Bus driver jailed for attack on cyclist

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I need a house deposit, I see a porsche not going 'too fast'... I'd take the hit on the presumption I coukd get £30,000. Not my belief but there is the mindset.

Can you speculate about the logistics of someone somehow abusing presumed liability to get an insurance claim out of a porsche that was "not going too fast".? I have literally no idea how that would work.

DonDaddyD wrote:

Also, in Kingstin Jamaica I notice a number of guys walking up close to cars on a busy main road, The presumption being that if they're hot the driver is liable.

Is there presumed liability in Jamaica?

The type of person willing to take the hit isn't going to wondering over the details of speed when they can, lets say, run their bike into a left turning/emerging vehicle (not going too fast) and then claim they cut them up/pulled out on them.

We have seen form for this with the recent spate of crash for cash motorists.

Jamaica, not sure. That's what I was told by a local.

NGale

Veronese68 wrote:

Worrying that personal injury lawyers are in the adverts on this page.

i noticed that as well

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I need a house deposit, I see a porsche not going 'too fast'... I'd take the hit on the presumption I coukd get £30,000. Not my belief but there is the mindset.

Can you speculate about the logistics of someone somehow abusing presumed liability to get an insurance claim out of a porsche that was "not going too fast".? I have literally no idea how that would work.

DonDaddyD wrote:

Also, in Kingstin Jamaica I notice a number of guys walking up close to cars on a busy main road, The presumption being that if they're hot the driver is liable.

Is there presumed liability in Jamaica?

The type of person willing to take the hit isn't going to wondering over the details of speed when they can, lets say, run their bike into a left turning/emerging vehicle (not going too fast) and then claim they cut them up/pulled out on them.

We have seen form for this with the recent spate of crash for cash motorists.

Jamaica, not sure. That's what I was told by a local.

I just don't buy that this is an argument against it. Pedestrians already get the benefit of the doubt when they're in collisions with cyclists, yet we don't see people purposely flinging themselves at cyclists to claim compensation. Even though its pretty easy to get that.

And if you aren't sure about presumed liability in Jamaica, why did you use that example?

MonkeyMonster

NGale wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Worrying that personal injury lawyers are in the adverts on this page.

i noticed that as well

that is the bots reading the words repeated on the page and then linking them to the adverts...

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

All I can see presumbed liability doing is encouraging reckless cycling and inflating insurance claims. And it is contrary to the "innocent until proven guilty" maxim that I am very supportive of as a principle in a civilised, modern society.

Genuine question - what reckless cycling a) is there, and b) would be encouraged with presumed liability?

If you hit a cyclist who jumps a red light when you were cruising through green at 29mph, the cyclist will still be at fault.

IF you can prove it. If not, the fault will be presumed to be yours. That is the wrong way around, you shouldn't need to prove your innocent, it is up to the claimant to prove your guilt, as they are the ones making the accusations.

Er, I don't understand how this would be different than it is now. RLJ is still illegal. There would be eyewitnesses, or CCTV showing this. Presumed liability doesn't give pedestrians carte blanche to do this in traffic and doesn't protect cyclists when they run red lights. I'm not sure why you think it does, am I wrong about this?

If a cyclist wants to claim from a driver, he will currently need to prove his case. If he can't, because of a lack of witnesses, he won't get a payout. That may not be fair, but it is ultimately a principle of law that you need to positively prove your case. if you are making a claim or allegations it is over to you to prove them, and quite right too.

If a cyclist wants to claim from a driver under presumed liability, the driver (who may be totally innocent) will need to positively prove his defence of being innocent, in the face of nothing more than an allegation which may have no witnesses. If he can't do so, then he has to pay out.

Imagine if we had "presumed guilt" for other offences, and you could be accused by anyone, of anything, and you'd need to prove you were innocent or you'd be sent off to prison? Would you like to live in a country like that? No different in principle.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I need a house deposit, I see a porsche not going 'too fast'... I'd take the hit on the presumption I coukd get £30,000. Not my belief but there is the mindset.

Can you speculate about the logistics of someone somehow abusing presumed liability to get an insurance claim out of a porsche that was "not going too fast".? I have literally no idea how that would work.

DonDaddyD wrote:

Also, in Kingstin Jamaica I notice a number of guys walking up close to cars on a busy main road, The presumption being that if they're hot the driver is liable.

Is there presumed liability in Jamaica?

The type of person willing to take the hit isn't going to wondering over the details of speed when they can, lets say, run their bike into a left turning/emerging vehicle (not going too fast) and then claim they cut them up/pulled out on them.

We have seen form for this with the recent spate of crash for cash motorists.

Jamaica, not sure. That's what I was told by a local.

I just don't buy that this is an argument against it. Pedestrians already get the benefit of the doubt when they're in collisions with cyclists, yet we don't see people purposely flinging themselves at cyclists to claim compensation. Even though its pretty easy to get that.

And if you aren't sure about presumed liability in Jamaica, why did you use that example?

Most cyclists are uninsured, otherwise I would think there would be far more cases.

Look what has happened with whiplash injuries - these are effectively presumed liability, and the amount of fraud is crazy.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

If a cyclist wants to claim from a driver, he will currently need to prove his case. If he can't, because of a lack of witnesses, he won't get a payout. That may not be fair, but it is ultimately a principle of law that you need to positively prove your case. if you are making a claim or allegations it is over to you to prove them, and quite right too.

If a cyclist wants to claim from a driver under presumed liability, the driver (who may be totally innocent) will need to positively prove his defence of being innocent, in the face of nothing more than an allegation which may have no witnesses. If he can't do so, then he has to pay out.

Imagine if we had "presumed guilt" for other offences, and you could be accused by anyone, of anything, and you'd need to prove you were innocent or you'd be sent off to prison? Would you like to live in a country like that? No different in principle.

So how do you think presumed liability works in other countries? Or don't you think it does?

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

I just don't buy that this is an argument against it. Pedestrians already get the benefit of the doubt when they're in collisions with cyclists, yet we don't see people purposely flinging themselves at cyclists to claim compensation. Even though its pretty easy to get that.

It's assumed that cyclists don't have insurance.

And if you aren't sure about presumed liability in Jamaica, why did you use that example?

Tired, screaming baby on my lap. I did try to support it with crash for cash motorists example. That happens.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

If a cyclist wants to claim from a driver, he will currently need to prove his case. If he can't, because of a lack of witnesses, he won't get a payout. That may not be fair, but it is ultimately a principle of law that you need to positively prove your case. if you are making a claim or allegations it is over to you to prove them, and quite right too.

If a cyclist wants to claim from a driver under presumed liability, the driver (who may be totally innocent) will need to positively prove his defence of being innocent, in the face of nothing more than an allegation which may have no witnesses. If he can't do so, then he has to pay out.

Imagine if we had "presumed guilt" for other offences, and you could be accused by anyone, of anything, and you'd need to prove you were innocent or you'd be sent off to prison? Would you like to live in a country like that? No different in principle.

So how do you think presumed liability works in other countries? Or don't you think it does?

Well does it work i.e. proven causative relationship?

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

Most cyclists are uninsured, otherwise I would think there would be far more cases.

Look what has happened with whiplash injuries - these are effectively presumed liability, and the amount of fraud is crazy.

Whiplash is soft tissue damage that is hard to diagnose conclusively. Reports of whiplash injury are high because of insurance fraud. Its hard to lie about cyclist/car related injuries like fractured bones and skin degloving.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

So how do you think presumed liability works in other countries? Or don't you think it does?

Well does it work i.e. proven causative relationship?

You're answering a question with a question

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

Most cyclists are uninsured, otherwise I would think there would be far more cases.

Look what has happened with whiplash injuries - these are effectively presumed liability, and the amount of fraud is crazy.

Whiplash is soft tissue damage that is hard to diagnose conclusively. Reports of whiplash injury are high because of insurance fraud. Its hard to lie about cyclist/car related injuries like fractured bones and skin degloving.

I was referring to cyclist/ped collisions that you mentioned.

If you were to want a "soft target" for a fraudulent claim, it would be much cheaper (and safer) to try and get hit by a cyclist than a car. The fact that cyclists don't have insurance is maybe what limits such claims.

I wouldn't really want to be rear-ended by a car, but plenty of accidents are "staged" in order to make false claims - sometimes the risks are worth taking, especially if the burden of proof falls to the other party.

tinmansr22

While I totally agree that this (And many other drivers) acted in an absolutely unacceptable way, I kind of take acception to the fact that ALL BUS DRIVERS are Scum. Im a Coach driver, I like to think im careful when in built up areas. I look out for cyles, (I DO give room for you to manouver, I DONT cut you up I always thank you if you allow me to pass and If I cant then I WILL WAIT). Motor Bikes, Pedestrians and other hazards, I get a bit fed up being thrown in a pot with people that really do not care. There are good and bad on all sides, I have seen some really wreckess riding by cyclists too but Ive also seen some very polite and thoughtful ones too. I guess my point here is to say dont tar us all the same. I was a cyclist for many years, Im not any more as my trust for other people has dissapeared. I also think what Im trying to say is as well both sides should think about each other.
AFAIK the bus driver got what he deserved, an Idiot but also stop classing us all as scum some of us do actually care

dhope

tinmansr22 wrote:

While I totally agree that this (And many other drivers) acted in an absolutely unacceptable way, I kind of take acception to the fact that ALL BUS DRIVERS are Scum. Im a Coach driver, I like to think im careful when in built up areas. I look out for cyles, (I DO give room for you to manouver, I DONT cut you up I always thank you if you allow me to pass and If I cant then I WILL WAIT). Motor Bikes, Pedestrians and other hazards, I get a bit fed up being thrown in a pot with people that really do not care. There are good and bad on all sides, I have seen some really wreckess riding by cyclists too but Ive also seen some very polite and thoughtful ones too. I guess my point here is to say dont tar us all the same. I was a cyclist for many years, Im not any more as my trust for other people has dissapeared. I also think what Im trying to say is as well both sides should think about each other.
AFAIK the bus driver got what he deserved, an Idiot but also stop classing us all as scum some of us do actually care

Yup, Recruitment Chasey was pulled up on that one. Plenty of nice bus drivers and plenty of twat cyclists.

marchant

MonkeyMonster wrote:

NGale wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Worrying that personal injury lawyers are in the adverts on this page.

i noticed that as well

that is the bots reading the words repeated on the page and then linking them to the adverts...

*Barely resists urge to type "boobs" repeatedly...

rick_chasey

dhope wrote:

tinmansr22 wrote:

While I totally agree that this (And many other drivers) acted in an absolutely unacceptable way, I kind of take acception to the fact that ALL BUS DRIVERS are Scum. Im a Coach driver, I like to think im careful when in built up areas. I look out for cyles, (I DO give room for you to manouver, I DONT cut you up I always thank you if you allow me to pass and If I cant then I WILL WAIT). Motor Bikes, Pedestrians and other hazards, I get a bit fed up being thrown in a pot with people that really do not care. There are good and bad on all sides, I have seen some really wreckess riding by cyclists too but Ive also seen some very polite and thoughtful ones too. I guess my point here is to say dont tar us all the same. I was a cyclist for many years, Im not any more as my trust for other people has dissapeared. I also think what Im trying to say is as well both sides should think about each other.
AFAIK the bus driver got what he deserved, an Idiot but also stop classing us all as scum some of us do actually care

Yup, Recruitment Chasey was pulled up on that one. Plenty of nice bus drivers and plenty of fool cyclists.

I'm being very honest when I say I've yet to come across one I respect, and I used busses twice a day for a good 5 years.

It was probably worse when I was a passenger on the bus.

BTW, what's your job?

Team4Luke

W1 wrote:

Most cyclists are uninsured, otherwise I would think there would be far more cases.

Look what has happened with whiplash injuries - these are effectively presumed liability, and the amount of fraud is crazy.

are you sure, what stats are there on this. Many are insured through BC/CTC, I know some are covered with other policies and there is some potential of cover in various insurance policies people hold.

If I was hit by a car whether on my bike or in my car, I think I would feel very justified in claiming what I wish for my injuries and stress, I wouldn't outright lie, but I would want the maximum possible for my pain.

dhope

Rick Chasey wrote:

dhope wrote:

Yup, Recruitment Chasey was pulled up on that one. Plenty of nice bus drivers and plenty of fool cyclists.

I'm being very honest when I say I've yet to come across one I respect, and I used busses twice a day for a good 5 years.

It was probably worse when I was a passenger on the bus.

BTW, what's your job?

The plural of anecdote isn't data and as you've been at pains to point out in the past, the job doesn't make the person.
Front office tech here. Plenty of clichés to throw around.

First.Aspect

I can vouch for the fact that £30k compensation is more or less minimum wage, for the number of hours' rehab it takes to get over an inury worth £30k in compensation.

There are some real f*uckwits on this forum.

notsoblue

First Aspect wrote:

I can vouch for the fact that £30k compensation is more or less minimum wage, for the number of hours' rehab it takes to get over an inury worth £30k in compensation.

There are some real f*uckwits on this forum.

eh?

First.Aspect

notsoblue wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

I can vouch for the fact that £30k compensation is more or less minimum wage, for the number of hours' rehab it takes to get over an inury worth £30k in compensation.

There are some real f*uckwits on this forum.

eh?

Good impression.

veronese68

First Aspect wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

I can vouch for the fact that £30k compensation is more or less minimum wage, for the number of hours' rehab it takes to get over an inury worth £30k in compensation.

There are some real f*uckwits on this forum.

eh?

Good impression.

No I think that's a fair comment. Nobody had criticised anyone for claiming fair compensation for a genuine injury. Criticism levelled at chancers that don't have an injury but still try it on is valid.
If I've missed something I apologise.

notsoblue

Veronese68 wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

I can vouch for the fact that £30k compensation is more or less minimum wage, for the number of hours' rehab it takes to get over an inury worth £30k in compensation.

There are some real f*uckwits on this forum.

eh?

Good impression.

No I think that's a fair comment. Nobody had criticised anyone for claiming fair compensation for a genuine injury. Criticism levelled at chancers that don't have an injury but still try it on is valid.
If I've missed something I apologise.

I'm just not sure what he's trying to say. Is 30k compensation a good thing or a bad thing?

sketchley

Re strict liability. One thing that seems to be missing from the comment so far is the separation between presumed liability and presumed guilt for a criminal offence. I'm completely ok with the first and making the driver of the more dangerous vehicle have to prove they are not liable, however if this also meant they would have to prove they were not guilty of dangerous driving simply because they had been accused by a cyclist then I would have an issue. I think this already has a parallel in law with criminal cases requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt and civil cases requiring only a balance of probability.

sketchley

Also do we not have instances of presumed liability already? For example when a car rear ends another the presumption on liability rest with the car behind on the assumption they were driving too close.

First.Aspect

A bit of cutting and pasting.....

---

All I can see presumbed liability doing is encouraging reckless cycling and inflating insurance claims.

I need a house deposit, I see a porsche not going 'too fast'... I'd take the hit on the presumption I coukd get £30,000. Not my belief but there is the mindset. Also, in Kingstin Jamaica I notice a number of guys walking up close to cars on a busy main road, The presumption being that if they're hot the driver is liable.

The type of person willing to take the hit isn't going to wondering over the details of speed when they can, lets say, run their bike into a left turning/emerging vehicle (not going too fast) and then claim they cut them up/pulled out on them.

Look what has happened with whiplash injuries - these are effectively presumed liability, and the amount of fraud is crazy.

---

Personally after a few pages of in depth discussion, I don't find the prefix, "not my belief but" terribly persuasive.

I'm not the only one here to ask if there really IS a lot of fraud, or if there really IS anyone willing to put themselves in harm's way for a house deposit. My point is that there isn't. You all cycle and you all know how instinctive your desire not to get run over can be when you have a close shave. No one* does it deliberately.

*(and by "no one" I exclude the tiny numbers of something done by someone somewhere, if you examine a sufficiently large population - you know, a bit like pretending to drown in a kayak for a life insurance claim - it happens, but not very often). Aecdote vs data - someone has said it already.

You are all told by David Cameron and Jeremy Clarkson that whiplash faud is rife. And your insurance premiums have gone up. Therefore this must be due to fraudulent claims, right?

Is it true? Or does 2+2 equal rather greater than 4? Show me the evidence. How much of your premium rise is due to uninsured drivers because the rest of motoring has got so expensive? And how much due to allegedly over inflated injury settlements? And is car insurance a less or more profitable enterprise than it used to be? Think critically, don't be gullible.

Even assuming that claims have gone up because of inclrease personal injury claims, must they be fraudulent? Have you wondered whether all you are seeing is a greater proportion of people claiming for their injuries, which always happened?

People - cars are heavy. Getting hit by one even slightly can hurt. I challenge any one of you to ge hit by a car and not feel aggrieved and justifiably want compensation. Blame useless incompetent drivers and inadequate training plus a culture of "its okay it could happen to anyone" or "I didn't mean it so its okay". Don't blame people who peel themselves off tarmac and seek some form of redress from the pillock who put them there. On top of which, for the trauma suffered, compensation in this country is peanuts, it really is. In the US figures are vastly higher, but insurance permiums are not. It doesn't add up.

As regards presumed liability, W1 in particular - this isn't criminal liability we are talking about, its civil liability.

Civil case already get determined on the balance of probabilities. Study after study has shown that in between 75% and 90% of cases of a collision between a car and a bike, the driver of the car was at fault (depending on whether you include children in the cycling statistics - which is not to compare like with like). Therefore, to my mind, in the present system, guilty drivers are much more likely to get off than guilty cyclists, making civil cases between motorists and drivers, on the balance of probabilities, grossly unfair, and out of step with other type of case, as others have mentioned.

Further, to presume that this will encourage reckless cycling is one of the stupidest things I've ever read on this forum and shows a complete failure to remotely comprehend the real consequences of getting hit by a car.

Lets be clear - it is very very hard to get hit by a car a little bit. People should be afraid to get behind the wheel of a car, because the consequences of making a mistake are so severe. In this country there is an abject cultural lack of consequential thinking when it comes to driving.

And as a final point - it is not possible to tick a box in an application form marks "whiplash" and get a cheque in the post. Insurance companies do not routinely give in for the sake of a quiet life. There are armies of people at insurance companies with the sole purpose in life of giving out the smallest amount of money possible. It is, and always will be, like getting blood out of a stone. The checks and balances are already there to make it extremely troublesome and time consuming to get compensation even with a pronounced limp, some staggering x-rays and an admission of guilt from a driver.

Trust me, frowning and gripping your neck isn't enough. The great majority of claims will be justified, so blame the drivers, not the victims.

Is that all clear enough for you?

dilemna

First Aspect wrote:

I can vouch for the fact that £30k compensation is more or less minimum wage, for the number of hours' rehab it takes to get over an inury worth £30k in compensation.

There are some real f*uckwits on this forum.

There are indeed 1st Aspect, there are indeed ..............

You are a bit optimistic with your figures for the minimum wage which is approx £12k per annum. Unless you are trying to say it takes the equivalent of almost 3 years worth of rehab FULL TIME to recover from an injury sufficiently serious to attract an award of damages of £30k for PSLA?

dilemna

Sketchley wrote:

Re strict liability. One thing that seems to be missing from the comment so far is the separation between presumed liability and presumed guilt for a criminal offence. I'm completely ok with the first and making the driver of the more dangerous vehicle have to prove they are not liable, however if this also meant they would have to prove they were not guilty of dangerous driving simply because they had been accused by a cyclist then I would have an issue. I think this already has a parallel in law with criminal cases requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt and civil cases requiring only a balance of probability.

Very muddled thinking indeed.

Strict liability requires no intent ie only the act eg speeding offences or not wearing a seat belt.

Presumed liability or I think you mean a "presumption of liability" means a party is presumed to be liable unless they can show otherwise eg adducing evidence countering the presumption. Instead of a claimant trying to prove their case ie the defendant was NEGLIGENT as is the current situation, a defendant in specific types of RTA has to prove otherwise that they were NOT NEGLIGENT on the balance of probability and therefore they are NOT liable for any loss, damage or injury to the claimant, ie a reversal of the burden of proof from claimant to defendant. It might seem attractive to have this reveral of proof in RTAs involving motor vehicles and pedestrians or cyclists as the latter two are so vulnerable.

Presumed guilt!!! Blimey, police state Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe time. Which pillock suggested this!

It is a jury's role, or magistrates in the lower courts to determine guilt. In a criminal case once they have heard all the evidence they will retire to consider their verdict. Forgo this and you might as well just round up the 'usual suspects', throw them in jail and sling the key. Blimey.

But back to the instant topic. From what I have read of this case the bus driver seems to have got off lightly in that his term of imprisonment should have been much longer, but in addition the cyclist could have handled the situation far better. Just remember that cyclists are public enemy number one and everything cyclists do will be scrutinised so you have to behave in an exemplary manner. Antagonising other road users is not a good idea and there is no way a cyclist is ever going to come off better if in collision with a vehicle especially a bus. I would have have pulled off the road and let him pass rather than risk being run down which was exactly what happened to the cyclist. But that's my 2ps worth.

sketchley

The point I was trying and clearly failed to make was that strict or presumed liability does not imply guilt of a criminal offence they be different things. But sometime the line between the two is muddled sometimes deliberately so to make a point. What no one is proposing least of all me is an assumption of guilt of a criminal offence.

W1

Sketchley wrote:

The point I was trying and clearly failed to make was that strict or presumed liability does not imply guilt of a criminal offence they be different things. But sometime the line between the two is muddled sometimes deliberately so to make a point. What no one is proposing least of all me is an assumption of guilt of a criminal offence.

In principle, I don't see why presumed liability in a civil offence is somehow OK, and presumed guilt in a criminal context isn't. They both reverse the burden of proof. It should always the one who makes the accusation or claim is the one who needs to justify such an accusation or claim.

If you want presumed liability they you'd need to be prepared for it to be presumed against you too. If you are happy for the potential to be accused of being liable for a crash, and based on nothing more than that accusation you can be found liable unless you can prove otherwise, then so be it. I am certainly not comfortable with having to prove my innocence to avoid being found liable by default. No witnesses? You'd be liable. No proof that you did nothing wrong whatsoever? Tough, you'd be liable. Ped stepping out in between busses texting and you hit them? You'd be liable.