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

Child mown down by hi-speed pavement cyclist



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old July 22nd 13, 10:43 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
GB[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 151
Default 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  
Old July 23rd 13, 12:18 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Peter Keller[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,736
Default 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  
Old July 23rd 13, 12:19 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Peter Keller[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,736
Default 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  
Old July 23rd 13, 10:28 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,875
Default 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  
Old July 23rd 13, 10:33 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
Fredxx[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default 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  
Old July 23rd 13, 11:19 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
Judith[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,000
Default 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  
Old July 23rd 13, 11:46 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
The Todal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 130
Default 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  
Old July 23rd 13, 11:49 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
GB[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 151
Default 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  
Old July 23rd 13, 11:56 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
The Todal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 130
Default 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  
Old July 23rd 13, 02:28 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal,uk.finance
Judith[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,000
Default 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

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
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.