A loophole?

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
LondonBikeCommuter
Posts: 238
Joined: 21 Apr 2013, 4:10pm
Location: Swindon

A loophole?

Postby LondonBikeCommuter » 9 Sep 2014, 3:55pm

Saw this in the Evening Standard a couple of nights ago and wondered what others thought?


http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/c ... 91890.html

kwackers
Posts: 15447
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: A loophole?

Postby kwackers » 9 Sep 2014, 4:08pm

There's an accident and the police can't/won't do anything - hardly a loophole. Happens all the time even when insurance is involved.

Plus insurance isn't really any different to civil liability, if she's got a case then she can take the other rider to court. She still has to prove it (and I'm guessing that given the police couldn't find CCTV or witnesses that the two accounts differ) so even if he has insurance there's no guarantee she'll get any cash.

Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: A loophole?

Postby Bicycler » 9 Sep 2014, 4:08pm

What is the loophole?

Crash happens. Some poor soul get hurt. Police decide there isn't enough evidence. No prosecution occurs. - That all sounds like a fairly standard reaction to a collision involving a cyclist.

What is notable is that the Evening Standard have felt the need to draw attention to this particular incident involving a second cyclist. Now you need to ask yourself whether a cyclist injured after a collision involving a car and alleging poor driving (but with no prosecution forthcoming) would get the same number of column inches.

thirdcrank
Posts: 30808
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: A loophole?

Postby thirdcrank » 9 Sep 2014, 4:23pm

From that link:

There's been a criminal investigation and in the absence of independent evidence there will be no prosecution.

Scotland Yard said officers investigated the incident but no further action was taken after they found “no CCTV footage available and no witnesses”.


The injured rider seems unaware that she doesn't need insurance to pursue a claim against the other rider; there are plenty of personal injury lawyers who will do that on a no win, no fee basis. As the other rider claims to be uninsured, their ability to bay a substantial compo claim would depend on their assets.

She says she is also unlikely to receive compensation after the crash on New North Road, Islington, on July 17 because neither she nor the other cyclist were covered by insurance.


I suppose the answer is that if you are concerned about being injured by somebody without insurance cover - and the MIB picks up the tab for uninsured or untraced drivers of motor vehicles - the answer is to take out personal accident cover before it happens.
Last edited by thirdcrank on 9 Sep 2014, 4:25pm, edited 1 time in total.

LondonBikeCommuter
Posts: 238
Joined: 21 Apr 2013, 4:10pm
Location: Swindon

Re: A loophole?

Postby LondonBikeCommuter » 9 Sep 2014, 4:24pm

Bicycler wrote:What is the loophole?


Apologies, I was a little unclear..... I was actually referring to the crash victims inability to secure compensation.

Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: A loophole?

Postby Bicycler » 9 Sep 2014, 4:34pm

Ah, okay. Well I think TC explains that she can. Motor vehicles are actually the exception here in that they legally require insurance and you generally deal with their insurers rather than the individuals themselves. The risk is that you get hit by someone who has no means to pay. Kwackers is right to say that her entitlement to compensation relies on her being able to back up her assertion that the other party was to blame. That requirement wouldn't be any different if the collision had involved a fully insured car or cyclist.

LondonBikeCommuter
Posts: 238
Joined: 21 Apr 2013, 4:10pm
Location: Swindon

Re: A loophole?

Postby LondonBikeCommuter » 9 Sep 2014, 4:51pm

OK so instead of loophole maybe oversight might be a better word to use. It seems there are quite a number of hurdles to jump to successfully receive compensation.... witnesses, NWNF lawyer and the at fault party being able to fund any award. I'm guessing that self-funding a case would be prohibitively expensive.

Should this process be easier?

thirdcrank
Posts: 30808
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: A loophole?

Postby thirdcrank » 9 Sep 2014, 5:37pm

I think a better comparison here is with something like a DIYer dropping something negligently or perhaps a climber dislodging something and in either case injuring somebody below. None of the regime associated with motor vehicles and their drivers applies to a lot of negligence in other activities. AFAIK, this is why domestic building insurance includes an element of third party cover: the mortgage lender doesn't want their security whipped away by the outcome of a compo claim.

yakdiver
Posts: 1253
Joined: 12 Jul 2007, 2:54pm
Location: North Baddesley Hampshire

Re: A loophole?

Postby yakdiver » 9 Sep 2014, 5:53pm

With a head cam with very clear video she would have a chance with a court case, but as it is she got very little to prove it was the other riders fault, and if she won what would she get 50p a week.
Alias Numbnuts

AlaninWales
Posts: 1609
Joined: 26 Oct 2012, 1:47pm

Re: A loophole?

Postby AlaninWales » 10 Sep 2014, 10:00am

LondonBikeCommuter wrote:OK so instead of loophole maybe oversight might be a better word to use. It seems there are quite a number of hurdles to jump to successfully receive compensation.... witnesses, NWNF lawyer and the at fault party being able to fund any award. I'm guessing that self-funding a case would be prohibitively expensive.

Should this process be easier?

No oversight either: All those hurdles would be necessary in order to have a successful prosecution or compensation in any case - whether it involved a cyclist or an HGV. An HGV would (well, should) be insured. Most cyclists are.

Someone is injured "Something Should Be Done" - err yes, the adults involved should stop acting like children and expecting 'someone else' to sort it out. If she has a valid claim, then pursue it against the other cyclist, through the cicil courts if necessary. I really don't understand why people expect the state to do this for them.