- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Add new comment
34 comments
I don't think the legal cover provided by either CUK or BC would cover that sort of case normally. As I understand it the legal support for that cyclist was funded through the Cyclists' Defence Fund which is a CUK initiative (https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaign/cyclists-defence-fund), but rather than being automatically available to members, it looks like anyone wishing to use the fund gets in touch and cases will be decided on merit (including the wider implications of any ruling).
Thanks for the info.
No, not at all. I just meant that they are on the CUK/BC leash and therefore slightly less likely to be ambulance chasers.
Ahh, OK. Thanks.
Pages