Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Why do you want that facility, are you planning on using it away from a power supply or Wi-Fi signal?
Thanks for the reply. It’s not necessarily that I positively want to use it as a dumb trainer. Just keen to understand the product properly before buying into something which requires ongoing monthly payments.
I appear to to have signed up with Sundays when I thought I was dealing with Laka (should have gone to Specsavers!).What do Specsavers require? Just a lock through the frame?!
Seriously though, all of these details and exclusions are why I have never sought specific bike cover, because I have zero confidence I would get a payout if something happened to them. However, might have to reassess that as something I read recently suggested that even if you consciously choose to “self-insure” certain items (and wouldn’t claim for them) this could constitute underinsurance, allowing an insurer to avoid a contents policy entirely or apply an average clause to any claim. You can’t win!
The current policy wording
The current policy wording hosted on the Laka website (which includes electrically assisted pedal cycles) doesn’t have the restrictions you’re seeing Ian: https://cdn.laka.co.uk/assets/v2-1/Laka+Bicycle+Insurance+-+Policy+Wording.pdf
Odd that they’re so different.
I think one problem is that there’s a widespread assumption that every vehicle is subject to ULEZ … certainly when they expanded it last year, a friend living the other side of the North Circular thought she would have to pay, even though she’d not long got a new car fully compliant with the standards.And a car doesn’t have to be that new to be compliant. Before we moved out of London, we were living just inside the North Circular and the new ULEZ. We never used the car in London, only for long-distance journeys out of London. I was therefore a bit annoyed at the prospect of paying £12.50 for the 0.5 miles of our journey which was inside the ULEZ, but fundamentally supported the idea of the ULEZ. I was pleasantly surprised when I realised our 15 year old car was actually compliant. [EDIT: just seen the comments above in the same vein]
On a close reading of the
On a close reading of the article (which is a total mess) I think what he’s suggesting is that, in order to continue using his preferred (not closest) shopping centre (not just food shop) without paying the £12.50 charge, he would have to walk and get public transport, and that this would involve him crossing into Hertfordshire.
But I can’t be sure, as the article seems to be designed mainly for attaching adverts to, with lofty ideas such as comprehenisbility a distant second.
I know who we’re talking
I know who we’re talking about, but what is PBU? Previously Banned User?
Dreaded reading it as I
Dreaded reading it as I assumed it was going to be the Wales Online / Reach Plc party line on how the HWC changes are crazy, but this time from a cyclist. Bingo.
1. As a pedestrian, I do indeed feel empowered by the HWC changes (surely that’s the point?), and I do use my new (enhanced) priority at junctions. I will step out if I can see an approaching driver has time to stop, and will gladly explain the HWC changes to them if they complain. I have only had to do so once, and they were suitably apologetic.
2. But I don’t have a deathwish. I’m not going to get run over to prove a point. Nor, as much as I would like to, am I teaching my young child that they have priority at junctions, because that feels reckless.
3. As a cyclist and driver, I take great pleasure in giving way to pedestrians at junctions. It’s particularly nice doing so as a cyclist when you can extravagantly explain to the pedestrians what you’re doing. Despite the apocalyptic warnings before the rule changes, I haven’t yet been rear-ended as a result.
4. But above all, whether as a pedestrian, cyclist or driver, I have been surprised how infrequently these interactions actually even happen. It’s relatively rare that I happen to arrive at a junction at the same time as another road user and have to engage with the priorities. So seems a fuss about nothing to me.
I don’t have an issue with
I don’t have an issue with the intent behind your “pip” Ashley. The problem though is that the intent is not always obvious to the recipient. My instinctive reaction to hearing a horn behind me is to look over my shoulder – and that is not always conducive to holding a steady line when someone is overtaking.
Although in that case I think
Although in that case I think they literally meant there was a grippy road surface over the little bridge.
“Battle royale” from David
“Battle royale” from David Millar.
“Umm, yeah” from a Yates brother.
We are due to move soon and
We are due to move soon and will have an Enterprise car club car much closer to home – definitely plan to give it a go.
You two are describing me
You two are describing me past and me present! Pre-pandemic, lived in London, had a car which was only ever used for long journeys out of London. Never even contemplated using it around town because it was so unpleasant and slower than cycling / bus / tube. I now live in Cardiff (commuting to London once a week by bike/train) and it’s being used even less – basically only holidays and weekend trips where all the family needs to travel. I’m curious about going totally car-less and just hiring / car-clubbing as necessary, but reckon the savings would be relatively modest and it makes it harder to be spontaneous.
Well yes, that does put a
Well yes, that does put a slightly different complexion on it!
That’s a great outcome. It’s
That’s a great outcome. It’s clear that some forces just have a better attitude to challenge and learning, but I think it’s also definitely an art to present incidents and complaints to them in a way that engages, rather than entrenches them, so kudos for that. I always try to be as dispassionate and objective as possible when reporting an incident to seem reasonable. It is a balance though – I realised from discussion with someone on here that simply referring to the law and what happened dispassionately risks losing some of the victim impact – e.g. not saying how a close pass made me feel.
That’s a dreadfully worded
That’s a dreadfully worded explanation but presumably the point they’re trying to make in this case is that if the first stop line was passed on amber (and there was not time to stop safely – a judgement question) there is no offence. I recognise you can point to a whole catalogue of these and other failings, just taking this one example on its merits.
