South West trains doesn't want cyclists as 'customers'...

"Jon Senior" wrote in message
...


To elaborate. I suspect that as with many aspects of law in Britain, the
insurers would have to show intent. If the reward is after the event,
then there cannot have been intent.

Jon


Surely there only needs to have been prior agreement?

The fact that X agreed to pay a hitman only after the hitman
succeeded in murdering X's wife, in no way lessens X's intent
to murder his wife.

Proving this in relatively trivial cases, such as the above,
might well be a different matter however.



Curious

In article ,
says...
Surely there only needs to have been prior agreement?

The fact that X agreed to pay a hitman only after the hitman
succeeded in murdering X's wife, in no way lessens X's intent
to murder his wife.

Proving this in relatively trivial cases, such as the above,
might well be a different matter however.

Exactly what I meant. If there was no prior agreement (They were going
that way and decided to pick her up en route) then it would be
difficult. IIRC they did actually consider this, and the she used to buy
sweets for the car instead.

Jon

In article ,
(Paul Weaver) writes:

Remove all vehicle taxes and then it will be considered subsidy.

Charge drivers even a tiny fraction as much per death as the railway
industry pays ... and their insurance will dwarf all their taxes.

What we need around here[1] and comparable places is to stop hugely
subsidising the car, marginalising the large minority who don't have
one, and ruining the place for everyone.

For the record I believe the railway should have about £10bn a year
extra put into capital investment. Roads should have a similar
ammount.

Put even a tiny fraction of it into serious IT infrastructure.
Fewer office workers having to commute will take the pressure off
*all* modes of body-shifting.

[1] here being West Devon. At the time of the last election, Radio 4
described us as the second most rural (parliamentary) constituency
in England. Yep, we're the people the metropolitan motor-apologists
scream are unfairly penalised by charging motorists anything at all.

--
Nick Kew

On the contrary, insurance companies have defended it successfully in
the courts, time and again.


I vaguely remember publicity about this clause being relaxed to allow
car-sharing where costs are given to the driver as long as there was no element
of profit. It pops up occasionally on the news.

Cheers, helen s


--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
**$om $

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--

"Jon Senior" wrote in message
...

Exactly what I meant.

Jon

Okey Dokey

Curious

I vaguely remember publicity about this clause being relaxed to allow
car-sharing where costs are given to the driver as long as there was no
element
of profit. It pops up occasionally on the news.

Cheers, helen s

A quick google shows lots of info about it - such as

http://www.est.uea.ac.uk/transport/s....asp#Insurance

"Insurance
The Association of British Motor Insurers has agreed that ride sharing should
not increase the cost of your policy or affect the level of cover as long as
there is no element of profit. A statement from the Association of British
Insurers appears below.

You are strongly advised to let your insurance company or broker know that you
are ride-sharing. A pro-forma letter is included for you to complete and
forward to them. If you encounter any difficulties with your company, please
let the Transport Co-ordinator know.

Motor Conference Undertaking:

The receipt of contributions as part of a ride sharing arrangement for social
or other similar purposes in respect of the carriage of passengers on a journey
in a vehicle insured under a private car policy will not be regarded as
constituting the carriage of passengers for hire or reward (or the use of the
vehicle for hiring) provided that: -

a) The vehicle is not constructed or adapted to carry more than eight
passengers (excluding the driver)
b) The passengers are not being carried in the course of a business of carrying
passengers
c) The total contributions received for the journey concerned do not involve an
element of profit

Note: If in any doubt whether a car sharing scheme arrangement is covered by
the terms of a private car policy, the policyholders concerned should make an
inquiry to their motor insurers.Click on the link below for a standard letter
template (Supplied by the British Association of British Insurers, 1998)"


Cheers, helen s



--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
**$om $

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--

In article ,
says...
Jon Senior wrote:

Only if the proceeds were officially logged in some manner. I challenge
any lawyer in the world to conclusively prove that the couple of quid
that my dad was give were explicitly for the journey costs and not a
friendly offer of sweets.

It takes only an admission in court that money changed hands.

And if _money_ didn't?

Question: If I drive my car on which I am insured (Standard policy, no
frills) and a friend pays for the petrol with his credit card, does this
count? What if I buy the petrol, but they buy the sweets / drinks for
the journey, or buy me a pint in the pub later.

Money is "hire", sweets, drinks or a pint in the pub are forms of
"reward". It is to ensure that such attempted avoidance does not
escape the remit of law that the term is "hire or reward".

What if the reward is a lift? I give you a lift to work on Monday,
knowing that'll you'll return the favour on Tuesday. This is for "hire
or reward" but I think that any insurance firm would be hard pushed to
defend revoking your insurance over it (In the event of a claim). If
taken seriously this clause would mean that the designated driver on a
trip to the pub, could not be bought drinks by any of his passengers as
that would constitute a "reward". I'm sure that you can imagine similar
circumstances which constitute normal life. If this clause was used in
anything other than extreme circumstances (Taking paying passengers
without being a licenced private hire vehicle) then it could obviously
be extended to cover all normal driving where any passenger is involved.

This is an indefensible clause.

On the contrary, insurance companies have defended it successfully in
the courts, time and again.

quote src="http://www.liftshare.org/letter.htm"
Motor Conference Undertaking

The receipt of contributions as part of a car sharing arrangement for
social or other similar purposes in respect of the carriage of
passengers on a journey in a vehicle insured under a private car policy
will not be regarded as constituting the carriage of passengers for hire
or reward (or the use of the vehicle for hiring) provided that:

1. The vehicle is not constructed or adapted to carry more than eight
passengers excluding the driver.

2. The passengers are not being carried in the course of a business
carrying passengers

3. The total contributions received for the journey concerned do not
involve an element of profit

Note. If in any doubt whether a car sharing scheme arrangement is
covered by the terms of a private car policy the policyholders concerned
should make an inquiry to their motor insurers. Motor Conference is the
Standing Joint Committee of the Association of British Insurers and
Lloyds Motor Underwriters' Association

(Supplied by the Association of British Insurers June 1998)

/quote

No my dad did not use this, but if anyone here is concerned, this looks
like the ticket.

Jon

(Nick Kew) wrote:

Put even a tiny fraction of it into serious IT infrastructure.
Fewer office workers having to commute will take the pressure off
*all* modes of body-shifting.


I find it amusing that we all have our own, very personal ideas about
how £10 billion might be spent.

;-)

Jon Senior wrote:

quote src="http://www.liftshare.org/letter.htm"
Motor Conference Undertaking

The receipt of contributions as part of a car sharing arrangement for
social or other similar purposes in respect of the carriage of
passengers on a journey in a vehicle insured under a private car policy
will not be regarded as constituting the carriage of passengers for hire
or reward (or the use of the vehicle for hiring) provided that:

1. The vehicle is not constructed or adapted to carry more than eight
passengers excluding the driver.

2. The passengers are not being carried in the course of a business
carrying passengers

3. The total contributions received for the journey concerned do not
involve an element of profit

Note. If in any doubt whether a car sharing scheme arrangement is
covered by the terms of a private car policy the policyholders concerned
should make an inquiry to their motor insurers. Motor Conference is the
Standing Joint Committee of the Association of British Insurers and
Lloyds Motor Underwriters' Association

(Supplied by the Association of British Insurers June 1998)

/quote

No my dad did not use this, but if anyone here is concerned, this looks
like the ticket.


That's very useful, thanks. My experience and knowledge all dates
from before 1998, when the situation was clearly very different.

This clarification from the Association of British Insurers is very
welcome, and I apologise for not being aware of it.

In article ,
says...
That's very useful, thanks. My experience and knowledge all dates
from before 1998, when the situation was clearly very different.

This clarification from the Association of British Insurers is very
welcome, and I apologise for not being aware of it.

No apology needed. I only found it because I was looking for example
cases of the "hire or reward" clause. ;-) If you do decide to make use
of it, the same page has a form letter that the ABI *strongly* suggest
that you send to your insurer. That way you have a definitive answer in
writing which could save much grief later.

Jon