Child mown down by hi-speed pavement cyclist

On 23/7/13 14:28, Judith wrote:
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)


If someone is injured by a negligent cyclist they should write to that
cyclist and make a claim. Without a registration number it might be
difficult or impossible to identify the cyclist, of course, but if they
have his name they can pursue a claim.

The cyclist may be covered under his household contents policy in which
case those insurers may, once apprised of the facts, agree to settle the
claim. There is no good reason why they would wait until there has been
a trial and a judgment because at that point all the costs will be
higher. In individual cases, where the cyclist convincingly denies that
he was in fact negligent and blames the injured party, it may be that
the insurers will take the case to trial. But the vast majority of
personal injury claims settle because the claimant has a plausible
account of events and the insurers don't want to have an expensive trial
at their expense (they have to pay the lawyers to represent their
policyholder) over a relatively small claim of no more than 10k or so.

The Todal posted

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.


In such a case, what happens if your own insurance company (to whom you
have to report the accident) takes over the claim and settles with the
other driver's insurer at a much lower level than you are prepared to
accept? They do this fairly regularly, AIUI.

I ask because at the weekend I was involved in a serious car crash that
was completely (and provably, through witnesses) the other driver's
fault. My car was written off, but I bet I don't get offered anything
like its real value, which is essentially what I paid for it only four
months ago.

--
Les

Big Les Wade wrote:

The Todal posted

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.


In such a case, what happens if your own insurance company (to whom you
have to report the accident) takes over the claim and settles with the
other driver's insurer at a much lower level than you are prepared to
accept? They do this fairly regularly, AIUI.

I ask because at the weekend I was involved in a serious car crash that
was completely (and provably, through witnesses) the other driver's
fault. My car was written off, but I bet I don't get offered anything
like its real value, which is essentially what I paid for it only four
months ago.

Who was it actually riding the bike?

On 22/07/2013 12:21, 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.

They seem to work the same way IME. Accident happens, bill is presented,
insurer pays up. I've been on the receiving end for two payments from
motor insurance companies, and I know of two house contents insurance
policy payouts for damage caused by a cyclist. None were contested in
the courts.

Do you have any contrary experience, or are you just theorising in your
post above?

On 23/7/13 20:09, Big Les Wade wrote:
The Todal posted

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.


In such a case, what happens if your own insurance company (to whom you
have to report the accident)

Only if your own car is damaged. I was envisaging a pedestrian who is
hit by a car.


takes over the claim and settles with the
other driver's insurer at a much lower level than you are prepared to
accept? They do this fairly regularly, AIUI.

Yes, these "knock for knock" agreements.



I ask because at the weekend I was involved in a serious car crash that
was completely (and provably, through witnesses) the other driver's
fault. My car was written off, but I bet I don't get offered anything
like its real value, which is essentially what I paid for it only four
months ago.


Your remedy is then to sue the other driver for your uninsured losses,
including any excess on your policy. If you win or if the opposing
insurers concede liability your own insurers should restore your NCD.

But you'll only recover the market value of your car which is usually
what you could have sold it for, not what it would cost you to buy
another car. It isn't fair. It helps of course if you have some injuries
to claim for, but in all honesty many people suffer no more than mild
shock, if that.

On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 01:55:18 +0100, Clive George
wrote:

snip

I know of two house contents insurance
policy payouts for damage caused by a cyclist. None were contested in
the courts.


It would be interesting to know the details.

Peter Keller writes:

Porky Chapman

Still pining for him my love-lorn mistress?

Pine no more, love-lorn mistress. He is currently off winding up some
new-wave cyclability campaigners on a Californian micro-'blogging site:

URL:http://twitter.com/#!/SceptiGuy/status/355318446155763712

--
Mark

On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 19:54:02 +0100, Mark Williams ]
wrote:

Peter Keller writes:

Porky Chapman

Still pining for him my love-lorn mistress?

Pine no more, love-lorn mistress. He is currently off winding up some
new-wave cyclability campaigners on a Californian micro-'blogging site:

URL:http://twitter.com/#!/SceptiGuy/status/355318446155763712

It's a pity Porky Chapman ****ed off after being given a right royal stuffing
here; I think he really was the best value ever - an all time great. Mason,
Anchor, and Crispin are not even in the running.

He really was a card : the little slip about him telling his brats to wear
helmets - denying it - and then altering his web page to make it look like it
had always been out of date.

Lou Knee - the all time great: he called himself an IT expert and then ****ed
up using his firms system to post as Lou Knee.

And then to cap it all him having to drop the supposed legal action against
Nuxx Bar. Rumour has it that he was told that he would be cross-examined
himself on such matters as Lou Knee etc.

"Please tell the court Mr Chapman, did you in fact register a specific email
address purely to harass the defendant?"

The word "******" is just not good enough for him.

I think rubbing of his nose in all the **** which he had produced was the
perfect outcome.

"Judith" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 19:54:02 +0100, Mark Williams ]
wrote:

Peter Keller writes:

Porky Chapman

Still pining for him my love-lorn mistress?

Pine no more, love-lorn mistress. He is currently off winding up some
new-wave cyclability campaigners on a Californian micro-'blogging site:

URL:http://twitter.com/#!/SceptiGuy/status/355318446155763712

It's a pity Porky Chapman ****ed off after being given a right royal
stuffing
here; I think he really was the best value ever - an all time great.
Mason,
Anchor, and Crispin are not even in the running.

He really was a card : the little slip about him telling his brats to wear
helmets - denying it - and then altering his web page to make it look like
it
had always been out of date.

Lou Knee - the all time great: he called himself an IT expert and then
****ed
up using his firms system to post as Lou Knee.

And then to cap it all him having to drop the supposed legal action
against
Nuxx Bar. Rumour has it that he was told that he would be cross-examined
himself on such matters as Lou Knee etc.

"Please tell the court Mr Chapman, did you in fact register a specific
email
address purely to harass the defendant?"

The word "******" is just not good enough for him.

I think rubbing of his nose in all the **** which he had produced was the
perfect outcome.

I am hoping that Porky has leant his lesson. I suspect he has. The lesson
being that if you throw a bucket load of **** in the air, there is a good
chance that some of it will land on you.

As for Mason, he was harmless but great for taking the **** out of. I wish
he'd come back to this forum, he was so much fun.

And what happened to Justin?

John Benn wrote:
"Judith" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 19:54:02 +0100, Mark Williams
] wrote:

Peter Keller writes:

Porky Chapman

Still pining for him my love-lorn mistress?

Pine no more, love-lorn mistress. He is currently off winding up
some new-wave cyclability campaigners on a Californian
micro-'blogging site:
URL:http://twitter.com/#!/SceptiGuy/status/355318446155763712

It's a pity Porky Chapman ****ed off after being given a right royal
stuffing
here; I think he really was the best value ever - an all time great.
Mason,
Anchor, and Crispin are not even in the running.

He really was a card : the little slip about him telling his brats
to wear helmets - denying it - and then altering his web page to
make it look like it
had always been out of date.

Lou Knee - the all time great: he called himself an IT expert and
then ****ed
up using his firms system to post as Lou Knee.

And then to cap it all him having to drop the supposed legal action
against
Nuxx Bar. Rumour has it that he was told that he would be cross-examined
himself on such matters as Lou Knee etc.

"Please tell the court Mr Chapman, did you in fact register a
specific email
address purely to harass the defendant?"

The word "******" is just not good enough for him.

I think rubbing of his nose in all the **** which he had produced
was the perfect outcome.

I am hoping that Porky has leant his lesson. I suspect he has. The
lesson being that if you throw a bucket load of **** in the air,
there is a good chance that some of it will land on you.

As for Mason, he was harmless but great for taking the **** out of. I wish
he'd come back to this forum, he was so much fun.

And what happened to Justin?

I thought he was on a touring holiday in the UK.