New Cycle path abused by drivers

[Globalti]

Traffic wardens are reluctant to go into certain areas of cities and deal with illegal parking. For example in Cheetham Hill, Manchester, an ethnically diverse area, traffic slows to a crawl as the road is blocked by double-parkers and yellow line parkers who think it's OK as long as their hazard lights are flashing. You will never see a traffic warden in these areas yet if you drop a passenger at Manchester airport you will be harrassed mercilessly by wardens for stopping for more than a minute or two.

 

[Drago]

Generally the companies keep their personnel in then town centres, because that's the most profitable patch. Little financial incentive to wander outwards.

 

[hopless500]

Your local council are missing out on a lot of revenue if they're not ticketing them... or is a £30 fpn cheaper than the car parks?

Most parking is free. But I can't remember the last time I saw anyone wandering around looking for people to ticket.

 

[Drago]

Should be a standard £20 charge to park a car on a road anywhere other than a marked parking bay. Its bad enough people inflicting their cars on society when their driving them, without them doing it when they're not.

The Drago government will introduce a system like Japan, where if you can't prove you have off road parking then you either won't be issued a permit to even be able to purchase a car, or are restricted to a tiny Kei car.

 

[KnackeredBike]

Anyone willing to cite some? Ideally, something with a judgment online? I seem to be sucking at searching, or it's all so cut-and-dried that everyone's settling before it reaches court.

It's the law rather than anything established by case law. Road Traffic Act 1988 Section 145 - an insurer must provide third party cover without conditions, but they do not have to cover contractual liability. So if your insurance terms and conditions mean they will hold you responsible for the costs of any claim whilst, say, under the influence of drink or drugs then they can still come knocking for the money from you but they can't withhold it from the third party.

 

[mjr]

It's the law rather than anything established by case law. Road Traffic Act 1988 Section 145 - an insurer must provide third party cover without conditions, but they do not have to cover contractual liability. So if your insurance terms and conditions mean they will hold you responsible for the costs of any claim whilst, say, under the influence of drink or drugs then they can still come knocking for the money from you but they can't withhold it from the third party.

@Drago mentioned case law. While I know the bit about providing third party cover is in legislation, but surely the bit where "if the insurer has to pay out on a claim due to an unlawful act by yourself then they may sue you for their loss" must have gone to court some time by now?

 

[KnackeredBike]

@Drago mentioned case law. While I know the bit about providing third party cover is in legislation, but surely the bit where "if the insurer has to pay out on a claim due to an unlawful act by yourself then they may sue you for their loss" must have gone to court some time by now?

There are more than you can shake a stick at around more complex cases, for instance whether someone is covered by insurance if they drive their car into a building in a suicide attempt. But I doubt the more simple cases would make for much reading.

• Cited – Beresford v Royal Insurance Co Ltd HL ([1938] AC 586, [1938] 2 All ER 602)
  The forfeiture rule was to be applied in a case involving suicide. An insured may not recover under a policy of insurance in respect of loss intentionally caused by his own criminal or tortious act, however clearly the wording of the policy may . .
• Cited – Zurich General Accident and Liability Insurance Co Ltd v Morrison([1942] 2 KB 53)
  The statutory requirement for compulsory insurance in the Road Traffic Act 1930 was of little value if it was open to insurers to freely exclude liability for common risks. . .
• Cited – Hardy v Motor Insurers’ Bureau CA ([1964] 2 QB 745, [1964] 2 All ER 742)
  The court was asked whether insurance pursuant to the Road Traffic Act 1960 would provide valid cover for the benefit of a third party injured by deliberately criminal conduct on the part of the driver.
  Held: Diplock LJ said: ‘The rule of law . .
• Cited – Gardner v Moore HL ([1984] AC 548)
  The uninsured first defendant deliberately drove a car at the plaintiff who was walking on the pavement, and thus caused serious injuries. The MIB accepted that the trial judge was bound by Hardy to declare that the Bureau was bound to indemnify the . .
• Cited – Churchill Insurance v Charlton CA (Gazette 08-Mar-01, Times 21-Feb-01, Bailii, Bailii, [2001] EWCA Civ 112, [2001] EWCA Civ 1230, [2002] QB 578, [2001] RTR 33, [2001] Lloyd’s Rep IR 387, [2001] 3 WLR 1435, [2001] PIQR P23, [2001] 1 All ER (Comm) 769)
  The victim of an unlawful act of a driver off-road sought damages from another driver and his insurers. The insurers refused to pay.
  Held: There is a balance to be found between the statutory purpose of compulsory motor insurance and the . .
• Bristol Alliance Ltd v Williams and Another: QBD 1 Jul 2011

Etc.

 

[Drago]

Blimey, that's more Googling than I could be arsed to do.

 

[johnnyb47]

Funnily enough Jeremy Vine was talking about cycle paths on Radio 2 today as to whether it be made law that a cyclist must use it and not the road next to it. Someone commented about the problems of parked cars on them..It broke the mundane lunchtime shift at work listening to it.

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

Funnily enough Jeremy Vine was talking about cycle paths on Radio 2 today as to whether it be made law that a cyclist must use it and not the road next to it. Someone commented about the problems of parked cars on them..It broke the mundane lunchtime shift at work listening to it.

I was tempted to text in and point out that buses don't always stay in bus lanes.