Bus driver jailed for attack on cyclist
Comments
-
Rick Chasey wrote:OK W1, why isn't the Netherlands groaning under the weight of fraudulent insurance claims from cyclists?
There could be many reasons - are they groaning under the weight of whiplash claims?0 -
W1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:OK W1, why isn't the Netherlands groaning under the weight of fraudulent insurance claims from cyclists?
There could be many reasons - are they groaning under the weight of whiplash claims?
What has that got to do with presumed liability?0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:W1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:OK W1, why isn't the Netherlands groaning under the weight of fraudulent insurance claims from cyclists?
There could be many reasons - are they groaning under the weight of whiplash claims?
What has that got to do with presumed liability?
Because it's a similar principle.
if you hit the back of someone, it's hard to resist a claim that it was your fault.
That's why whiplash claims are easy to make successfully, legitimate or not.0 -
W1 wrote:
You can fall off your bike without *actually* sustaining injury too.notsoblue wrote:
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: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.
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.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.
WTF are you talking about? Riding a bike is not contrib neg. SMIDSY isn't a "valid" defence in law.
I think NSB was using the terms in a colloquial sense - i.e. there is a prevalent misconception that cycling is just a dangerous activity and that collisions are unavoidable, so it's 'our' fault for putting ourselves in harms way cf. Christina Paterson thread and that halfwit in the Manc' Evening News.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
notsoblue wrote:
Let me ask the following:
Does anyone else here actually believe that motorists would be incentivised to orchestrate collisions for payouts?
Does anyone else here actually believe that there are some people who would be incentivised to orchestrate accidents for payouts?
Do you honestly believe that the minute a person mounts a bike they are suddenly a paragon of society?Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Interesting that the main accusation made by Jack Straw in that interview I'm sure you all listened to and understood the nuances of, was that the insurance companies are selling details to lawyers, who raise more claims by cold calling people whose details they have purchased, which raises insurance premiums. i.e. Insurance companies are profiting from the greater claims. He also points out a questionable financial role played by GP's.
But still no figures.
The other "wrinkle" is that the sole issue at hand is whiplash, and the definition thereof. In Germany, there is a threshold speed below which is it deemed not to be possible for it to occur.
If you carve out whiplash, is there an argument any more?
W1 - you asked whether I thought a financial deterrant would be persuasive in modifying driver behaviour, when a criminal deterrant does not. The simple answer is yes. Absolutely. "Criminal" is not something that people think of believe of themselves. Never crosses their mind. In part because you basically have to either park somewhere on a yellow line, or nearly kill someone, in order to face criminal charges, it seems. Money, however, talks.0 -
70%!!! Wow, that's more than I'd expect.notsoblue wrote:"Whiplash injuries account for 70% of personal injury cases."
http://audioboo.fm/boos/620700-stunning ... ash-claims
I must say I'm not worried about people staging accidents on their bikes, as you rightly say, it is too risky a proposition to be much of a problem. My concern is more the idiot riding along on the pavement in the dark with no lights and his hood up that suddenly swerves into the road without looking. It's late at night and there are no other witnesses. He didn't have the accident on purpose, but, encouraged bu his no win no fee lawyers, he sees it as carte blanche to blame the driver and claim off his insurance.
On balance, more good may well come from presumed liability than wrongs such as the possible example I have given. But that is why it sits uneasily with me.0 -
notsoblue wrote:Does anyone else here actually believe that cyclists would be incentivised to orchestrate collisions with cars for payouts?
this would definitely happen. think of the people who do the whole injury benefit fraud - easy to see that taking it one step further to net them more money. i can alas also see the really dumb parent that thinks an "accident" with their kid would net even more and sets up such a happinstance.Le Cannon [98 Cannondale M400] [FCN: 8]
The Mad Monkey [2013 Hoy 003] [FCN: 4]0 -
NSB, we totally live in the wrong country don't we?
People won't have a law that will help cyclists in the majority of instances because people might do something that's already against the law.
Right. Fair enough. :roll:0 -
MonkeyMonster wrote:notsoblue wrote:Does anyone else here actually believe that cyclists would be incentivised to orchestrate collisions with cars for payouts?
this would definitely happen. think of the people who do the whole injury benefit fraud - easy to see that taking it one step further to net them more money. i can alas also see the really dumb parent that thinks an "accident" with their kid would net even more and sets up such a happinstance.
Wow.0 -
No. People won't have a law that won't work for this Country.Rick Chasey wrote:NSB, we totally live in the wrong country don't we?
People won't have a law that will help cyclists in the majority of instances because people might do something that's already against the law.
Right. Fair enough. :roll:Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:
No. People won't have a law that won't work for this Country.Rick Chasey wrote:NSB, we totally live in the wrong country don't we?
People won't have a law that will help cyclists in the majority of instances because people might do something that's already against the law.
Right. Fair enough. :roll:
Yeah, you're right.
Brits are just inherently hell-bent on insurance scamming.0 -
I've been reading this thread all day. My eyes hurt. I'm going to call RJW.Rick Chasey wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:
No. People won't have a law that won't work for this Country.Rick Chasey wrote:NSB, we totally live in the wrong country don't we?
People won't have a law that will help cyclists in the majority of instances because people might do something that's already against the law.
Right. Fair enough. :roll:
Yeah, you're right.
Brits are just inherently hell-bent on insurance scamming.0 -
No, that's not it.Rick Chasey wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:
No. People won't have a law that won't work for this Country.Rick Chasey wrote:NSB, we totally live in the wrong country don't we?
People won't have a law that will help cyclists in the majority of instances because people might do something that's already against the law.
Right. Fair enough. :roll:
Yeah, you're right.
Brits are just inherently hell-bent on insurance scamming.
You see you're in this unusual position where you're trying to champion cyclist safety. Now normally a whole bunch of cyclist would be cheering you along "Ban the car, no burn it! With fire!".
But I'm both a cyclists and a motorist and I oppose your purely pro cyclists notion. You claim of strict liability for motorists asserts that collisions are always the sole fault of the motorist, they are not. There are many occasions where the cyclist is at fault for the car hitting them. It doesn't seem just or legally fair that then the motorist should be blamed for this. No, your suggestion of strict liability for the motorist I feel implies that cyclists should no longer be responsible for road safety on British roads.
And let us look at British roads and cycling before you harp at me the wonders of being Dutch. British roads work on the principle that people shouldn't be a danger to themselves or others. The roads are shared, there is no segregation to go along with and support a strict liability policy. Furthermore there is no standardised test or training for cyclists. A lay person who has no drivers licence, has never read the highway code, and only really knows that green means go and red means stop can get a bike and take to the roads in London.
In Holland cycling is very much a normal past time, children learn from an early age, the etiquette and attitude is more considerate, the pace in the cities is slower, there is segregation of bicycle and car. There is less density of people, traffic, traffic lights, man hole covers etc. The entire road, cycling and driving infrastructure is set up to work in harmony with a strict liability policy.
Holland, for many reasons is different to England it is why some laws work there but wouldn't work here without an entire cultural and legislative change.
And no, laws do not preceed cultural change.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:
No, that's not it.Rick Chasey wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:
No. People won't have a law that won't work for this Country.Rick Chasey wrote:NSB, we totally live in the wrong country don't we?
People won't have a law that will help cyclists in the majority of instances because people might do something that's already against the law.
Right. Fair enough. :roll:
Yeah, you're right.
Brits are just inherently hell-bent on insurance scamming.
You see you're in this unusual position where you're trying to champion cyclist safety. Now normally a whole bunch of cyclist would be cheering you along "Ban the car, no burn it! With fire!".
But I'm both a cyclists and a motorist and I oppose your purely pro cyclists notion. You claim of strict liability for motorists asserts that collisions are always the sole fault of the motorist, they are not. There are many occasions where the cyclist is at fault for the car hitting them. It doesn't seem just or legally fair that then the motorist should be blamed for this. No, your suggestion of strict liability for the motorist I feel implies that cyclists should no longer be responsible for road safety on British roads.
And let us look at British roads and cycling before you harp at me the wonders of being Dutch. British roads work on the principle that people shouldn't be a danger to themselves or others. The roads are shared, there is no segregation to go along with and support a strict liability policy. Furthermore there is no standardised test or training for cyclists. A lay person who has no drivers licence, has never read the highway code, and only really knows that green means go and red means stop can get a bike and take to the roads in London.
In Holland cycling is very much a normal past time, children learn from an early age, the etiquette and attitude is more considerate, the pace in the cities is slower, there is segregation of bicycle and car. There is less density of people, traffic, traffic lights, man hole covers etc. The entire road, cycling and driving infrastructure is set up to work in harmony with a strict liability policy.
Holland, for many reasons is different to England it is why some laws work there but wouldn't work here without an entire cultural and legislative change.
And no, laws do not preceed cultural change.
0 -
notsoblue wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:
No, that's not it.Rick Chasey wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:
No. People won't have a law that won't work for this Country.Rick Chasey wrote:NSB, we totally live in the wrong country don't we?
People won't have a law that will help cyclists in the majority of instances because people might do something that's already against the law.
Right. Fair enough. :roll:
Yeah, you're right.
Brits are just inherently hell-bent on insurance scamming.
You see you're in this unusual position where you're trying to champion cyclist safety. Now normally a whole bunch of cyclist would be cheering you along "Ban the car, no burn it! With fire!".
But I'm both a cyclists and a motorist and I oppose your purely pro cyclists notion. You claim of strict liability for motorists asserts that collisions are always the sole fault of the motorist, they are not. There are many occasions where the cyclist is at fault for the car hitting them. It doesn't seem just or legally fair that then the motorist should be blamed for this. No, your suggestion of strict liability for the motorist I feel implies that cyclists should no longer be responsible for road safety on British roads.
And let us look at British roads and cycling before you harp at me the wonders of being Dutch. British roads work on the principle that people shouldn't be a danger to themselves or others. The roads are shared, there is no segregation to go along with and support a strict liability policy. Furthermore there is no standardised test or training for cyclists. A lay person who has no drivers licence, has never read the highway code, and only really knows that green means go and red means stop can get a bike and take to the roads in London.
In Holland cycling is very much a normal past time, children learn from an early age, the etiquette and attitude is more considerate, the pace in the cities is slower, there is segregation of bicycle and car. There is less density of people, traffic, traffic lights, man hole covers etc. The entire road, cycling and driving infrastructure is set up to work in harmony with a strict liability policy.
Holland, for many reasons is different to England it is why some laws work there but wouldn't work here without an entire cultural and legislative change.
And no, laws do not preceed cultural change.
I cannot see a law working in this country because the infrastructure in this country isn't such as to make the law workable?
It works in Holland because cycling and driving in Holland is set up in such a way that the law works. It doesn't mean it would work here without the same set up.
It's similar to Rick assertion that de-restricted roads wouldn't work here because our motorways aren't designed or set-up in the same way as the German ones are, where it does work.
I thought it a valid point.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
First Aspect wrote:W1 - you asked whether I thought a financial deterrant would be persuasive in modifying driver behaviour, when a criminal deterrant does not. The simple answer is yes. Absolutely. "Criminal" is not something that people think of believe of themselves. Never crosses their mind. In part because you basically have to either park somewhere on a yellow line, or nearly kill someone, in order to face criminal charges, it seems. Money, however, talks.
Indeed - but as I think you pointed out, it's not the driver's money, it is the insurance company's. And increased premiums (if that is what you mean) are already a risk of driving dangerously, presumed liability or not.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:NSB, we totally live in the wrong country don't we?
People won't have a law that will help cyclists in the majority of instances because people might do something that's already against the law.
Right. Fair enough. :roll:
I don't see it "helping" cyclists. If a cyclist has a legitimate claim, they already have an avenue for recompence. I don't see it modifying driver's behaviour one bit. I don't see it doing anything other than assisting those who wish to make exaggerated claims or make completely spurious ones encouraged by a compensation culture and no-win, no-fee, whereby it's cheaper to write a small cheque than actually investigate accidents.
And I do see that potentiall backfiring on cyclists in bike/ped collisions.0 -
I wouldn't say no to it btw - the law that is but I can see it being abused by retards. By cyclists (in your original comment) I take you mean anyone on a BSO and above. Forum term of cyclists - ie those chaps who browse here wouldn't think of doing that. But we're also the minority and largely intelligent too
Le Cannon [98 Cannondale M400] [FCN: 8]
The Mad Monkey [2013 Hoy 003] [FCN: 4]0 -
I think it's a huge - and somewhat arrogant - assumption to think that because you post on a bicycle forum (and already ride a bike) you are somehow above abusing an insurance system designed to protect cyclists.MonkeyMonster wrote:I wouldn't say no to it btw - the law that is but I can see it being abused by retards. By cyclists (in your original comment) I take you mean anyone on a BSO and above. Forum term of cyclists - ie those chaps who browse here wouldn't think of doing that. But we're also the minority and largely intelligent too
Next you'll (and NSB) will be claiming that none of us here RLJ.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:
I think it's a huge - and somewhat arrogant - assumption to think that because you post on a bicycle forum (and already ride a bike) you are somehow above abusing an insurance system designed to protect cyclists.MonkeyMonster wrote:I wouldn't say no to it btw - the law that is but I can see it being abused by retards. By cyclists (in your original comment) I take you mean anyone on a BSO and above. Forum term of cyclists - ie those chaps who browse here wouldn't think of doing that. But we're also the minority and largely intelligent too
Next you'll (and NSB) will be claiming that none of us here RLJ.
0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:
I think it's a huge - and somewhat arrogant - assumption to think that because you post on a bicycle forum (and already ride a bike) you are somehow above abusing an insurance system designed to protect cyclists.MonkeyMonster wrote:I wouldn't say no to it btw - the law that is but I can see it being abused by retards. By cyclists (in your original comment) I take you mean anyone on a BSO and above. Forum term of cyclists - ie those chaps who browse here wouldn't think of doing that. But we're also the minority and largely intelligent too
Next you'll (and NSB) will be claiming that none of us here RLJ.
Arrogant? No. Presumptious (hopeful?) maybe that based on the majority of comments from all the readers in this area I don't think any of them would deliberately cause an accident to then claim should that law be enacted.
Arrogant is totally the wrong word to use. I personally hate that word because it is so often used incorrectly.Le Cannon [98 Cannondale M400] [FCN: 8]
The Mad Monkey [2013 Hoy 003] [FCN: 4]0 -
If you hit a car, the damage to your own car could be anything up to the cost of the car, and there will be damage to another car. If you hit a cyclist, the chances are that the liability will be smaller, on average.W1 wrote:First Aspect wrote:W1 - you asked whether I thought a financial deterrant would be persuasive in modifying driver behaviour, when a criminal deterrant does not. The simple answer is yes. Absolutely. "Criminal" is not something that people think of believe of themselves. Never crosses their mind. In part because you basically have to either park somewhere on a yellow line, or nearly kill someone, in order to face criminal charges, it seems. Money, however, talks.
Indeed - but as I think you pointed out, it's not the driver's money, it is the insurance company's. And increased premiums (if that is what you mean) are already a risk of driving dangerously, presumed liability or not.
So the risk, which as you say already exists, is much lower in relation to knocking into a pesky cyclist than it is for hitting another car and is rarely considered. Driving attitudes reflect this. Insurers' attitudes reflect this.
I firmly believe, and you may differ with me here, that driving attitudes towards cyclists are worse than towards any other vehicle or road user. Cyclists are too often seen as fair game, or inconveniences to be bullied or "buzzed" as means of a demonstration of annoyance. Cyclists are rarely considered when using such things as accelerators, steering wheels, indicators and windows. They are barely mentioned in driving training or in the highway code.
Either cycling will die out in this country, or attitudes have to change or be made to change. You could be right, that this wouldn't make any difference, but then you could be wrong and it could cause a few people to pause for thought. I don't care if the motivation is "I won't do X because my insurance premium would be hell next year" providing I get more space and more than 2-3 seconds' patience out on the road.0 -
MonkeyMonster wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:
I think it's a huge - and somewhat arrogant - assumption to think that because you post on a bicycle forum (and already ride a bike) you are somehow above abusing an insurance system designed to protect cyclists.MonkeyMonster wrote:I wouldn't say no to it btw - the law that is but I can see it being abused by retards. By cyclists (in your original comment) I take you mean anyone on a BSO and above. Forum term of cyclists - ie those chaps who browse here wouldn't think of doing that. But we're also the minority and largely intelligent too
Next you'll (and NSB) will be claiming that none of us here RLJ.
Arrogant? No. Presumptious (hopeful?) maybe that based on the majority of comments from all the readers in this area I don't think any of them would deliberately cause an accident to then claim should that law be enacted.
Arrogant is totally the wrong word to use. I personally hate that word because it is so often used incorrectly.
Truth is you don't know if there is anyone who uses this section that already is committing or willing to commit insurance fraud. You don't know whether there is a person who uses this section that is willing to deliberately cause an accident to claim.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
I understand that - but my view is that already exists, and isn't materially altered by presumed liability.First Aspect wrote:
If you hit a car, the damage to your own car could be anything up to the cost of the car, and there will be damage to another car. If you hit a cyclist, the chances are that the liability will be smaller, on average.W1 wrote:First Aspect wrote:W1 - you asked whether I thought a financial deterrant would be persuasive in modifying driver behaviour, when a criminal deterrant does not. The simple answer is yes. Absolutely. "Criminal" is not something that people think of believe of themselves. Never crosses their mind. In part because you basically have to either park somewhere on a yellow line, or nearly kill someone, in order to face criminal charges, it seems. Money, however, talks.
Indeed - but as I think you pointed out, it's not the driver's money, it is the insurance company's. And increased premiums (if that is what you mean) are already a risk of driving dangerously, presumed liability or not.
So the risk, which as you say already exists, is much lower in relation to knocking into a pesky cyclist than it is for hitting another car and is rarely considered. Driving attitudes reflect this. Insurers' attitudes reflect this.
I firmly believe, and you may differ with me here, that driving attitudes towards cyclists are worse than towards any other vehicle or road user. Cyclists are too often seen as fair game, or inconveniences to be bullied or "buzzed" as means of a demonstration of annoyance. Cyclists are rarely considered when using such things as accelerators, steering wheels, indicators and windows. They are barely mentioned in driving training or in the highway code.
Either cycling will die out in this country, or attitudes have to change or be made to change. You could be right, that this wouldn't make any difference, but then you could be wrong and it could cause a few people to pause for thought. I don't care if the motivation is "I won't do X because my insurance premium would be hell next year" providing I get more space and more than 2-3 seconds' patience out on the road.
In some respects, I would argue that the introduction of presumed liability will be spun or argued as giving cyclists an excuse to be (even more?) reckless, and thereby actually increase the (irrational) behaviour towards cyclists in general. The same argument could be applied to allowing cyclists to run red lights. It gives the appearence of giving cyclists special measures which they do not deserve and have not "earned" and that causes anger or resentment (by the by, whether that anger and resentment is justified is not the point. The point is that it exists and would get worse). I think that is the real danger for cyclists.
I actually think that cycling will increase in popularity such as that becomes less alien and more mainstream, and that will provide safety in numbers and demand for facilities. I have already seen that in the years that I have been regularly on my bike. That is far more likely to end up being more beneficial for cyclists than introducing a perceived licence for them to be irresponsible, which is what presumed liability would be seen as.
My view - and nothing in this thread has changed that view so far - is that if you are of the mindset that you are reckless as to whether you kill someone or not because of the form of transport they use, you're not going to pause for thought due to presumed liability, so it is irrelevant to the argument that it should be introduced.0 -
Holy sh*t,is this still going?
That bus driver will be out on parole soon.0
