I do feel is that we as a forum and an industry should be educating the public about that risk... and not simply saying "you'll probably never get caught" which seems to be the current approach from those who are pro illegal bikes.

I agree with much of what you say - a dongle user needs to know the risks they are running.

Where we don't agree is the level of that risk.

But, assuming this round of dongle wars has largely run its course, I'd like to mention something else KTM related.

I had a go on a KTM 1964 unpowered mountain bike.

Top piece of kit, I dunno if the thing just fitted me, but I was well impressed.

Good spec, light, and looks the part.

Also a thumbs up to Redline, your dealer in Loughborough.

Not only were they helpful, but the shop was clean, very professionally KTM branded, and the stock properly displayed.

http://www.ktm4u.co.uk/

 

[Artstu]

Here's my new "Fast legal bike"

 

[jdallan]

For 30 years I have reversed my cars and campervans out of my winding drive with no trouble.
Last week in the dark and rain, I scraped the gatepost.
Likelihood=very low indeed,
yet misfortune chose to strike.

Probably because your drive and gatepost are getting older

Jim

 

[SRS]

I fail t

Actually worse rather than the same, since the dongled e-bike isn't even registered as a motor vehicle!
.

I fail to see how one can be done for riding an unregistered vehicle when it is impossible to register that vehicle in the first place.

If you could register, insure and tax in and then rode without bothering, then fair cop.
Someone seems to have created a catch 22 for those who wish to commute quickly.

 

[flecc]

I fail t

I fail to see how one can be done for riding an unregistered vehicle when it is impossible to register that vehicle in the first place.

If you could register, insure and tax in and then rode without bothering, then fair cop.
Someone seems to have created a catch 22 for those who wish to commute quickly.

Unfortunately you can, but it's not right to say there's a catch 22 in place since there are classes for faster two wheelers.

The position is perfectly clear. A bicycle may have an assistance motor within prescribed limitations which permit it to still remain a bicycle in law and be ridden by virtually anyone.

Any other powered two wheeler is a motor vehicle in law which must be type approved, registered, insured, carry a regulation number plate and, for most types, pay for if necessary and carry a VED disc before it can be run on the road. Subject to all those requirements being met, the rider must be tested to ensure competence before being able to legally ride on public roads without further safety restrictions.
.

 

[SRS]

There is a catch 22. You cannot take a 350w pedelec off the shelf, perfectly safe and un modified from the manufactures specifications and register it.

As we have seen from the photo of the registered version one has to turn it into a cumbersome heavy moped. Defeats the whole point don't you think?

Many, many people I have spoken to feel the same as me. Some choose to ride illegal bikes, all without exception would go legal if they could. All without exception do not want mopeds.

After all, what other type of vehicle do you have to modify beyond recognition yourself before you can register and tax it.
Nobody is going to convince me that there isn't a gap in the system that needs to be filled.

 

[flecc]

There is a catch 22. You cannot take a 350w pedelec off the shelf, perfectly safe and un modified from the manufactures specifications and register it.

As we have seen from the photo of the registered version one has to turn it into a cumbersome heavy moped. Defeats the whole point don't you think?

Many, many people I have spoken to feel the same as me. Some choose to ride illegal bikes, all without exception would go legal if they could. All without exception do not want mopeds.

After all, what other type of vehicle do you have to modify beyond recognition yourself before you can register and tax it.
Nobody is going to convince me that there isn't a gap in the system that needs to be filled.

It's not a catch 22, since a 350 watt is not a pedelec in European law and has never been intended to be registered in the UK. It's designed as a fast S class e-bike and sits in an EU moped L class which is currently only allowed by Germany's national government, the market these were designed for. So it's legally a motor vehicle covered by motor vehicle laws everywhere in Europe.

Our UK government could also have that class but has chosen not to, so in that I agree there is a gap in the UK's motor vehicle classifications. But the widespread notion in here that these are pedelecs and electric bicycles needs to be dropped, they aren't anywhere in Europe, they are motor vehicles.
.