|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Child mown down by hi-speed pavement cyclist
Yawn. Have it your own way, then.
BTW, is there now a moderated cycling NG? |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Child mown down by hi-speed pavement cyclist
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 22:54:15 +0100, Bertie Wooster wrote:
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. If Mr Brown has a horse, he can't be a farmer - I think. The sentence contains "Farmer Brown *has* a horse" |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Child mown down by hi-speed pavement cyclist
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 23:32:30 +0100, Judith wrote:
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. You are welcome. I have some rope and an awl which might do something to cobble together your broken heart. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Child mown down by hi-speed pavement cyclist
"Judith" wrote
"TMS320" wrote: snip Even at the Vastern Road end of the path, Google Earth shows two pedestrians using the wrong bit. The "wrong bit"? is there some law against them using part of it then? I did not write "...two pedestrians illegally using an area designated for bicycles only". |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
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". Its called posturing, and in your case it's clearly working! Do you believe everything an insurance company says? |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Child mown down by hi-speed pavement cyclist
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 22:43:36 +0100, GB wrote:
Yawn. Have it your own way, then. BTW, is there now a moderated cycling NG? I assume you are new to usenet: there is a convention that your post has a header which shows the time/date/poster of the post you are replying to you - so that people know to what you are referring and hence what on earth you are talking about. HTH (Hope this helps) HAND (Have a nice day) |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Child mown down by hi-speed pavement cyclist
On 22/7/13 12:34, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
"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. That is not true at all, unless the insurer has a claims handler who is exceptionally inefficient. You appear to be perpetuating an outdated myth. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Child mown down by hi-speed pavement cyclist
On 23/07/2013 11:19, Judith wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 22:43:36 +0100, GB wrote: Yawn. Have it your own way, then. BTW, is there now a moderated cycling NG? I assume you are new to usenet: there is a convention that your post has a header which shows the time/date/poster of the post you are replying to you - so that people know to what you are referring and hence what on earth you are talking about. HTH (Hope this helps) HAND (Have a nice day) Thanks for the advice and good wishes. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Child mown down by hi-speed pavement cyclist
On 22/7/13 22:08, Judith wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 12:21:52 +0100, Peter Parry wrote: 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. Many thanks - at least *you* seem to know what you are talking about. Much of what he says is misleading. A few posts back, GB asked what he considered to be a rhetorical question: "Person says they are hurt, and insurance company immediately admits liability, maybe?" My answer is: yes, that's what often does happen. It depends on the circumstances of the accident of course, but there is no cynical blanket policy whereby insurers automatically deny liability and hope you'll go away. Such a suggestion is wrong-headed and mischievous. If your car is damaged you make a claim on your motor insurance policy and since that is your own policy there will not usually be any dispute about liability and the insurers will pay up. If you are hit by a car, you claim from the driver's motor policy and you then have to prove that the driver was negligent and your task is often no harder or easier than showing that a cyclist was negligent. If someone admits at the scene that he was to blame, that does not usually invalidate the policy of insurance. In fact it would be exceedingly rare for it to invalidate the policy. It is very misleading to suggest to any users of this group that if they sue a negligent cyclist the insurers of the cyclist will probably deny liability and only pay up if there is a court judgment or possibly at the door of the court before the trial if you last that long. Such an analysis is, to use an old legal term, a crock of ****. Let's hope that others Read, Mark, Learn, and Inwardly Digest! No, best not. Read, analyse and spot the flaws. Appreciated. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Child mown down by hi-speed pavement cyclist
On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 11:56:47 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 22/7/13 22:08, Judith wrote: On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 12:21:52 +0100, Peter Parry wrote: 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. Many thanks - at least *you* seem to know what you are talking about. Much of what he says is misleading. A few posts back, GB asked what he considered to be a rhetorical question: "Person says they are hurt, and insurance company immediately admits liability, maybe?" My answer is: yes, that's what often does happen. It depends on the circumstances of the accident of course, but there is no cynical blanket policy whereby insurers automatically deny liability and hope you'll go away. Such a suggestion is wrong-headed and mischievous. If your car is damaged you make a claim on your motor insurance policy and since that is your own policy there will not usually be any dispute about liability and the insurers will pay up. If you are hit by a car, you claim from the driver's motor policy and you then have to prove that the driver was negligent and your task is often no harder or easier than showing that a cyclist was negligent. If someone admits at the scene that he was to blame, that does not usually invalidate the policy of insurance. In fact it would be exceedingly rare for it to invalidate the policy. It is very misleading to suggest to any users of this group that if they sue a negligent cyclist the insurers of the cyclist will probably deny liability and only pay up if there is a court judgment or possibly at the door of the court before the trial if you last that long. Such an analysis is, to use an old legal term, a crock of ****. So I think you are you saying that in the example we are talking about (ie nothing to do with motor insurance) - you would think it will be quite straight forward for a third party pedestrian to claim of your house contents insurance (third party cover) for injuries caused by you - a cyclist - in an accident; - and your house contents insurers will invariably pay out without too much trouble - and almost certainly without going anywhere near a court? (uk.finance added - perhaps there is some direct experience of such claims) |
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 |