A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 22nd 19, 01:00 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,398
Default So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?

To say nothing of his fridge-freezer policy?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london

QUOTE:
Hazeldean [the cyclist who ran down a pedestrian] ... said he was
“reeling” from a verdict that would leave him bankrupt. In a statement
he said: “I am of course deeply disappointed with the outcome … and
concerned by the precedent that it might set for other cyclists.
ENDQUOTE

But surely any court decision which reinforces and emphasises the need
for caution and restraint is good for society in general?

Ads
  #2  
Old June 22nd 19, 08:45 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
MrCheerful
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,477
Default So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?

On 22/06/2019 01:00, JNugent wrote:
To say nothing of his fridge-freezer policy?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london


QUOTE:
Hazeldean [the cyclist who ran down a pedestrian] ... said he was
“reeling” from a verdict that would leave him bankrupt. In a statement
he said: “I am of course deeply disappointed with the outcome … and
concerned by the precedent that it might set for other cyclists.
ENDQUOTE

But surely any court decision which reinforces and emphasises the need
for caution and restraint is good for society in general?


We are continually told that cyclists are, by definition, very rich, and
that all are insured, so he should have no problem paying some compo.
  #3  
Old June 22nd 19, 08:46 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Bod[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,062
Default So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?

On 22/06/2019 01:00, JNugent wrote:
To say nothing of his fridge-freezer policy?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london


QUOTE:
Hazeldean [the cyclist who ran down a pedestrian] ... said he was
“reeling” from a verdict that would leave him bankrupt. In a statement
he said: “I am of course deeply disappointed with the outcome … and
concerned by the precedent that it might set for other cyclists.
ENDQUOTE

But surely any court decision which reinforces and emphasises the need
for caution and restraint is good for society in general?

Better still, what about emphasising the importance of the sheer

irresponsibility and danger of wearing headphones and blindly walking
across a road without even looking endangering other road users!
Her stupidity initiated and caused the accident.

--
Bod

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

  #4  
Old June 22nd 19, 08:52 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Bod[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,062
Default So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?

On 22/06/2019 08:45, MrCheerful wrote:
On 22/06/2019 01:00, JNugent wrote:
To say nothing of his fridge-freezer policy?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london


QUOTE:
Hazeldean [the cyclist who ran down a pedestrian] ... said he was
“reeling” from a verdict that would leave him bankrupt. In a statement
he said: “I am of course deeply disappointed with the outcome … and
concerned by the precedent that it might set for other cyclists.
ENDQUOTE

But surely any court decision which reinforces and emphasises the need
for caution and restraint is good for society in general?


We are continually told that cyclists are, by definition, very rich, and
that all are insured, so he should have no problem paying some compo.

I have never said that and the law does not demand a cyclist to be

insured. You should be lobbying for compulsory cyclist insurance which I
would agree with.
The law is who you should be targetting your gripe against.

--
Bod

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

  #5  
Old June 22nd 19, 12:12 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,398
Default So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?

On 22/06/2019 08:52, Bod wrote:
On 22/06/2019 08:45, MrCheerful wrote:
On 22/06/2019 01:00, JNugent wrote:
To say nothing of his fridge-freezer policy?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london


QUOTE:
Hazeldean [the cyclist who ran down a pedestrian] ... said he was
“reeling” from a verdict that would leave him bankrupt. In a
statement he said: “I am of course deeply disappointed with the
outcome … and concerned by the precedent that it might set for other
cyclists.
ENDQUOTE

But surely any court decision which reinforces and emphasises the
need for caution and restraint is good for society in general?


We are continually told that cyclists are, by definition, very rich,
and that all are insured, so he should have no problem paying some compo.

I have never said that and the law does not demand a cyclist to be

insured. You should be lobbying for compulsory cyclist insurance which I
would agree with.
The law is who you should be targetting your gripe against.


So is it impossible for cyclists to insure themselves without the law
making it compulsory?

It's just that we have, for a long time here, been assured and reassured
that cyclists are all covered by unrelated insurance policies.
  #6  
Old June 22nd 19, 12:13 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,398
Default So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?

On 22/06/2019 08:46, Bod wrote:
On 22/06/2019 01:00, JNugent wrote:
To say nothing of his fridge-freezer policy?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london


QUOTE:
Hazeldean [the cyclist who ran down a pedestrian] ... said he was
“reeling” from a verdict that would leave him bankrupt. In a statement
he said: “I am of course deeply disappointed with the outcome … and
concerned by the precedent that it might set for other cyclists.
ENDQUOTE

But surely any court decision which reinforces and emphasises the need
for caution and restraint is good for society in general?

Better still, what about emphasising the importance of the sheer
irresponsibility and danger of wearing headphones and blindly walking
across a road without even looking endangering other road users!
Her stupidity initiated and caused the accident.


The court decided that the cyclist and the victim were each a nominal
50% to blame for the collion. She for stepping out without looking, he
for proceeding to collide with her without even trying to stop.
  #7  
Old June 22nd 19, 12:19 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Bod[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,062
Default So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?

On 22/06/2019 12:12, JNugent wrote:
On 22/06/2019 08:52, Bod wrote:
On 22/06/2019 08:45, MrCheerful wrote:
On 22/06/2019 01:00, JNugent wrote:
To say nothing of his fridge-freezer policy?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london


QUOTE:
Hazeldean [the cyclist who ran down a pedestrian] ... said he was
“reeling” from a verdict that would leave him bankrupt. In a
statement he said: “I am of course deeply disappointed with the
outcome … and concerned by the precedent that it might set for other
cyclists.
ENDQUOTE

But surely any court decision which reinforces and emphasises the
need for caution and restraint is good for society in general?


We are continually told that cyclists are, by definition, very rich,
and that all are insured, so he should have no problem paying some
compo.

*
* I have never said that and the law does not demand a cyclist to be
insured. You should be lobbying for compulsory cyclist insurance which
I would agree with.
The law is who you should be targetting your gripe against.


So is it impossible for cyclists to insure themselves without the law
making it compulsory?

It's just that we have, for a long time here, been assured and reassured
that cyclists are all covered by unrelated insurance policies.

I've never said that.


--
Bod

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

  #8  
Old June 22nd 19, 12:21 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Bod[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,062
Default So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?

On 22/06/2019 12:13, JNugent wrote:
On 22/06/2019 08:46, Bod wrote:
On 22/06/2019 01:00, JNugent wrote:
To say nothing of his fridge-freezer policy?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london


QUOTE:
Hazeldean [the cyclist who ran down a pedestrian] ... said he was
“reeling” from a verdict that would leave him bankrupt. In a
statement he said: “I am of course deeply disappointed with the
outcome … and concerned by the precedent that it might set for other
cyclists.
ENDQUOTE

But surely any court decision which reinforces and emphasises the
need for caution and restraint is good for society in general?

Better still, what about emphasising the importance of the sheer
irresponsibility and danger of wearing headphones and blindly walking
across a road without even looking endangering other road users!
Her stupidity initiated and caused the accident.


The court decided that the cyclist and the victim were each a nominal
50% to blame for the collion. She for stepping out without looking, he
for proceeding to collide with her without even trying to stop.

He did apparently try to avoid her. Are you saying that he

deliberately rode into her?

--
Bod

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

  #9  
Old June 22nd 19, 12:47 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Peter Parry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?

On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 08:46:10 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 22/06/2019 01:00, JNugent wrote:
To say nothing of his fridge-freezer policy?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london


QUOTE:
Hazeldean [the cyclist who ran down a pedestrian] ... said he was
reeling from a verdict that would leave him bankrupt. In a statement
he said: I am of course deeply disappointed with the outcome and
concerned by the precedent that it might set for other cyclists.
ENDQUOTE

But surely any court decision which reinforces and emphasises the need
for caution and restraint is good for society in general?

Better still, what about emphasising the importance of the sheer

irresponsibility and danger of wearing headphones and blindly walking
across a road without even looking endangering other road users!
Her stupidity initiated and caused the accident.


People seem to be getting a bit mixed up here and conflating
responsibility/compensation and costs.

The verdict was one of 50/50 responsibility and in line with other
such claims in the past.

"Shanti Mauger found against Mr Hazeldean and said he was jointly
responsible for the accident.

He ruled [Hazeldean] was liable to pay 50 per cent of Ms Brushetts
compensation claim because cyclists must be prepared at all times for
people to behave in unexpected ways. While describing him as a calm
and reasonable road user, he went on to add: Mr Hazeldean did fall
below the level to be expected of a reasonably competent cyclist in
that he did proceed when the road was not completely clear.

After a personal injury compensation battle lasting over three years
he said: The appropriate finding is that the parties were equally
responsible and I make a finding of liability at 50/50.

Any award the pedestrian may get will therefore be reduced by 50% to
take into account her blameworthyness.

Given that Hazeldean seems ta have shouted and blown his gerroutofmy
way air horn before reducing speed some might think he did fairly well
out of this decision.

The allocation of blame contains an element for causative potency ,
something cycling organisations have been furiously lobbying in
support of for years (at least until they realised that the number of
pedestrians killed or injured by cyclists is at an all time high and
it was being used against cyclists). Causative potency is the
allocation of greater responsibility to act safely to the party with
the greatest ability to cause harm.
http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Preview/1024483.aspx

The confounding issues in this case seem to be that the cyclist failed
to put in a counter claim and also elected to act for himself in court
without seeking legal advice. With no counter claim he could not be
awarded any damages for his own injuries (which in a 50/50 ruling he
could have expected. It also exposed him to large claims for costs
from the claimants legal team. By the time he decided to employ his
own solicitors he had lost the ability to limit his liability for
costs or damages (although his solicitors are now going to claim the
cost demanded are an abuse of process when the damages are going to be
far less than the costs demanded).

It seems on what has so far been reported) that the judgment was fair
and the exposure to the vast costs (which may yet be held to be
excessive) was in large part due to the cyclist choosing not to take
timely legal advice in the first instance and then choosing to defend
himself.

What is really rattling the cage of various cycling organisations is
their fear that cases such as this will fuel the existing public
antipathy towards cyclists and lead to more calls for compulsory
insurance for cyclists. Compulsory anything is unacceptable to
cyclists groups. "Presumption of blame" has long been promoted as a
pro-cycling measure by most cycling groups. They are now terrified
that it is coming back to bite them.

What may well happen is that cyclists perceiving that they are
possibly facing huge costs if they hurt a pedestrian (even if not
entirely their fault) will purchase insurance. This of course makes
them a much better target for solicitors bringing claims for damages
so more cases will come about which in turn puts pressure on the other
cyclists to get insurance and increases the perception of cycling as a
high risk activity.
  #10  
Old June 22nd 19, 12:49 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,668
Default So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?

On 22/06/2019 12:21, Bod wrote:
On 22/06/2019 12:13, JNugent wrote:


The court decided that the cyclist and the victim were each a nominal
50% to blame for the collion. She for stepping out without looking, he
for proceeding to collide with her without even trying to stop.

He did apparently try to avoid her. Are you saying that he

deliberately rode into her?


Note that Nugent is doing his usual slippery routine by using the word
word 'stop'. As though stop and avoid are the same thing.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
USEFULL HOUSEHOLD CHEMICALS datakoll Techniques 1 February 19th 13 01:12 AM
Insurance - House, Contents & Bicycles? Craig Australia 2 July 26th 05 01:44 PM
Lance bottle contents...? Jaybee Racing 8 July 13th 05 09:35 PM
CTC Cyclecover vs Contents Insurance PhilO UK 3 July 10th 05 03:23 PM
Pink Bikes (contents may cause nausea) suzyj Australia 6 September 8th 04 09:16 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.