|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Child mown down by hi-speed pavement cyclist
On Sunday, 21 July 2013 14:57:54 UTC+1, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 14:48:52 +0100, Alexis wrote: Mrcheerful wrote: Guess what? She cleared off quick... Shameful, the least she could have done was to kiss the child's bruised right ear better before she left. =====Quote===== This week borough transport leader Cllr Tony Page backed the Sowdens and said the law is clear that it is an offence for anyone over 16 to cycle on pavements. =====/Quote===== Is it legal for anyone under 16 to cycle on Reading pavements? supposed legal responsibility comes at 14, should you believe the bollox. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Child mown down by hi-speed pavement cyclist
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 22:43:37 +0100, Peter Parry wrote:
snip Few are covered by insurance and even when they are it is often only allied with house contents cover which won't pay out without the claimant paying to get a court judgment allocating legal responsibility. Interesting comment there. Many people have previously claimed that cyclists are covered by their house contents insurance (hence the "he'll claim off his fridge freezer insurance" comments). What you say about the insurance company not paying out unless there is a court judgment is quite significant and interesting. Do you have any more info' (or pointer to same) on the matter; if what you say is true (and I have no reason to disbelieve it) then that is really quite interesting. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Child mown down by hi-speed pavement cyclist
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 20:55:37 +0000 (UTC), Peter Keller
wrote: On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 16:44:31 +0100, Judith wrote: Porky Chapman Still pining for him my love-lorn mistress? I am told that Farmer Brown has a horse to give away to a "good" home. Many thanks for the times 2 reference to Porky Chapman. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Child mown down by hi-speed pavement cyclist
On 21/07/2013 23:29, Judith wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 22:43:37 +0100, Peter Parry wrote: snip Few are covered by insurance and even when they are it is often only allied with house contents cover which won't pay out without the claimant paying to get a court judgment allocating legal responsibility. Interesting comment there. Many people have previously claimed that cyclists are covered by their house contents insurance (hence the "he'll claim off his fridge freezer insurance" comments). What you say about the insurance company not paying out unless there is a court judgment is quite significant and interesting. Do you have any more info' (or pointer to same) on the matter; if what you say is true (and I have no reason to disbelieve it) then that is really quite interesting. Which bit is interesting? The bit about insurance companies not being easy when it comes to claims is hardly news, is it? They'll require the claimant to make his case out. They may settle before court, but they won't be an easy touch. They never have been. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Child mown down by hi-speed pavement cyclist
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:05:22 +0100, GB wrote:
On 21/07/2013 23:29, Judith wrote: On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 22:43:37 +0100, Peter Parry wrote: snip Few are covered by insurance and even when they are it is often only allied with house contents cover which won't pay out without the claimant paying to get a court judgment allocating legal responsibility. Interesting comment there. Many people have previously claimed that cyclists are covered by their house contents insurance (hence the "he'll claim off his fridge freezer insurance" comments). What you say about the insurance company not paying out unless there is a court judgment is quite significant and interesting. Do you have any more info' (or pointer to same) on the matter; if what you say is true (and I have no reason to disbelieve it) then that is really quite interesting. Which bit is interesting? Sorry - I forgot that some are not bright. Here it is again - just for you: What you say about the insurance company not paying out unless there is a court judgment is quite significant and interesting. Could that perhaps be the bit I found interesting? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Child mown down by hi-speed pavement cyclist
On 22/07/2013 10:02, Judith wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:05:22 +0100, GB wrote: On 21/07/2013 23:29, Judith wrote: On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 22:43:37 +0100, Peter Parry wrote: snip Few are covered by insurance and even when they are it is often only allied with house contents cover which won't pay out without the claimant paying to get a court judgment allocating legal responsibility. Interesting comment there. Many people have previously claimed that cyclists are covered by their house contents insurance (hence the "he'll claim off his fridge freezer insurance" comments). What you say about the insurance company not paying out unless there is a court judgment is quite significant and interesting. Do you have any more info' (or pointer to same) on the matter; if what you say is true (and I have no reason to disbelieve it) then that is really quite interesting. Which bit is interesting? Sorry - I forgot that some are not bright. Here it is again - just for you: What you say about the insurance company not paying out unless there is a court judgment is quite significant and interesting. Could that perhaps be the bit I found interesting? Why is that interesting? Before this revelation, what did you expect? Person says they are hurt, and insurance company immediately admits liability, maybe? Now go back and read the bit of my post you snipped. "The bit about insurance companies not being easy when it comes to claims is hardly news, is it? They'll require the claimant to make his case out. They may settle before court, but they won't be an easy touch. They never have been. " |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Child mown down by hi-speed pavement cyclist
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 10:28:28 +0100, GB wrote:
On 22/07/2013 10:02, Judith wrote: On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:05:22 +0100, GB wrote: On 21/07/2013 23:29, Judith wrote: On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 22:43:37 +0100, Peter Parry wrote: snip Few are covered by insurance and even when they are it is often only allied with house contents cover which won't pay out without the claimant paying to get a court judgment allocating legal responsibility. Interesting comment there. Many people have previously claimed that cyclists are covered by their house contents insurance (hence the "he'll claim off his fridge freezer insurance" comments). What you say about the insurance company not paying out unless there is a court judgment is quite significant and interesting. Do you have any more info' (or pointer to same) on the matter; if what you say is true (and I have no reason to disbelieve it) then that is really quite interesting. Which bit is interesting? Sorry - I forgot that some are not bright. Here it is again - just for you: What you say about the insurance company not paying out unless there is a court judgment is quite significant and interesting. Could that perhaps be the bit I found interesting? Why is that interesting? Before this revelation, what did you expect? Person says they are hurt, and insurance company immediately admits liability, maybe? Oh dear. Please try harder: what do you think is the significance of the words "court judgment". |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Child mown down by hi-speed pavement cyclist
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 23:29:50 +0100, Judith
wrote: On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 22:43:37 +0100, Peter Parry wrote: snip Few are covered by insurance and even when they are it is often only allied with house contents cover which won't pay out without the claimant paying to get a court judgment allocating legal responsibility. Interesting comment there. Many people have previously claimed that cyclists are covered by their house contents insurance (hence the "he'll claim off his fridge freezer insurance" comments). What you say about the insurance company not paying out unless there is a court judgment is quite significant and interesting. Do you have any more info' (or pointer to same) on the matter; if what you say is true (and I have no reason to disbelieve it) then that is really quite interesting. Home content cover usually includes some degree of personal liability cover for the occupier. The wording of most policies is something like "Legal liability for damages and claimants’ costs and expenses incurred by the Family in respect of accidents resulting in Injury to any person or loss of or damage to property" Motor insurance largely works without court intervention. Claims are handled directly by insurance companies and they assess them and pay accordingly. Usually who is to blame isn't a major issue. Personal Liability insurance protects the insured against civil law claims that are brought against them on the basis of statutory liability provisions. They only cover the insured's legal liability for their negligence so the first thing a claimant must do is establish that the policy holder was negligent and has legal liability for the accident. This is often difficult for the claimant to do unaided. Even the insured can spoil a claimants case for example by admitting at the time that the accident was their fault they may invalidate their own cover leaving the claimant to try to recover money from the individual. Insurance companies also deal with relatively few such claims and are well aware that a simple way of both discouraging them and avoiding paying is to automatically deny the claim and require the claimant to establish liability in court before they pay. This can be an expensive and intimidating process for the claimant even if the insurer gives way at the court door. There really is no comparison between using the relatively simple motor claims system and trying to pursue a case for personal liability. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Child mown down by hi-speed pavement cyclist
"Judith" wrote in message news On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 22:43:37 +0100, Peter Parry wrote: snip Few are covered by insurance and even when they are it is often only allied with house contents cover which won't pay out without the claimant paying to get a court judgment allocating legal responsibility. Interesting comment there. Many people have previously claimed that cyclists are covered by their house contents insurance (hence the "he'll claim off his fridge freezer insurance" comments). What you say about the insurance company not paying out unless there is a court judgment is quite significant and interesting. Do you have any more info' (or pointer to same) on the matter; if what you say is true (and I have no reason to disbelieve it) then that is really quite interesting. It is not strictly true, but even motor insurers (especially Lloyds underwriting syndicates) will often just deny liability or refuse to respond to third party claims until you sue either them or the insured. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Child mown down by hi-speed pavement cyclist
On 22/07/2013 12:19, Judith wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 10:28:28 +0100, GB wrote: On 22/07/2013 10:02, Judith wrote: On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:05:22 +0100, GB wrote: On 21/07/2013 23:29, Judith wrote: On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 22:43:37 +0100, Peter Parry wrote: snip Few are covered by insurance and even when they are it is often only allied with house contents cover which won't pay out without the claimant paying to get a court judgment allocating legal responsibility. Interesting comment there. Many people have previously claimed that cyclists are covered by their house contents insurance (hence the "he'll claim off his fridge freezer insurance" comments). What you say about the insurance company not paying out unless there is a court judgment is quite significant and interesting. Do you have any more info' (or pointer to same) on the matter; if what you say is true (and I have no reason to disbelieve it) then that is really quite interesting. Which bit is interesting? Sorry - I forgot that some are not bright. Here it is again - just for you: What you say about the insurance company not paying out unless there is a court judgment is quite significant and interesting. Could that perhaps be the bit I found interesting? Why is that interesting? Before this revelation, what did you expect? Person says they are hurt, and insurance company immediately admits liability, maybe? Oh dear. Please try harder: what do you think is the significance of the words "court judgment". Have it your own way, then. So, based on a chance remark on usenet, do you really think that *all* insurance companies run *all* these claims right the way to court and never offer to settle? Just for the sake of an argument, you are making a clearly daft point. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
4 year old mown down by pavement cyclist | Mrcheerful[_3_] | UK | 9 | May 14th 13 10:36 AM |
Another OAP mown down by a pavement cyclist that did not stop | Mrcheerful[_3_] | UK | 2 | June 30th 12 09:51 AM |
Another OAP mown down by a cyclist on the pavement | Mrcheerful[_2_] | UK | 45 | September 25th 11 07:30 PM |
Another person mown down by a pavement cyclist | Mrcheerful[_2_] | UK | 14 | June 29th 11 06:52 PM |
Yet another old lady mown down by a pavement cyclist | Mrcheerful[_2_] | UK | 27 | June 8th 11 10:45 AM |