Re: More anti-cyclist drivel in the Times
- From: "David Martin" <martin-family@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 12 Jan 2006 01:41:41 -0800
Nigel Cliffe wrote:
> I have a feeling that the alternative to 3rd party insurance hasn't been
> abolished; Matt would have the option of depositing a sum with the high
> court which would be used to pay in the event of an accident. I think the
> sum is a few tens of millions of pounds.
You can self insure with a bond of half a million IIRC.
That may go up. If you have a half million you can put in bond, then it
could be a cost-effective way of insuring vehicles.
...d
.
- References:
- More anti-cyclist drivel in the Times
- From: wafflycat
- Re: More anti-cyclist drivel in the Times
- From: Trundler
- Re: More anti-cyclist drivel in the Times
- From: Trundler
- Re: More anti-cyclist drivel in the Times
- From: dkahn400
- Re: More anti-cyclist drivel in the Times
- From: Nigel Cliffe
- Re: More anti-cyclist drivel in the Times
- From: Matt B
- Re: More anti-cyclist drivel in the Times
- From: Nigel Cliffe
- More anti-cyclist drivel in the Times
- Prev by Date: Re: Done in 38 seconds
- Next by Date: Re: Bad, Bad news
- Previous by thread: Re: More anti-cyclist drivel in the Times
- Next by thread: Re: More anti-cyclist drivel in the Times
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|