Intimidating Motorists?

General cycling advice ( NOT technical ! )
pete75
Posts: 12304
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Intimidating Motorists?

Postby pete75 » 5 Jun 2019, 11:53am

Vorpal wrote:Don't you think that a vulnerable road user who is injured through no fault of their own should be able to claim compensation?

Any road user who is injured through no fault of their own can currently claim compensation if someone else is at fault. If no one else is at fault either then obviously no.

mattheus
Posts: 1231
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm

Re: Intimidating Motorists?

Postby mattheus » 5 Jun 2019, 12:19pm

pete75 wrote:
Vorpal wrote:Don't you think that a vulnerable road user who is injured through no fault of their own should be able to claim compensation?

Any road user who is injured through no fault of their own can currently claim compensation if someone else is at fault. If no one else is at fault either then obviously no.

If you run me over with your car, then you are at least partly to blame, due to driving down that road in a lethal vehicle. Had you cycled (or stayed at home), their would be no injury.

I think it's a reasonable system that your insurance should pay-out to my grieving family (unless you can prove that I was wholly to blame). It would NOT be reasonable to presume you Guilty of Manslaughter.

It's not helpful to talk about "fairness" - by travelling in a lethal machine, you are creating a hazard for other members of society; you should take some responsibility for this, and paying for insurance seems a small price to pay.

[I believe the classical analogy of this was taking a tiger for a walk down the High Street).

thirdcrank
Posts: 28685
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Intimidating Motorists?

Postby thirdcrank » 5 Jun 2019, 12:26pm

mattheus wrote: ... If you run me over with your car, then you are at least partly to blame, due to driving down that road in a lethal vehicle. Had you cycled (or stayed at home), their would be no injury. ... .


Does that mean you believe that cycling carries no danger whatsoever for others, or that it should be overlooked when - very occasionally - somebody else is killed?

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 17609
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Intimidating Motorists?

Postby Vorpal » 5 Jun 2019, 12:32pm

pete75 wrote:
Vorpal wrote:Don't you think that a vulnerable road user who is injured through no fault of their own should be able to claim compensation?

Any road user who is injured through no fault of their own can currently claim compensation if someone else is at fault. If no one else is at fault either then obviously no.

Except that very often, they cannot, and furthermore, when they can, it is often a long and arduous process that can take years, involve lawyers, and still leave the victim with inadequate recompense.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

pete75
Posts: 12304
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Intimidating Motorists?

Postby pete75 » 5 Jun 2019, 12:39pm

Vorpal wrote:
pete75 wrote:
Vorpal wrote:Don't you think that a vulnerable road user who is injured through no fault of their own should be able to claim compensation?

Any road user who is injured through no fault of their own can currently claim compensation if someone else is at fault. If no one else is at fault either then obviously no.

Except that very often, they cannot, and furthermore, when they can, it is often a long and arduous process that can take years, involve lawyers, and still leave the victim with inadequate recompense.


Why can't they - presumably because there isn't sufficient evidence to ascertain blame in which case how does anyone know who is to blame. If someone is claiming substantial sums in damages then it's only right there be an exhaustive process to see if they're actually entitled to them.

mattheus
Posts: 1231
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm

Re: Intimidating Motorists?

Postby mattheus » 5 Jun 2019, 1:21pm

thirdcrank wrote:
mattheus wrote: ... If you run me over with your car, then you are at least partly to blame, due to driving down that road in a lethal vehicle. Had you cycled (or stayed at home), their would be no injury. ... .


Does that mean you believe that cycling carries no danger whatsoever for others, or that it should be overlooked when - very occasionally - somebody else is killed?

So you're suggesting bicycles are dangerous enough to need special laws to deal with them? Or that they are in the same class of danger as motorcars??

(We have speed limits for cars, and we have slightly lower ones for HGVs, but nothing for bikes; this is entirely sensible - you don't need laws to control every activity on the planet, just the dangerous ones.)

You need to have a sense of proportion with these things. or you will leap to ludicrous conclusions.

pete75
Posts: 12304
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Intimidating Motorists?

Postby pete75 » 5 Jun 2019, 1:53pm

mattheus wrote:
pete75 wrote:
Vorpal wrote:Don't you think that a vulnerable road user who is injured through no fault of their own should be able to claim compensation?

Any road user who is injured through no fault of their own can currently claim compensation if someone else is at fault. If no one else is at fault either then obviously no.

If you run me over with your car, then you are at least partly to blame, due to driving down that road in a lethal vehicle. Had you cycled (or stayed at home), their would be no injury.

I think it's a reasonable system that your insurance should pay-out to my grieving family (unless you can prove that I was wholly to blame). It would NOT be reasonable to presume you Guilty of Manslaughter.

It's not helpful to talk about "fairness" - by travelling in a lethal machine, you are creating a hazard for other members of society; you should take some responsibility for this, and paying for insurance seems a small price to pay.

[I believe the classical analogy of this was taking a tiger for a walk down the High Street).


Using your logic then you'd also be partly to blame because you could have stayed at home as well in which case there would have been no injury either.
The motorist's insurance would pay out to your family if the motorist was found to be liable.

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 17609
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Intimidating Motorists?

Postby Vorpal » 5 Jun 2019, 2:27pm

pete75 wrote:
Vorpal wrote:
pete75 wrote:Any road user who is injured through no fault of their own can currently claim compensation if someone else is at fault. If no one else is at fault either then obviously no.

Except that very often, they cannot, and furthermore, when they can, it is often a long and arduous process that can take years, involve lawyers, and still leave the victim with inadequate recompense.


Why can't they - presumably because there isn't sufficient evidence to ascertain blame in which case how does anyone know who is to blame. If someone is claiming substantial sums in damages then it's only right there be an exhaustive process to see if they're actually entitled to them.

Because it has more to do with insurance companies' profit than evidence. Because they claim contributory negligence for anything and everything they can get away with, like lack of hi-vis, helmets, etc. And families that have to deal with the death or injury of a loved one may not have the emotional or financial capacity to turn away inadequate compensation when the alternative is a long drawn out civil case. Or they do fight it and win years later.

Like this case, which was discussed extensively on here some years ago viewtopic.php?f=7&t=72586

Bethany Probert was hit by a car in 2009. In 2016, the family settled out of court for 90% of the £5 million in compensation originally awarded in court. Although the insurance company had paid interim compensation of £1 million, I can imagine that doesn't begin to come close to compensating for them having to sell their home, and Bethany's mum giving up work to become a full time carer, let alone the life changing injury that Bethany suffered, or the stress and difficulty of pursuing the civil case.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

rfryer
Posts: 696
Joined: 7 Feb 2013, 3:58pm

Re: Intimidating Motorists?

Postby rfryer » 5 Jun 2019, 2:31pm

What about the case where the cyclist is dead or can't remember what happened, and the driver is the only witness?

With presumed liability, the driver would be unable to prove that the cyclist was behaving irresponsibly, and therefore would be liable to provide compensation.

At the moment, the cyclist (or their grieving family) is unable to prove they were cycling safely, so the driver can plead innocence and get away with it.

There's potential for injustices both ways; I never said whether the cyclist was blameless in the incident. But I'm my view, presumed liability would give the correct outcome more often, and when it led to the wrong outcome then the impact on the driver would be less (losing NCB vs losing a potentially large settlement).

User avatar
Cugel
Posts: 2910
Joined: 13 Nov 2017, 11:14am

Re: Intimidating Motorists?

Postby Cugel » 5 Jun 2019, 2:56pm

mattheus wrote:
thirdcrank wrote:
mattheus wrote: ... If you run me over with your car, then you are at least partly to blame, due to driving down that road in a lethal vehicle. Had you cycled (or stayed at home), their would be no injury. ... .


Does that mean you believe that cycling carries no danger whatsoever for others, or that it should be overlooked when - very occasionally - somebody else is killed?

So you're suggesting bicycles are dangerous enough to need special laws to deal with them? Or that they are in the same class of danger as motorcars??

(We have speed limits for cars, and we have slightly lower ones for HGVs, but nothing for bikes; this is entirely sensible - you don't need laws to control every activity on the planet, just the dangerous ones.)

You need to have a sense of proportion with these things. or you will leap to ludicrous conclusions.


Although I feel that a lot of insurance is a bit of a con or a swizz - in that far too much is demanded to insure far too little, with reluctance to pay when due - I think a case can be made that all citizens of a nation should have basic 3rd party insurance. That is, an insurance against any event in which they are at fault in causing someone else harm or high expense.

Many already have such insurance as part of their household insurance. We have it for some specific kinds of events when members of various organisations, such as CUK, archery clubs and similar activity-oriented associations, are 3rd-party insured where there's a raised possibility of us harming someone else.

If I have no insurance and insufficient means to pay compenation should I cause harm and a court finds against me, the victim of my harm gets nothing. Moreover, if I do have means, it may be taken from me to a degree that means I can no longer support a family or fulfil other duties, thus causing more harm.

One aspect of a civil society is that it can provide mechanisms to reduce the dangers and consequences found in "a state of nature". Generalised 3rd party insurance should be very inexpensive (as it it is with household insurance) but would ensure any harm we do can at least mean the victims can be compensated with some dosh. Dosh is by no means enough, in many cases - but it's something.

Cugel
Last edited by Cugel on 5 Jun 2019, 2:58pm, edited 1 time in total.

mattheus
Posts: 1231
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm

Re: Intimidating Motorists?

Postby mattheus » 5 Jun 2019, 2:58pm

rfryer wrote:With presumed liability,
...

There's potential for injustices both ways; I never said whether the cyclist was blameless in the incident. But I'm my view, presumed liability would give the correct outcome more often, and when it led to the wrong outcome then the impact on the driver would be less (losing NCB vs losing a potentially large settlement).

Exactly. Like the current systems, it's imperfect (what do the drivers here think about knock-for-knock settlements?).

But let's look at the main, broad effects:
- Some drivers will take more care around the vulnerable (cos they know they'll lose their NCB in almost any crash)
- Of the hundreds of people maimed/killed by drivers every year, many more victims (and their families) will receive some compensation, and go through less stress.
- There MIGHT be a tiny increase in "ambulance-chaser" types throwing themselves out in front of cars.*

Discuss! :)


*Can anyone report on this being the case in the many countries that already have PL?

thirdcrank
Posts: 28685
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Intimidating Motorists?

Postby thirdcrank » 5 Jun 2019, 6:08pm

mattheus wrote:
thirdcrank wrote:
mattheus wrote: ... If you run me over with your car, then you are at least partly to blame, due to driving down that road in a lethal vehicle. Had you cycled (or stayed at home), their would be no injury. ... .


Does that mean you believe that cycling carries no danger whatsoever for others, or that it should be overlooked when - very occasionally - somebody else is killed?

So you're suggesting bicycles are dangerous enough to need special laws to deal with them? Or that they are in the same class of danger as motorcars??

(We have speed limits for cars, and we have slightly lower ones for HGVs, but nothing for bikes; this is entirely sensible - you don't need laws to control every activity on the planet, just the dangerous ones.)

You need to have a sense of proportion with these things. or you will leap to ludicrous conclusions.


The point I was making is that you implied that by cycling somebody could not cause injury.

... Had you cycled, their (sic) would be no injury. ...


I can only read that to mean what I inferred, especially when taken with the bit I missed out, equating the possibility of cycling causing injury to being the same as staying at home.

Since you ask, I was not suggesting, nor do I believe that bicycles need special laws, or that they are in the same "class of danger as motorcars."

I hope that clarifies my views and I hope you will now answer my query about yours.

mattheus
Posts: 1231
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm

Re: Intimidating Motorists?

Postby mattheus » 5 Jun 2019, 7:52pm

thirdcrank wrote:The point I was making is that you implied[sic] that by cycling somebody could not cause injury.

Actually no - you inferred it.

So now we've got the hair-splitting out of the way, let's focus on the important stuff [my bold]:

rfryer wrote:What about the case where the cyclist is dead or can't remember what happened, and the driver is the only witness?

With presumed liability, the driver would be unable to prove that the cyclist was behaving irresponsibly, and therefore would be liable to provide compensation.

At the moment, the cyclist (or their grieving family) is unable to prove they were cycling safely, so the driver can plead innocence and get away with it.

There's potential for injustices both ways; I never said whether the cyclist was blameless in the incident. But I'm my view, presumed liability would give the correct outcome more often, and when it led to the wrong outcome then the impact on the driver would be less (losing NCB vs losing a potentially large settlement).

thirdcrank
Posts: 28685
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Intimidating Motorists?

Postby thirdcrank » 5 Jun 2019, 8:03pm

I take it from that you have no answer to my query.

pete75
Posts: 12304
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Intimidating Motorists?

Postby pete75 » 5 Jun 2019, 10:13pm

Vorpal wrote:
pete75 wrote:
Vorpal wrote:Except that very often, they cannot, and furthermore, when they can, it is often a long and arduous process that can take years, involve lawyers, and still leave the victim with inadequate recompense.


Why can't they - presumably because there isn't sufficient evidence to ascertain blame in which case how does anyone know who is to blame. If someone is claiming substantial sums in damages then it's only right there be an exhaustive process to see if they're actually entitled to them.

Because it has more to do with insurance companies' profit than evidence. Because they claim contributory negligence for anything and everything they can get away with, like lack of hi-vis, helmets, etc. And families that have to deal with the death or injury of a loved one may not have the emotional or financial capacity to turn away inadequate compensation when the alternative is a long drawn out civil case. Or they do fight it and win years later.

Like this case, which was discussed extensively on here some years ago viewtopic.php?f=7&t=72586

Bethany Probert was hit by a car in 2009. In 2016, the family settled out of court for 90% of the £5 million in compensation originally awarded in court. Although the insurance company had paid interim compensation of £1 million, I can imagine that doesn't begin to come close to compensating for them having to sell their home, and Bethany's mum giving up work to become a full time carer, let alone the life changing injury that Bethany suffered, or the stress and difficulty of pursuing the civil case.


We'll just have to agree to differ on this. Quite frankly if one of my children had suffered such injuries the last thing on my mind would be making money out of it.