On May 9, 1:06 pm, "Noddy" wrote:
> wrote in message news:d7832579-c009-479a-b04d-
>
> > given they were composed of
> > a) professional cyclists
> > b) A-grade riders (ie: club member ship etc).
> > then I'd hazard that odds are better than not they were insured.
>
> So you *were* just guessing then.
>
> In an interview to the TV media yesterday, one of the riders suggested that
> he wasn't insured, and that as his bike is now a right-off he's facing
> uncertain times as he was training for the Olympics.
you are confusing third party (which is what we're discussing) and
comprehensive.
My home and contents covers my bike for damage on the roads.. If
people don't have their ridiculously expensive sporting goods covered,
that's their idiocy biting them on the bum, as far as I'm concerned.
> Two points here worth noting: One is that public roads are *not* test tracks
> for medal wannabees, and the story as portrayed by the media thus far is
> only one side of it.
Agreed it is very one sided coverage.. the fact that they're olympic
wannabees is irrelevent to the matter, so I'm not sure why the media
is beating up on it (anythings for a story, I guess).
There's a comment from the driver in the SMH which portrays a
different picture of the incident. I am not absolving anyone.
> > No. I do know that it numbers > 10k in NSW. Are we counting every
> > person with a bike?
>
> If that bike gets used on the road, then yes.
> > I'll pay my $2 based on GVM. Where do I sign up?
>
> Nice try, but you don't get to set the premiums *you* want to pay :)
>
> Is it just me, or are all fanatical cyclists tight-arses?
what's all that bleating about fuel prices I can hear on aus.cars?
duncan |