Bus driver jailed for attack on cyclist

W1

First Aspect wrote:

W1 wrote:

Why would you need broken bones or ruptured internal organs? You might get more for a graze or something demonstable, but more likely I'd suggest the claims for non-proven "muscle damage" e.g. a sprain etc would be the ones that increase significantly, precisely for the reason you outline above.

You are debating in the abstract W1. The point is that its very hard to both (a) have an accident and (b) avoid getting hurt. Its a sufficiently unreliable way of earning a living that I think its pointless to argue that its going to be a significant problem. Zebra crossings - why doesn't it happen already?

No, it really isn't hard at all in a car/car accident or a car/bike accident or a bike/ped accident.

I agree it's hard to have a car/ped accident without injury, hence why it doesn't happen at Zebra crossings, as I've mentioned above. And that's quite hard to engineer in the first place.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

Why would you need broken bones or ruptured internal organs? You might get more for a graze or something demonstable, but more likely I'd suggest the claims for non-proven "muscle damage" e.g. a sprain etc would be the ones that increase significantly, precisely for the reason you outline above.

You wouldn't need broken bones or ruptured internal organs, but would you be able to intentionally have a collision with a car going 30mph or even just 20mph without seriously risking that? If you were in a car you could conceivably cause a low speed collision with another car, and through bracing yourself ensure that you don't have the whiplash injury you later go on to put in a claim for. On a bike you just couldn't do that. I'm not even sure why I'm wasting my time typing this out to you.

What about 5mph filtering through traffic?

I've come off plenty of times with no injury - if I could have "involved" someone else and they would have to prove their innoncence I might have been able to net a tidy sum.

notsoblue

"Whiplash injuries account for 70% of personal injury cases."
http://audioboo.fm/boos/620700-stunning ... ash-claims

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

What about 5mph filtering through traffic?

I've come off plenty of times with no injury - if I could have "involved" someone else and they would have to prove their innoncence I might have been able to net a tidy sum.

:roll:

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

What about 5mph filtering through traffic?

I've come off plenty of times with no injury - if I could have "involved" someone else and they would have to prove their innoncence I might have been able to net a tidy sum.

Pretty sure that's illegal, W1.

PBo

W1 wrote:

What about 5mph filtering through traffic?

I've come off plenty of times.......

Are you sure you should be out on a bike????

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

People can go against the 'culture' though? What's culture got to do with the law? You could argue, as NSB has, that the culture is, in part, BECAUSE of the law.

I think it's fairly clear that the law lags behind the prevailing culture, rather than leading it. There has to be enough popular momentum behind a particular issue for the government or a number of MPs to take it up and push through an Act of Parliament.

I defend myself above :P

I'd say it can work both ways.

I remember reading about the decriminalisation of homosexual acts in private in 1967 in the UK. I remember reading that most polls suggested that it was very unpopular, but it got pushed through because people in gov't thought it was the right thing to do.

In this instance, the attitude lagged behind the law.

Pfft, can't believe I'm defending top-down here. Anyway, with traffic it's different to the above anyway, since we're specifically talking about very narrow moments - i.e. when there's a dispute after an accident between a motorist and a cyclist.

We know that presumed liability will offer an incentive for drivers to pay more attention to avoiding accidents with cyclists. I believe the current system, given a) the burden of proof on the cyclist and b) the cost to the cyclist of a car v cyclist accident (likely to hurt yourself) versus the cost to the driver (very likely no injury at all) provides little incentive for drivers to drive carefully when near cyclists.

Fair point: the lead can come from the top, but it still needs the support of a majority of MPs to become law. Even something as uncontroversial as better regulation of domestic electrical installations took a huge effort on the part of one MP whose daughter was killed by faulty wiring, for example.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

We know that presumed liability will offer an incentive for drivers to pay more attention to avoiding accidents with cyclists. I believe the current system, given a) the burden of proof on the cyclist and b) the cost to the cyclist of a car v cyclist accident (likely to hurt yourself) versus the cost to the driver (very likely no injury at all) provides little incentive for drivers to drive carefully when near cyclists.

+1, thats pretty much it. I find it baffling that cyclists or even cycling drivers would be against a law like this because they fear that

a) they'd be targeted by people trying to set up a claim.
b) they'd be unfairly blamed for an accident that was caused by a cyclist blatantly behaving in a dangerous fashion (RLJ, drunkenly swerving into the road, whatever)

Its bonkers.

It's not bonkers.

It sounds bonkers, until you think that it's bonkers that people have deliberate rear-end accidents yet that still happens.

What is bonkers is to think that the threat of going to prison isn't enough to stop someone driving dangerously, yet somehow the threat of their insurance company having to pay out automatically is more effective.

notsoblue

rjsterry wrote:

Fair point: the lead can come from the top, but it still needs the support of a majority of MPs to become law. Even something as uncontroversial as better regulation of domestic electrical installations took a huge effort on the part of one MP whose daughter was killed by faulty wiring

This is why Presumed Liability won't be a reality in this country for a long long time, if at all. This is after all the nation that actually believed the "War on the motorist" rhetoric. If this was seriously suggested we'd have thousands of W1's and DDD's putting forward these same arguments about masochistic cyclists after a mortgage deposit.

Which is kinda sad really, because I'd like London to be more cycle friendly.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

What about 5mph filtering through traffic?

I've come off plenty of times with no injury - if I could have "involved" someone else and they would have to prove their innoncence I might have been able to net a tidy sum.

Pretty sure that's illegal, W1.

Yes, it would be - and? So are all fraudulent claims.

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

We know that presumed liability will offer an incentive for drivers to pay more attention to avoiding accidents with cyclists. I believe the current system, given a) the burden of proof on the cyclist and b) the cost to the cyclist of a car v cyclist accident (likely to hurt yourself) versus the cost to the driver (very likely no injury at all) provides little incentive for drivers to drive carefully when near cyclists.

+1, thats pretty much it. I find it baffling that cyclists or even cycling drivers would be against a law like this because they fear that

a) they'd be targeted by people trying to set up a claim.
b) they'd be unfairly blamed for an accident that was caused by a cyclist blatantly behaving in a dangerous fashion (RLJ, drunkenly swerving into the road, whatever)

Its bonkers.

It's not bonkers.

It sounds bonkers, until you think that it's bonkers that people have deliberate rear-end accidents yet that still happens.

What is bonkers is to think that the threat of going to prison isn't enough to stop someone driving dangerously, yet somehow the threat of their insurance company having to pay out automatically is more effective.

Who's talking about prison?

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

What about 5mph filtering through traffic?

I've come off plenty of times with no injury - if I could have "involved" someone else and they would have to prove their innoncence I might have been able to net a tidy sum.

Pretty sure that's illegal, W1.

Yes, it would be - and? So are all fraudulent claims.

Absolutely.

It's already catered for by the law.

I don't know why, as such, you're bringing it up?

W1

notsoblue wrote:

"Whiplash injuries account for 70% of personal injury cases."
http://audioboo.fm/boos/620700-stunning ... ash-claims

Thanks, you're making my argument for me.

Non-specific, generally low speed, generally low risk, non-provable, generally presumed liability injury makes up a massive proportion of claims. And you don't think that would apply if (effective) presumed liability was extended?

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

What about 5mph filtering through traffic?

I've come off plenty of times with no injury - if I could have "involved" someone else and they would have to prove their innoncence I might have been able to net a tidy sum.

Pretty sure that's illegal, W1.

Yes, it would be - and? So are all fraudulent claims.

Absolutely.

It's already catered for by the law.

I don't know why, as such, you're bringing it up?

I'm making the point that it would be easy (if liability was presumed) to have a low speed crash and make a fraudulent claim. That would generally be harder, riskier, more expensive and require more proof without the presumption of liability, and there would therefore be fewer such claims.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

It's not bonkers.

It sounds bonkers, until you think that it's bonkers that people have deliberate rear-end accidents yet that still happens.

Are you even reading what I'm typing here or do you disagree with the fact that you can have a deliberate rear end accident (as it were) without *actually* sustaining whiplash?

W1 wrote:

What is bonkers is to think that the threat of going to prison isn't enough to stop someone driving dangerously, yet somehow the threat of their insurance company having to pay out automatically is more effective.

Just riding a bike on a main road is seen as contributory negligence in this country. Presumed liability would indicate that the law disagreed with that perception. Also, it would mean that SMIDSY isn't a valid defence.

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

What about 5mph filtering through traffic?

I've come off plenty of times with no injury - if I could have "involved" someone else and they would have to prove their innoncence I might have been able to net a tidy sum.

Pretty sure that's illegal, W1.

Yes, it would be - and? So are all fraudulent claims.

Absolutely.

It's already catered for by the law.

I don't know why, as such, you're bringing it up?

I'm making the point that it would be easy (if liability was presumed) to have a low speed crash and make a fraudulent claim. That would generally be harder, riskier, more expensive and require more proof without the presumption of liability, and there would therefore be fewer such claims.

As such, I think the insurer would have a pretty solid incentive to check out the case and decide whether the accident was avoidable or caused by deliberate excessively reckless actions of the cyclist.

Plus, the incentive for the cyclist to do that diminishes when a) you risk actual injury and b) you are committing a crime in doing so.

Wouldn't you agree?

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

We know that presumed liability will offer an incentive for drivers to pay more attention to avoiding accidents with cyclists. I believe the current system, given a) the burden of proof on the cyclist and b) the cost to the cyclist of a car v cyclist accident (likely to hurt yourself) versus the cost to the driver (very likely no injury at all) provides little incentive for drivers to drive carefully when near cyclists.

+1, thats pretty much it. I find it baffling that cyclists or even cycling drivers would be against a law like this because they fear that

a) they'd be targeted by people trying to set up a claim.
b) they'd be unfairly blamed for an accident that was caused by a cyclist blatantly behaving in a dangerous fashion (RLJ, drunkenly swerving into the road, whatever)

Its bonkers.

It's not bonkers.

It sounds bonkers, until you think that it's bonkers that people have deliberate rear-end accidents yet that still happens.

What is bonkers is to think that the threat of going to prison isn't enough to stop someone driving dangerously, yet somehow the threat of their insurance company having to pay out automatically is more effective.

Who's talking about prison?

If we're talking about incentivising drivers to take more care of cyclists (which is how this topic arose in this thread), then the threat of prison should logically be more incentive than presumed liability (which is just an insurance payout that the driver may never even know about).

My point is that if care for human life and potential imprisonment isn't sufficient to make drivers careful, why would a presumption of liability suddenly make any difference at all?

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

"Whiplash injuries account for 70% of personal injury cases."
http://audioboo.fm/boos/620700-stunning ... ash-claims

Thanks, you're making my argument for me.

Non-specific, generally low speed, generally low risk, non-provable, generally presumed liability injury makes up a massive proportion of claims. And you don't think that would apply if (effective) presumed liability was extended?

CAR ON CYCLIST COLLISIONS ARE NOT LOW RISK FOR CYCLISTS.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

What about 5mph filtering through traffic?

I've come off plenty of times with no injury - if I could have "involved" someone else and they would have to prove their innoncence I might have been able to net a tidy sum.

Pretty sure that's illegal, W1.

Yes, it would be - and? So are all fraudulent claims.

Absolutely.

It's already catered for by the law.

I don't know why, as such, you're bringing it up?

I'm making the point that it would be easy (if liability was presumed) to have a low speed crash and make a fraudulent claim. That would generally be harder, riskier, more expensive and require more proof without the presumption of liability, and there would therefore be fewer such claims.

As such, I think the insurer would have a pretty solid incentive to check out the case and decide whether the accident was avoidable or caused by deliberate excessively reckless actions of the cyclist.

Plus, the incentive for the cyclist to do that diminishes when a) you risk actual injury and b) you are committing a crime.

Wouldn't you agree?

No, the cost would be prohibitive and it would be cheaper just to write a settlement cheque. This is what happens already.

Risking an injury and committing a crime hasn't prevented cash for crash rear end accidents.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

"Whiplash injuries account for 70% of personal injury cases."
http://audioboo.fm/boos/620700-stunning ... ash-claims

Thanks, you're making my argument for me.

Non-specific, generally low speed, generally low risk, non-provable, generally presumed liability injury makes up a massive proportion of claims. And you don't think that would apply if (effective) presumed liability was extended?

CAR ON CYCLIST COLLISIONS ARE NOT LOW RISK FOR CYCLISTS.

YES IT CAN BE

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

e incentive than presumed liability (which is just an insurance payout that the driver may never even know about).

My point is that if care for human life and potential imprisonment isn't sufficient to make drivers careful, why would a presumption of liability suddenly make any difference at all?

Because people are naturally selfish (yes yes, it's the free marketer coming out in me) and when the assess risk, they naturally under-estimate the external costs - i.e. costs that are not to themselves.

Presumption of liability means the cost of hitting a cyclist by avoidable accident is a lot higher than it currently is.

Surely that's obvious?

notsoblue

Does anyone else here actually believe that cyclists would be incentivised to orchestrate collisions with cars for payouts?

rjsterry

I think the staged car accidents are a bit of a red herring. IIRC, a lot of these were set up at roundabouts, with the fraudster deliberately pulling an emergency stop after pulling away causing them to be rear-ended at relatively low speed. The sort of thing that might leave you with a stiff neck, but not much more. Trying the same on a bike presents significantly more risk of serious injury to the fraudster.

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

[

Risking an injury and committing a crime hasn't prevented cash for crash rear end accidents.

Do people go out of their way to have accidents to claim whiplash? Or do they have an accident and then claim for that anyway, since it's difficult to prove?

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

It's not bonkers.

It sounds bonkers, until you think that it's bonkers that people have deliberate rear-end accidents yet that still happens.

Are you even reading what I'm typing here or do you disagree with the fact that you can have a deliberate rear end accident (as it were) without *actually* sustaining whiplash?

W1 wrote:

What is bonkers is to think that the threat of going to prison isn't enough to stop someone driving dangerously, yet somehow the threat of their insurance company having to pay out automatically is more effective.

Just riding a bike on a main road is seen as contributory negligence in this country. Presumed liability would indicate that the law disagreed with that perception. Also, it would mean that SMIDSY isn't a valid defence.

You can fall off your bike without *actually* sustaining injury too.

WTF are you talking about? Riding a bike is not contrib neg. SMIDSY isn't a "valid" defence in law.

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

Does anyone else here actually believe that cyclists would be incentivised to orchestrate collisions with cars for payouts?

I do.

And I keep giving the example. Car turns from main road to minor road. Car emerges from minor to major road. Cyclist has no interest in stopping, hits the front wing of car, rolls over the bonnet and claims the car pulled out on him/cut him up (depending on whether it was turning off or emerging).

This is an instance where the cyclist can control their relative speed towards the vehicle, the vehicle won't be going fast and the cyclist can also have a measure of control of the impact.

I also do not believe that laws preceed culture. The very notion is silly. There are other things I need to disagree with but the pact of the thread is a little too fast.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

[

Risking an injury and committing a crime hasn't prevented cash for crash rear end accidents.

Do people go out of their way to have accidents to claim whiplash? Or do they have an accident and then claim for that anyway, since it's difficult to prove?

Both.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Does anyone else here actually believe that cyclists would be incentivised to orchestrate collisions with cars for payouts?

I do.

The number of morons on this thread has reached critical mass. I'm out.

rick_chasey

OK W1, why isn't the Netherlands groaning under the weight of fraudulent insurance claims from cyclists?

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

e incentive than presumed liability (which is just an insurance payout that the driver may never even know about).

My point is that if care for human life and potential imprisonment isn't sufficient to make drivers careful, why would a presumption of liability suddenly make any difference at all?

Because people are naturally selfish (yes yes, it's the free marketer coming out in me) and when the assess risk, they naturally under-estimate the external costs - i.e. costs that are not to themselves.

Presumption of liability means the cost of hitting a cyclist by avoidable accident is a lot higher than it currently is.

Surely that's obvious?

OK - and how would that affect the inidividual person and their assessment of the risk they pose? Unless they are personally liable for the payout?