Commuting Tales

cfsmtb said:

Two recent articles about the positive aspects of taking up bicycle commuting. No magpies attacks mentioned in either article (I think)

York Region.com: Have bike, will travel
yorkregion.com44720Open ↗

Adelaide Now: On yer (company) bike
news.com.au0,22606,22312901 910,00.htmlOpen ↗

On the subject of commuting, the issue of adequate cover does arise, although this UK PR insurance company spiel has quite a unseemly tone to it, i.e.: lycra rot combined with hairy bum crack ....

Press Release: Over 40% of Cyclists Expose Themselves:
pr.com49936Open ↗

Love this bit:

``But the risks don’t end with cycle theft. Many cyclists now use their bikes to commute to work and, as road users, face the same third party liability as motorists.''

No mention of the massively reduced danger to other road users because they're riding a bicycle rather than a 2 tonne lump of heavy stuff. Talk about selective.

EuanB said:

``But the risks don't end with cycle theft. Many cyclists now use their
bikes to commute to work and, as road users, face the same third party
liability as motorists.''

Bicycle NSW Membership covers this, and you get the 'free' magazine 😉

We had our bikes insured separately for a while, but at approximately 10%
the cost of the bike, it gets fairly expensive to insure them all.
Especially when bikes at home are already covered by home-contents
insurance.

The insurance also had lots of exceptions, like not covering damage while
in use. This seemed the worst of the policy restrictions, if you stack
your bike then you really want the insurance to cover damage. It would
be interesting to see what exclusions Cycleguard has. Although they
sometimes advertise in 'Velovision' magazine, a big plus in my book.

If I have to ride somewhere dodgey and leave the bike, then the 'train'
(AKA 'pub'😉 bike gets used. While I wouldn't want it stolen either, it's
not hard to replace a bunch of scavenged parts.

There is an article in the current edition of 'Make' magazine where they
take a beautiful Bianchi and rough it up so it looks like a POS to reduce
the risk of theft. It was very Fight-Club "I felt like destroying
something beautiful". Eeek!

-kt

--
Kingsley Turner,
http://MadDogsBreakfast.com/ABFAQ - news:aus.bicycle Frequenly Asked Questions

"EuanB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

cfsmtb said:

Two recent articles about the positive aspects of taking up bicycle
commuting. No magpies attacks mentioned in either article (I think)

York Region.com: Have bike, will travel
http://www.yorkregion.com/news/FeaturedNewsSeries1/article/44720

Adelaide Now: On yer (company) bike
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22312901-910,00.html

On the subject of commuting, the issue of adequate cover does arise,
although this UK PR insurance company spiel has quite a unseemly tone
to it, i.e.: lycra rot combined with hairy bum crack ....

Press Release: Over 40% of Cyclists Expose Themselves:
http://www.pr.com/press-release/49936

Love this bit:

``But the risks don't end with cycle theft. Many cyclists now use their
bikes to commute to work and, as road users, face the same third party
liability as motorists.''

No mention of the massively reduced danger to other road users because
they're riding a bicycle rather than a 2 tonne lump of heavy stuff.
Talk about selective.

--
EuanB

Of course it's selective - it's an advertorial. The article isn't about the
benefits of cycling; it's about the liability risk. If I were to write about
the colours of cheese I'd be unlikely to include the type of mousetrap that
I could put the cheese on. In the context of the advertorial the benefits of
cycling is an irrelevancy.

I can't think of any text that's not selective. That's what makes wide
reading useful - gaining different points of view and being exposed to
various aspects...

Toodles,

Frank

On Aug 28, 10:19 pm, EuanB <EuanB.2w0...@no-

mx.forums.cyclingforums.com said:

cfsmtb said:

Two recent articles about the positive aspects of taking up bicycle
commuting. No magpies attacks mentioned in either article (I think)

Quoted message said:

York Region.com: Have bike, will travel
http://www.yorkregion.com/news/FeaturedNewsSeries1/article/44720

Quoted message said:

Adelaide Now: On yer (company) bike
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22312901-910,00.html

Quoted message said:

On the subject of commuting, the issue of adequate cover does arise,
although this UK PR insurance company spiel has quite a unseemly tone
to it, i.e.: lycra rot combined with hairy bum crack ....

Quoted message said:

Press Release: Over 40% of Cyclists Expose Themselves:
http://www.pr.com/press-release/49936

Love this bit:

``But the risks don't end with cycle theft. Many cyclists now use their
bikes to commute to work and, as road users, face the same third party
liability as motorists.''

No mention of the massively reduced danger to other road users because
they're riding a bicycle rather than a 2 tonne lump of heavy stuff.
Talk about selective.

--
EuanB

.... and then there's the matter of proportional blame and cost of
damage to each ... oh, hang on, my bike is worth as much as many cars
on Brisbane roads.

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 29 Aug 2007 07:08:09 +1000

Kingsley said:

EuanB said:

``But the risks don't end with cycle theft. Many cyclists now use their
bikes to commute to work and, as road users, face the same third party
liability as motorists.''

Bicycle NSW Membership covers this, and you get the 'free' magazine 😉

If you have contents insurance, you usually have liability insurance.
When I asked them if it covered me hitting and injuring someone, they
were very cagy and said it covered me if someone sued me.

Quoted message said:

We had our bikes insured separately for a while, but at approximately 10%
the cost of the bike, it gets fairly expensive to insure them all.
Especially when bikes at home are already covered by home-contents
insurance.

I have mine on my policy as a special personal effect. This covers it
while I'm not riding it, so if it or bits of it get nicked, or it gets
backed into by a car.

I had a look at the policy BNSW offer, but the premium was over 3
times what I'm currently paying, with the only difference being
covering the bike while I'm riding it. I decided that I would have to
write the thing off in an at-fault crash within 3 years to be worth
it. And I have an expensive bike....

So I figure BNSW membership is worth it for the peace of mind, but the
Cycle guard insurance only is if you have more than one expensive bike
which you feel you might well damage severely (as in more than your
excess) in an at-fault crash.

Zebee

quote='Kingsley'On Tue said:

``But the risks don't end with cycle theft. Many cyclists now use their
bikes to commute to work and, as road users, face the same third party
liability as motorists.''

Bicycle NSW Membership covers this, and you get the 'free' magazine 😉

We had our bikes insured separately for a while, but at approximately 10%
the cost of the bike, it gets fairly expensive to insure them all.
Especially when bikes at home are already covered by home-contents
insurance.[/QUOTE]

Cyclecover insures all our bikes against stupidity. I could do the most stupid thing and my bike would be covered. It's valid worldwide for ninety days as well.

You can get it insured for racing, higher premium and double excess. The only catch is that it's a house and contents policy so if you want to insure your bikes with cycle cover you have to get completely in bed with them. It worked out an extra 100 or so a year which I figured was worth it as bikes are my main transport and we've got a couple of pricey ones in the house.