Presumed liability petition

[Jdsk]

If it's worth reading it's worth reading twice!

: - )

Jonathan

[mattheus]

"Cycling accidents & presumed liability: UK vs Europe"
https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/newsroom ... vs-europe/

and in the Scottish proposal there's a table of comparisons between countries.

Jonathan

Thankyou Jonathan.

Hopefully most will read this before jumping in and writing about "fairness" to drivers.

[atlas_shrugged]

This is not about Guilt is is about liability

Here is a 2 week old baby being killed by a hit-and-run driver who mounted the pavement:

https://twitter.com/allpartycycling/sta ... 6707974147

As I understand he had no insurance. He should be liable *instantly*.

Which brings me onto my other proposal of 3rd party insurance put onto fuel and electric charging of vehicles.

[Jdsk]

The driver has been charged. The case is sub judice. I would advise caution in commenting.

Jonathan

[mattheus]

This is not about Guilt is is about liability

Here is a 2 week old baby being killed by a hit-and-run driver who mounted the pavement:

https://twitter.com/allpartycycling/sta ... 6707974147

As I understand he had no insurance. He should be liable *instantly* not in 3 years time after he has led a life of riley without a care.

Which brings me onto my other proposal of 3rd party insurance put onto fuel and electric charging of vehicles.

Even better would be a universal compensation system, paid out of general taxation (which of course would include fuel tax!) I think this is what NZ has.
Cut out the red tape - faster payouts to victims and/or grieving families.
Cut out the middle men - oh sorry, less money siphoned off by insurers and lawyers!

[It's only step away from the philosphy of our NHS, so I can't see any objections ... ]

[Jdsk]

"No-fault insurance"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_insurance

"New Zealand’s World-leading No-fault Accident Compensation Scheme"
https://www.med.or.jp/english/pdf/2008_01/058-060.pdf

Jonathan

[atlas_shrugged]

@mattheus 100% agreed

[thirdcrank]

Thanks to all involved for the link to Slater and Gordon.

Note to anybody following the link as posted by markjohnobrien you have to scroll down a long, long way but it's well-worth it for the read. (Somebody better than me may create a link that takes you directly to it.)

[slowster]

This is not about Guilt is is about liability

Here is a 2 week old baby being killed by a hit-and-run driver who mounted the pavement:

https://twitter.com/allpartycycling/sta ... 6707974147

As I understand he had no insurance. He should be liable *instantly* not in 3 years time after he has led a life of riley without a care.

Which brings me onto my other proposal of 3rd party insurance put onto fuel and electric charging of vehicles.

Even better would be a universal compensation system, paid out of general taxation (which of course would include fuel tax!) I think this is what NZ has.
Cut out the red tape - faster payouts to victims and/or grieving families.
Cut out the middle men - oh sorry, less money siphoned off by insurers and lawyers!

[It's only step away from the philosphy of our NHS, so I can't see any objections ... ]

The Motor Insurers' Bureau will pay out damages awarded by a court against an uninsured driver. There is no requirement that the outcome of an inquest must be awaited in the case of a fatality. A writ can be served quite quickly, whereupon the next steps are subject to quite tight deadlines and timescales. Probably much of any necessary delay would be on the claimant's side, i.e. quantifying the impact on the claimant and other dependent family members and determining the amount to be sought in compensation.

Funding motor insurance by adding it to fuel costs will result in good drivers subsidising poor and dangerous drivers. Bad drivers will have less incentive to improve and be more careful for fear that their premiums will increase, and there will be no commercial disincentive or bar to their driving high performance cars (for which insurers would charge discouragingly high premiums, or would even refuse to cover because of the unacceptably high risk).

Government administered insurance schemes become political footballs. Public pressure on the government of the day to reduce the price will result in problems with either underfunding (kicking the can down the road until the problem becomes so bad it cannot be ignored and fudged, and by which point the solution will be even more painful/costly) and/or government intervention to cap compensation amounts (payments under the NZ scheme are lower than under tort based law systems). If a government is faced with a choice between the roads lobby/car owners and the - in comparison - tiny number of people who are killed or suffered serious injuries as a result of a driver's negligence, the former have more money and more votes.

[atlas_shrugged]

The good drivers subsidising poor and dangerous drivers is what happens at the moment.

By putting 3rd party costs onto fuel you make sure that illegal drivers who would otherwise pay nothing do at least pay something towards their 3rd party insurance.

In addition the drivers who drive more end up paying more for insurance. This is fair because high mileage drivers increase their risk. Similarly the drivers who do little mileage would pay relatively less.

[slowster]

The good drivers subsidising poor and dangerous drivers is what happens at the moment.

By putting 3rd party costs onto fuel you make sure that illegal drivers who would otherwise pay nothing do at least pay something towards their 3rd party insurance.

In addition the drivers who drive more end up paying more for insurance. This is fair because high mileage drivers increase their risk. Similarly the drivers who do little mileage would pay relatively less.

If annual mileage driven was a good predictor of risk, insurance companies would include it in their pricing. As far as I am aware, they largely do not do so. Instead their pricing is determined by other factors, not least past accidents, age and convictions, which claims experience has proved are the best available measures of risk.

[mjr]

If annual mileage driven was a good predictor of risk, insurance companies would include it in their pricing. As far as I am aware, they largely do not do so. Instead their pricing is determined by other factors, not least past accidents, age and convictions, which claims experience has proved are the best available measures of risk.

It's been years since I had a policy offering any benefit for low mileage, which I think was a John Lewis "green" policy.

I've been told that part of the reason that mileage driven doesn't reduce risk enough to reduce premiums is that hit-and-run damage to a parked car, even on a private drive, is marked as a claim against the policy on that car, rather than paid out of the uninsured driver fund. As well as being unjust, it means insurance companies have less incentive to reduce the mileage driven (because a well-parked car is still a risk for them) and the regulator should probably step in to change the practice.

[slowster]

I've been told that part of the reason that mileage driven doesn't reduce risk enough to reduce premiums is that hit-and-run damage to a parked car, even on a private drive, is marked as a claim against the policy on that car, rather than paid out of the uninsured driver fund.

That is an assertion which I would only be inclined to give credence to if the source was someone who worked at a very senior level in the underwriting department of a major insurer. I am sceptical both that mileage is a sufficiently substantial reliable predictor of risk, and also even if it were a reliable predictor that neverthless hit and run damage accounts for such a high proportion of claims that it made it not worthwhile to use mileage in the pricing model.

As well as being unjust, it means insurance companies have less incentive to reduce the mileage driven (because a well-parked car is still a risk for them) and the regulator should probably step in to change the practice.

The Motor Insurers' Bureau scheme was established principally to compensate people who suffered serious physical injury or who lost family members as a result of a motor accident caused by uninsured or untraced drivers. It is funded by a levy on motor insurers, i.e. indirectly by everyone who pays motor insurance. It does cover property damage, but only when that is incidental to a serious injury/death claim.

The fact that property damage on its own is not covered by the scheme, such as hit and run damage to a parked car, is just tough. It is little different from having to claim under your own home insurance policy because someone threw a stone at your window or burgled your home while you were out. That is what insurance is for. The fact that the claim may result in the price being increased at renewal is part and parcel of insurance pricing. Even if the loss was not your fault, if the loss is a reliable predictor of an increased risk of further such claims in the future, then it needs to be you that pays the accordingly higher price, not for that greater risk to be subsidised by everyone else. If it is not a reliable predictor, then an advantage of a competitive commercial insurance market, as opposed to a government run monopolistic scheme, is that there should be other insurers who disagree and would charge less.

More obviously, if hit and run damage claims resulted in more favourable treatment than damage caused simply by careless driving of the owner, it would encourage people to pretend that damage which was really their fault had been caused by a hit and run driver.

[mjr]

That is an assertion which I would only be inclined to give credence to if the source was someone who worked at a very senior level in the underwriting department of a major insurer.

Oh well. It was only a junior at the MIB. Clearly they take no interest in their work and learn nothing.

More obviously, if hit and run damage claims resulted in more favourable treatment than damage caused simply by careless driving of the owner, it would encourage people to pretend that damage which was really their fault had been caused by a hit and run driver.

How dare you! It was parked outside my house, as it usually is because I cycle for local transport.

[slowster]

Oh well. It was only a junior at the MIB. Clearly they take no interest in their work and learn nothing.

Some do, some don't. It's also very easy for people working at junior and even mid-levels in those sorts of organisations to have misconceptions, not least because of poor communication and emphasis from those above them. I've been on the receiving of that sort of information from higher levels, which proved to be a misrepresentation because they too did not have the full picture accurately and clearly explained to them. I've even had the experience of listening to someone at the most senior level telling us how he and his team had analysed the data in their possession and found that XYZ was a very reliable predictor, but that ABC was a weak predictor and 'they didn't know the reason for that'. Ironically as one of the front line grunts who captured and recorded ABC data, I knew why it was a weak predictor because I understood the weightings allocated to different parts of the data, which had been determined by the personal bias of a senior person who 'knew best'.

How dare you! It was parked outside my house, as it usually is because I cycle for local transport.

It's the other 20-30 million odd car drivers I wouldn't trust. If you think motor insurance is expensive, imagine what it would be like if there was a major increase in claims lodged as hit and run events, and the extra costs involved in extra investigations to determine if they were fraudulent.

I think that as much as possible the price of risk needs to be borne by those who own/create/control the risk, whether that be driving motor vehicles, pollution, climate change, financial crashes or whatever. Whenever the cost of risk is offloaded onto someone else, such as the government or society in general, it creates perverse incentives and is likely eventually to cost that 'someone else' a lot of money.