presumed liability petition
-
- Posts: 534
- Joined: 8 Nov 2016, 7:50pm
Re: presumed liability petition
This is a great idea and I have signed the petition.
Last edited by atlas_shrugged on 16 Aug 2020, 12:49pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 36776
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: presumed liability petition
Here come the hobbyhorses:
"When I was a lad" spending a lot of time investigating even minor collisions - which generally resulted in a prosecution for "due care" - the people seen as neglect merchants justified themselves by saying "we shouldn't be doing the insurance companies' work for them." The CPS legitimated that approach and soon even quite spectacular smashes were going uninvestigated. In the context of the wording of the current petition, policing of the largest vehicles has seen the biggest collapse. (I've linked several times to the recent inspection of roads policing. That quoted a roads policing officer as saying something like "If we can't see over the roof, we don't deal with it.)
Historically, the insurance companies did rely on the police reports and the results of criminal prosecutions to deal with the liability element of claims. Insurance companies also have to be cost effective so they don't spend big money apportioning liability when the sums involved are small.
These changes have presumably presented the opportunity for the abuses described by slowster.
Also, the introduction of what are loosely termed "no win, no fee" agreements enabled the numerous people who didn't qualify for means-tested legal aid and were not rich enough to fund action privately to make claims. Personal injury lawyers blossomed leading to allegations of a compensation culture. The insurance industry is a powerful lobby group and changes were made to the conditional fee régime and the rules for dealing with "minor" PI claims (Under £5,000 IIRC.)
All this disproportionately disadvantages vulnerable road users including cyclists. A crash which might result in minor bodywork damage to a motor vehicle could cripple or maim a cyclist. As the definition of "bad driving" is subjectively described by what's expected, lower expectations inevitably lead to lower driving standards.
The death of Michael Mason was IMO the nadir.
That's it, in a nutshell.
"When I was a lad" spending a lot of time investigating even minor collisions - which generally resulted in a prosecution for "due care" - the people seen as neglect merchants justified themselves by saying "we shouldn't be doing the insurance companies' work for them." The CPS legitimated that approach and soon even quite spectacular smashes were going uninvestigated. In the context of the wording of the current petition, policing of the largest vehicles has seen the biggest collapse. (I've linked several times to the recent inspection of roads policing. That quoted a roads policing officer as saying something like "If we can't see over the roof, we don't deal with it.)
Historically, the insurance companies did rely on the police reports and the results of criminal prosecutions to deal with the liability element of claims. Insurance companies also have to be cost effective so they don't spend big money apportioning liability when the sums involved are small.
These changes have presumably presented the opportunity for the abuses described by slowster.
Also, the introduction of what are loosely termed "no win, no fee" agreements enabled the numerous people who didn't qualify for means-tested legal aid and were not rich enough to fund action privately to make claims. Personal injury lawyers blossomed leading to allegations of a compensation culture. The insurance industry is a powerful lobby group and changes were made to the conditional fee régime and the rules for dealing with "minor" PI claims (Under £5,000 IIRC.)
All this disproportionately disadvantages vulnerable road users including cyclists. A crash which might result in minor bodywork damage to a motor vehicle could cripple or maim a cyclist. As the definition of "bad driving" is subjectively described by what's expected, lower expectations inevitably lead to lower driving standards.
The death of Michael Mason was IMO the nadir.
I doubt presumed liability would make a major difference to driving standards and reducing the risks of accidents to vulnerable road users, but I think the benefits would outweigh the disadvantages.
That's it, in a nutshell.
Re: presumed liability petition
thirdcrank wrote: The insurance industry is a powerful lobby group and changes were made to the conditional fee régime and the rules for dealing with "minor" PI claims (Under £5,000 IIRC.)
If you're referring to the the Civil Liability Act (Otherwise known as the whiplash law) and the changes to the Small Claims limit that was part of the same reform, I understand vulnerable road users were exempted.
-
- Posts: 36776
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: presumed liability petition
PH wrote: ... If you're referring to the the Civil Liability Act (Otherwise known as the whiplash law) and the changes to the Small Claims limit that was part of the same reform, I understand vulnerable road users were exempted.
That's good to hear. I get - or used to get - my civil law updates from Martin Porter AKA the cycling silk. Unfortunately, his online blog lapsed a couple of years ago and IIRC, the last thing I read from him was condemning the effect what were perhaps then only proposals would have on vulnerable road users. However I come across, while I'm very keen on accuracy and would never intentionally mislead, I'm not bothered about being "right" for its own sake. I've no idea what legislation dealt with this; I'd have linked it if I had.