On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 07:09:20 -0700 (PDT), Chris
 wrote:

>If you are legally entitled to be there, they'll pay.
>
>If you willingly break the law by using a footpath, or cause an
>accident on a private road (unless the law has changed), they can
>refuse.
>But as stated elsewhere, the person you damage gets picked up by the
>cover-all scheme instead. You, on the other hand, don't!

The insurance companies' get out would be accusing you of wilful
recklessness - wilful in that you knew where you were riding/driving
and reckless in that you don't consider the consequences of your
actions. 

It would be an interesting legal challenge to see if a court would
interpret riding or driving on a pavement as sufficient to permit such
an exclusion to operate. The only reference to that effect in my home
policy is "deliberate acts".  I've looked on the Financial Ombudsman
website but there is nothing in its search engine about this type of
claim, which suggests complaints have been few if any.

Compulsory motor insurance is, as you say, more wide ranging.  That
provides cover to third parties in England and Wales on any highway
(which includes footpaths) or other place to which the public has
access.  Scottish law has similar but different phrases.