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.
Making money? Really?
In the case I listed above Bethany was brain damaged and had limited walking ability. I don't know how she is doing today, but 6 years after being hit by a car, she still required a lot of support for day to day life. The family were awarded £5 million in the original court settlement, and the insurance company appealed that, not on the basis that it was too much money, but on the basis of contributory negligence (not wearing hi-viz & walking on the worng side of the road, nevermind that she was walking on the side with a verge & that's where the driver hit her). I don't see how that's 'making money'. https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/resource ... -accident/
I know of someone who was hit by a car whilst cycling. The driver was considered at fault. The driver was offered a choice between a course and points. The person I know of was in hospital, off work for some time, and afterwards needed physio, but there was a long waiting list for the specialist in his area, so he saw a private physio, thinking he'd be reimbursed by insurance. Initially the insurance company admitted liability and offered him £1500. He didn't accept it on the basis it was too low. He sent them all of his expenses, etc. They came back with an offer of £2000 that included reductions for various things, like the age of the bike and equipment, and also said that he was 'going too fast' at an estimated 35 mph downhill, and therefore contributed to the crash. It was at this point that my friend got legal help. In the end, he settled for £5000, 2.5 or so years after the crash, even though he figured he was out at least £6000 and could demonstrate most of it (reciepts for fuel, physio, etc.). Because the alternative was a legal battle, and he needed the money.
In another case, a friend of mine who was severly injured when a driver turned into his path out of a side road had insurance through BC, which was good, because he needed their help resolving his claim. The driver was considered fully at fault, but the insurance company initially offered a few thousand pounds (apparently based upon a payout table). He was in ICU for more than a week, off work for months, had mutliple broken bones (ribs, legs, vertebrae), needed physio and various support equipment during his recovery, trips into London to see specialists, etc. BC advised him to wait to settle until he better knew the long term impact and ongoing costs of his crash. They also got him some interim payments to cover physio treatments and transport.
Motorists, through compulsory insurance, have the benefit of full representation & legal assistance by their insurers to deal with and pay any
claim against them for compensation. Furthermore, the insurance companies are primarily interested in paying out as little as possible. And normally start with very low offers. Cyclists and pedestrians, on the other hand, often have to get (potentially expensive) legal representation to prove their case. This is grossly unfair. If you don't want to accept my word for it, read the report linked here
that summarises the case for presumed liability (prepared for Road Share in Scotland).
If the UK does not introduce presumed liability, the government need to do something else, such as require MIB to represent vulnerable road users in such cases, or establish some sort of independent victims' representation to do so; and do so automatically, not when people apply because of the stress or problems of dealing with insurance.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom