Hi, I was just wondering what people thought of it?
http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/
There is a bit on it here:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn4xF_6Oxzs
A poll would be interesting, so please vote even if you have not heard of it or have given nothing.
Cyclists' Defence Fund
meic wrote:Is the cyclist's defence fund part of the legal cover we get from our CTC membership (and wants additional funds from donations) or a seperate entity altogether?
As I understand it....and I'm not speaking from any official position, just my take on it so feel free to correct me....
I believe that it is seperate but related....it's not the 3rd party insurance or standard free legal advice, but goes beyond that to fight individual cases or issues that may impact upon cycling as a whole, for instance the Daniel Cadden case. Here the insurance would not have helped him as he was being prosecuted based upon a very questionable interpretation of the law by both the police officer and the magistrate at the first trial. Thus the CDF jumped in to both defend him and also any other cyclists that might suffer the same fate. If, however, Dan had done something blatently wrong, eg jumping a red light and running over an old lady then the CDF would probably not have helped. But as Dan was charged with using the road instead of using a cycle path*, something that he was entirely allowed to do, the CDF helped him....and in doing so helped all of us (although as the case was thrown out on first appeal it didn't set a legal precident, but it still demonstrated that any future such charges against cyclists would be difficult and it gave us ammunition in our non-legal arguments).
*well, what he was actually charged with seemed to change depending upon who was asked: the copper or the magistrate...
-
thirdcrank
- Posts: 36740
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
I think the other really significant case (besides DC) taken on by the CDF (or it may have been by the CTC and what prompted the foundation of the CDF) was the case of the young child playing in the street on a bike without a helmet who was injured when he was hit by a vehicle.
The driver's insurers dragged their feet and, although a child cannot be negligent in law, the insurers said that his parents had been negligent in not making him wear one. (Contributary negligence rears its head again.)
In cases such as this, it is not the court outcome which counts - civil cases seldom get to court, but the world is a very lonely place for Mr and Mrs Man-in-the-street facing the bullying of insurance companies and compensation to a child for personal injuries can affect their quality of life for their lifetime. In that case the goodies won and I think the support from the CTC was crucial.
The driver's insurers dragged their feet and, although a child cannot be negligent in law, the insurers said that his parents had been negligent in not making him wear one. (Contributary negligence rears its head again.)
In cases such as this, it is not the court outcome which counts - civil cases seldom get to court, but the world is a very lonely place for Mr and Mrs Man-in-the-street facing the bullying of insurance companies and compensation to a child for personal injuries can affect their quality of life for their lifetime. In that case the goodies won and I think the support from the CTC was crucial.
The Fulbrook paper is worth a read if you have motivation to wade through it.
It gives a very interesting insight into the the legal processes and motivations in compensation cases.
http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/contrib.php
[Admin edit, 26th Feb 2009: the paper can now be found here:]
http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/c ... negligence
PS.
In the case of Cadden, the law was not correctly applied by the police ( or the original court judgement ). Upon review there was no case to answer. CDF initiated the review.
In the prior case, a child was killed whilst on his bicycle. The insurance company attempted to reduce the compensation amount due to contributory negligence because the boy was not wearing a polystyrene hat. CDF got involved and fought off the contributory negligence claim. In the end the compensation amount was not reduced due to contributory negligence.
It gives a very interesting insight into the the legal processes and motivations in compensation cases.
http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/contrib.php
[Admin edit, 26th Feb 2009: the paper can now be found here:]
http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/c ... negligence
PS.
In the case of Cadden, the law was not correctly applied by the police ( or the original court judgement ). Upon review there was no case to answer. CDF initiated the review.
In the prior case, a child was killed whilst on his bicycle. The insurance company attempted to reduce the compensation amount due to contributory negligence because the boy was not wearing a polystyrene hat. CDF got involved and fought off the contributory negligence claim. In the end the compensation amount was not reduced due to contributory negligence.
-
thirdcrank
- Posts: 36740
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Graham wrote:The Fulbrook paper is worth a read if you have motivation to wade through it.
Graham
Thanks for posting that, but I think it needs more than just motivation to plough through 35 pages of closely argued legal material, fully annotated with sources, decided cases etc.
I think if anybody who starts to read it gets overwhelmed by the Latin, m'learned friend and all the jargon, they should at least try the final two pages whci form a conclusion.
If they cannot even manage that (and I should not blame them)
The basic argument seems to be:
1/ There is no satisfactory scientific evidence that wearing a cycling helmet offers any real protection from injury in collisions with motor vehicles.
2/ A lot of people in a position to influence things by their own 'common sense opinions' do not believe point1/ Therefore, a helmetless cyclist (or their representatives) who sustains injuries in a road traffic collision risks having their compensation substantially reduced or a bitter uphill struggle to avoid that. (Same applies to high-viz togs etc.)
The law can be lucrative for practitioners and many resent that but we are where we are BUT if advice of this quality (The Fulbrook paper, not my amateurish interpretation) is where the Cyclists' Defence Fund money is going, it is money very well spent. IMO
Thanks for the summary TC. Sorry about just presenting a lazy link.
My own particular points of interest were :-
1} Be aware that - if you are unlucky or pick wrong 'ums - your own legal representatives might take the easy way out and not ( be bothered to ) fight against a compensation reduction on the grounds of contributory negligence.
This is one of the main reasons I continue to subscribe to CTC. Although any cyclist can go direct to Russell, Jones & Walker ( CTC Legal Aid Solicitors ), I believe that the association with the club guarantees a good level of service for cycle-related incidents.
2} In the "real world" we all make a set of judgements about our cycle-clothing, our bikes/equipment and our behaviour on the road. However, if something bad happens and we end up involved in legal processes it is good to be aware that there is a whole other "legal world" in which those judgements might be called to question and/or used against us.
e.g.
* I don't wear a polystyrene hat when riding on the road ( except in summer as a sunshade ).
* None of my spds have reflectors - but I do wear double or triple ankle bands.
* My Lumicycle (halogen) front lights do not conform to legal requirements ( probably ).
* The plethora of front & back LEDs may or may not conform to legal requirements according to the combination on the night ( Law . . . ass . . . ludicrous ).
* I rarely ride on cycle-paths, due to the consistently poor surface quality.
My own particular points of interest were :-
1} Be aware that - if you are unlucky or pick wrong 'ums - your own legal representatives might take the easy way out and not ( be bothered to ) fight against a compensation reduction on the grounds of contributory negligence.
This is one of the main reasons I continue to subscribe to CTC. Although any cyclist can go direct to Russell, Jones & Walker ( CTC Legal Aid Solicitors ), I believe that the association with the club guarantees a good level of service for cycle-related incidents.
2} In the "real world" we all make a set of judgements about our cycle-clothing, our bikes/equipment and our behaviour on the road. However, if something bad happens and we end up involved in legal processes it is good to be aware that there is a whole other "legal world" in which those judgements might be called to question and/or used against us.
e.g.
* I don't wear a polystyrene hat when riding on the road ( except in summer as a sunshade ).
* None of my spds have reflectors - but I do wear double or triple ankle bands.
* My Lumicycle (halogen) front lights do not conform to legal requirements ( probably ).
* The plethora of front & back LEDs may or may not conform to legal requirements according to the combination on the night ( Law . . . ass . . . ludicrous ).
* I rarely ride on cycle-paths, due to the consistently poor surface quality.
-
thirdcrank
- Posts: 36740
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
thirdcrank wrote:One anomaly with Russell Jones and Walker, is that if you go to them under their trading name 'Claims Direct' it is an 0800 number. Contact them in their role as CTC legal eagles and it's an 0870 number.
I suppose that if you go to RJW direct they will pursue your claim and take a percentage of any compensation award.
My understanding is that by going via CTC - as a member - you will pay nothing! No payment deducted from the compensation. No payment in any other form.
If correct, then that is a significant member benefit.
Can anyone confirm my assumptions ?
Last edited by Graham on 16 Feb 2008, 8:47pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
thirdcrank
- Posts: 36740
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Claims Direct
Graham
I think you are wrong to suggest that using such a service involves paying the solicitor a cut. Incidentally, Russell Jones and Walker is one of the biggest, most successful and well-respected firms in England. Although I never had to use them, they were retained by my staff association because they are top notch. (They also do defamation so be careful what you say about them
)
When the legal aid scheme for personal injury was more or less scrapped, it was replaced by 'no win, no fee.' The idea is that the solicitors do not charge you for their services, they depend on costs recovered from the other side. This is supposed to make them a lot more careful about the cases they support. (With legal aid they just certified you had an arguable case, with 'no win, no fee' they will normally only take on a case with a better than 50% chance of winning.)
If you lose, your firm does not charge you costs. Obviously, you risk haveing to pay your opponent's costs and the normal way to protect yourself against that is to take out insurance against it. The insurance covers the cost of the insurance, but some solicitors require you to pay upfront (so-called 'disbursements) and you get it back at the conclusion of the case, win or lose.
To be fair to the CTC service, you can get free legal advice (not automatic representation) on a range of cycling-related legal matters and if it's a crucial case like Telford, they can deploy the cavalry.
Edited to add this: The other main point is that unlike civil legal aid, 'no win, no fee' is not means-tested so it is supposed to make justice more accessible.
Graham
I think you are wrong to suggest that using such a service involves paying the solicitor a cut. Incidentally, Russell Jones and Walker is one of the biggest, most successful and well-respected firms in England. Although I never had to use them, they were retained by my staff association because they are top notch. (They also do defamation so be careful what you say about them
)
When the legal aid scheme for personal injury was more or less scrapped, it was replaced by 'no win, no fee.' The idea is that the solicitors do not charge you for their services, they depend on costs recovered from the other side. This is supposed to make them a lot more careful about the cases they support. (With legal aid they just certified you had an arguable case, with 'no win, no fee' they will normally only take on a case with a better than 50% chance of winning.)
If you lose, your firm does not charge you costs. Obviously, you risk haveing to pay your opponent's costs and the normal way to protect yourself against that is to take out insurance against it. The insurance covers the cost of the insurance, but some solicitors require you to pay upfront (so-called 'disbursements) and you get it back at the conclusion of the case, win or lose.
To be fair to the CTC service, you can get free legal advice (not automatic representation) on a range of cycling-related legal matters and if it's a crucial case like Telford, they can deploy the cavalry.
Edited to add this: The other main point is that unlike civil legal aid, 'no win, no fee' is not means-tested so it is supposed to make justice more accessible.
Last edited by thirdcrank on 16 Feb 2008, 10:38pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
thirdcrank
- Posts: 36740
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
An issue has arisen here which I feel needs clarification by somebody from CTC HQ who knows the answer.
A CTC member sustaining personal injury in a cycling road traffic accident the fault of a third party may, as a benefit of CTC membership, pursue their claim for compensation on a 'no win, no fee' basis, with the nationally respected solicitors Russell Jones and Walker. If they do this by telephone, they ring 0870 8730062 where calls are charged at the 'national rate'.
ClaimsDirect (a trading name of Russell Jones and Walker) offers what appears to be an identical service to anybody and the number to ring is 0800 8840137.
The question to somebody from Headquarters is, 'Have I missed something?'
A CTC member sustaining personal injury in a cycling road traffic accident the fault of a third party may, as a benefit of CTC membership, pursue their claim for compensation on a 'no win, no fee' basis, with the nationally respected solicitors Russell Jones and Walker. If they do this by telephone, they ring 0870 8730062 where calls are charged at the 'national rate'.
ClaimsDirect (a trading name of Russell Jones and Walker) offers what appears to be an identical service to anybody and the number to ring is 0800 8840137.
The question to somebody from Headquarters is, 'Have I missed something?'