Bus driver jailed for attack on cyclist

W1

First Aspect wrote:

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

I don't see a distinction in principle.

To think that people don't stage accidents on purpose for compensation claims is naiive in the extreme. Funnily enough these are usually "rear end" accidents where there is an (effective) reversal of the burden of proof. To think that such a general reversal in the burden of proof wouldn't lead to spurious claims and "accidents" is again naiive, particularly with the constant "no-win, no fee" lawyers constantly being advertised. There is often no (or little) risk to a claimant in terms of costs - add to that no requirement to prove the claim, and it would be a fraudster's paradise.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

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

Well you said it works in other countries - does it?

W1

First Aspect wrote:

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.

How have you come to this conclusion?

spen666

W1 wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

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.

How have you come to this conclusion?

Fantastic logic isn't it?

W1

First Aspect wrote:

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.

I presume you've based this on your own experience of claiming?

You are right that insurance companies aim to pay out as little as possible, but considering the legal and investigative costs that can be accumulated in reviewing a simple claim it is often much cheaper just to settle a claim rather than fight it.

dhope

First Aspect wrote:

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.

Not my experience. Was hit by a car and ended up with an impressive looking bruise and associated soreness. Hospital visit (walked in at end of day, not carried in by ambulance) confirmed no lasting damage.
I asked the driver's insurance company to cover the cost of my broken bike. They offered, without being prompted, another couple of thousand for said bruising. I imagine this was, based on their past experience, their cheapest option. There was no suggestion of employing an ambulance chaser from me.

bails87

dhope wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

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.

Not my experience. Was hit by a car and ended up with an impressive looking bruise and associated soreness. Hospital visit (walked in at end of day, not carried in by ambulance) confirmed no lasting damage.
I asked the driver's insurance company to cover the cost of my broken bike. They offered, without being prompted, another couple of thousand for said bruising. I imagine this was, based on their past experience, their cheapest option. There was no suggestion of employing an ambulance chaser from me.

Same experience for me, just not quite a 'couple of grand' As well as the offer of as much physio as I needed, paid for by them.

DonDaddyD

I'm lost, did someone call me a f*ckwit?

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

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

Well you said it works in other countries - does it?

How would you prove something like that? Serious question... It strikes me as something that is emergent from a society that already views cyclists with more respect and due to their ubiquity, drivers already are already more careful around them because both they and everyone they know are cyclists. It simply makes sense to people to legally protect more vulnerable road users if most of the population consider themselves as being part of that group.

Its pretty easy to compare cyclist casualty rates between countries that have presumed liability and those that don't. It would be wrong to conclude from that that this is purely down to that one attribute. But it would also be wrong to say that it has no effect.

veronese68

DonDaddyD wrote:

I'm lost, did someone call me a f*ckwit?

I think most of us were, but it missed what we were trying to say so completely and utterly it wasn't worth bothering with.

DonDaddyD

Ah, I'm back up to speed and it seems I am the f*ckwit you are referring to, how pleasant.

First Aspect wrote:

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.

What we know. We know that there are benefits cheats out there, yes? We know that there is insurance fraud, yes? We know that people attempt to fake or exaggerate an injury in order to claim as much money as possible, yes? We know that there are those who are willing to 'crash for cash', yes? We also know that whiplash claims have increased despite the road being statistically safer and cars, most importantly, being safer.

So what can we conclude from this? Well, it seems that there are those who are willing to take a risk or a risk of injury for money.

So, if you change the liability of a collision with a cyclist to 100% the drivers fault is it then so improbable to fathom that a possible byproduct could be an increase of the afformentioned unsavory types migrating over from other insurance scams to that of forcing car/bicycle collisions insurance scams?

What you've assumed is that I'm claiming that current cyclists will try to abuse the strict liability of motorists. (Fact is some will and some won't). However, none of my posts have asserted this. What you've failed to consider, which I will clarify for you (and is what I'm saying) is that strict liability invites abusers of the system to take advantage of said system. There will be those, unsavory types, who will take up a bike with the mindset of crashing for cash, just like in cars. (It's no coincidence that that crash for cash scams are all types of crashes where it is automatically assumed that the crash is the other drivers fault. Hence my example of a left turning car, plouhing your bike into it slide over the bonnet and then claim they cut you up.).

Also, please don't dwell on £30k. It was just a figure I threw into the thread. The figure isn't important but the fact that there are those willing to take the risk of injury to claim what they would consider 'free' money. It wouldn't be any less significant had I said £3k.

Editted to add: <<you can insert here the compulsory DDD retaliatory insult>>

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

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

Well you said it works in other countries - does it?

How would you prove something like that? Serious question... It strikes me as something that is emergent from a society that already views cyclists with more respect and due to their ubiquity, drivers already are already more careful around them because both they and everyone they know are cyclists. It simply makes sense to people to legally protect more vulnerable road users if most of the population consider themselves as being part of that group.

Its pretty easy to compare cyclist casualty rates between countries that have presumed liability and those that don't. It would be wrong to conclude from that that this is purely down to that one attribute. But it would also be wrong to say that it has no effect.

Well that is sort of my point. Justifying introducing presumed liability because it "works" in other countries is mighty hard to agree with because there are so many factors to consider to come to that conclusion that it is impossible to say either way.

On the basis that it's not proven to "work" my objections to it remain. I can see limited benefit but significant pitfalls, and I'm not persuaded that an inusurance liability issue will "work" to reduce danger to cyclists when morality and prison sentences don't.

rick_chasey

CBA to read all of this - too tired, but have we established HOW it works in other countries?

There may be some nuances that none of us are aware of.

Origamist

Rick Chasey wrote:

CBA to read all of this - too tired, but have we established HOW it works in other countries?

There may be some nuances that none of us are aware of.

Here's how the Dutch do it - but the doc is in Dutch (IIRC, you're of Dutch origin though):

http://www.verzekeraars.nl/UserFiles/Fi ... totaal.pdf

rick_chasey

Origamist wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

CBA to read all of this - too tired, but have we established HOW it works in other countries?

There may be some nuances that none of us are aware of.

Here's how the Dutch do it - but the doc is in Dutch (IIRC, you're of Dutch origin though):

http://www.verzekeraars.nl/UserFiles/Fi ... totaal.pdf

I'll be honest, I get the gist but it's all pretty technical and legal.

It seems more or less as NSB understands it. Unless the accident was a) unavoidable (Force majeure) or b) caused intentionally by the non-motorised party or by their excessive recklessness, then the non-motorised party is responsible.

The ins and outs of how they prove that or not I haven't got to, but that's the jist. The assumption there is that it always gets investigated to see whether the accident meets any of the above criteria.

First.Aspect

Why is it so hard understand the distinction between strict liability and presumed liability? The latter is merely a starting point that reflects the underlying balance of probabilities. At present there is a presumption of liability, which is that there is none. This seems as absurd to me as some of the more fanciful suggestions on this thread.

DDD - thanks for at least taking the time to read my post. I can agree to disagree with you on the point of "compensation chasers". I simply do not accept that it would be a significant enough number to worry about, because throwing yourself at a moving motor vehicle is too alien an act for significant numbers of people to do. Its certainly not something that should be considered any more relevant to this debate than pyromaniacs are to whether one should have fire cover on house insurance.

Whiplash claims are less clear. However I'm old enough to remember that whiplash used to be regarded as pretty much given in an RTA. The only thing that has changed is that now people say "I have whiplash" where as they used to say "I only have a bit of whiplash".

I had whiplash once. I fell snowboarding. It wasn't a bad fall and I got up and carried on for the evening. But for about the next 6 months I couldn't turn my neck fully to shoulder check when cycling, or support the weight of my own head from some angles. Most of the time it was okay and it really was pretty minor, as whiplash goes. Now, if someone did that to you by driving carelessly, and every time you rolled over in bed for 6 months you had pain, how would you feel?

I just spoke to a guy I've not seen for 3 years. He had whiplash from being left hooked in 2007. He still gets physio done on his neck, but you'd never know by looking at him and he was back at work a few days after the accident. Now, if someone did that to you by driving carelessly, and every time you rolled over in bed for 5 years you had pain, how would you feel?

You can make up your own mind, but I personally think that we are observing a change of attitude, which is quite reasonable, and which won't and shouldn't change back. Why should we pay for all these whiplash claims (and other PI claims)? Well, because people drive carelessly and cause injuries, that's why. It was always the case, but cars have been owned in large numbers for less than 50 years. Attitudes are still catching up.

First.Aspect

W1 wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

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

I don't see a distinction in principle.

Which speaks volumes.

rick_chasey

There is also a special clause just for the motorised person, if found not to meet the above criteria that examines the size of the vehicle, how serious the error is, how serious the injury (to the non-motorised party), as well as some insurance stuff ( "special circumstances regarding insurance liability") that I don't understand, as well as the level of culpability for the non-motorised party.

I don't know about the insurance stuff, but AFIAK, car insurance is done differently in Holland to England, in that the insurance comes with the car you buy, rather. I may be wrong though.

First.Aspect

bails87 wrote:

dhope wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

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.

Not my experience. Was hit by a car and ended up with an impressive looking bruise and associated soreness. Hospital visit (walked in at end of day, not carried in by ambulance) confirmed no lasting damage.
I asked the driver's insurance company to cover the cost of my broken bike. They offered, without being prompted, another couple of thousand for said bruising. I imagine this was, based on their past experience, their cheapest option. There was no suggestion of employing an ambulance chaser from me.

Same experience for me, just not quite a 'couple of grand' As well as the offer of as much physio as I needed, paid for by them.

Do, you were both injured any were compensated, a small amount. You both had evidence of injury.

dhope

First Aspect wrote:

Do, you were both injured any were compensated, a small amount. You both had evidence of injury.

They took my word for it though, there were no hoops to jump through and I wasn't required to prove anything.
I assume they weighed up the chances that I was lying and the time taken to arse around disputing things and decided that on the balance of things then cheaper to offer me some money to close a case.
It may be more involved with a lot of whiplash claims but the same rationale will be there. Cheaper to settle now than have something drag on.

First.Aspect

W1 wrote:

Funnily enough these are usually "rear end" accidents where there is an (effective) reversal of the burden of proof. To think that such a general reversal in the burden of proof wouldn't lead to spurious claims and "accidents" is again naiive, particularly with the constant "no-win, no fee" lawyers constantly being advertised. There is often no (or little) risk to a claimant in terms of costs - add to that no requirement to prove the claim, and it would be a fraudster's paradise.

Thanks for this W1 - (a) you've given a nice example of where a presumption of liability happens already and (b) made a nice distinction between where fraud occurs and the example of throwing yourself in front of a car. Personal risk.

Let me ask you this: Is there currently a problem at zebra crossings? I mean, there is surely a presumed liability, at least in practice, against a driver who hits a pedestrian on a zebra crossing. Do fraudsters routinely step out at the last second to get knocked off and claim compensation?

rick_chasey

Either way, in Holland, the burden of proof lies with the motorised party.

veronese68

Whiplash used to be a far greater problem before cars were all fitted with headrests, technically head restraints as that's what they are for. I think most cars have had them fitted for the last 30 or 40 years. It's very difficult to prove or disprove if someone has whiplash.

rick_chasey

So what's the concern with the Dutch system - whereby in a motorised v non-motorised (avoidable) accident, the motorised party is presumed culpable unless the motorised party can prove otherwise (that the motorised party was either intent on causing the accident or damage, or was being excessively reckless)?


I guess this is made easier in Holland because bikes also have right of way over all other forms of transport.

First.Aspect

dhope wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

Do, you were both injured any were compensated, a small amount. You both had evidence of injury.

They took my word for it though, there were no hoops to jump through and I wasn't required to prove anything.
I assume they weighed up the chances that I was lying and the time taken to ars* around disputing things and decided that on the balance of things then cheaper to offer me some money to close a case.
It may be more involved with a lot of whiplash claims but the same rationale will be there. Cheaper to settle now than have something drag on.

Hospital visit and report? Evidence of bruising? They needed about as much evidence, by the sounds of it, as they needed for the damage to your bike. You are inferring the rest, I think because you somehow don't feel you deserved it. Why not?

Paulie W

What I want to know is how an ad offering "recipe inspiration kits" is appearing on this page - how does that relate to the discussion?!

W1

First Aspect wrote:

W1 wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

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

I don't see a distinction in principle.

Which speaks volumes.

Please feel free to amplify.

First.Aspect

W1 wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

W1 wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

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

I don't see a distinction in principle.

Which speaks volumes.

Please feel free to amplify.

see above

W1

First Aspect wrote:

You can make up your own mind, but I personally think that we are observing a change of attitude, which is quite reasonable, and which won't and shouldn't change back. Why should we pay for all these whiplash claims (and other PI claims)? Well, because people drive carelessly and cause injuries, that's why. It was always the case, but cars have been owned in large numbers for less than 50 years. Attitudes are still catching up.

I think you're wrong.

What has changed is that claiming has become easier and cheaper, not that accidents have become worse. On the contrary, cars are much safer and cause a generally decreasing number of deaths and injuries than previously.

If payouts are easier and cheaper, it's no surprise that there is a tied increase with fraudlent claims.

The "attitude" that has changed is compensation culture, where (it seems) money helps people recover from injuries. Alternatively, particularly with injuries which are hard to prove, the money is what people think (or are told) they are "entitled" to without really having to prove very much (if anything) at all. A bit like presumed liability in fact.

DonDaddyD

First Aspect wrote:

Why is it so hard understand the distinction between strict liability and presumed liability?

But in that you raise the point. The type of people willing to abuse the system are legal eagles, they work on common assumptions (common law husband and wife* and it being illegal for a restuarant not to have a toilet - both are common assumptions and general public misconceptions. It is not illegal for for a restaurant not to provide a toilet and a unmarried couple who live together for any number of years are not treated with the same legal regards as a married couple). People, like me, will make the mistake of confusing strict and presumed liability. The assumption could quickly become, "if a car hits you on a bike, it's the cars fault". I.e. a common assumption.

DDD - thanks for at least taking the time to read my post. I can agree to disagree with you on the point of "compensation chasers". I simply do not accept that it would be a significant enough number to worry about, because throwing yourself at a moving motor vehicle is too alien an act for significant numbers of people to do.

Define significant?

Its certainly not something that should be considered any more relevant to this debate than pyromaniacs are to whether one should have fire cover on house insurance.

Irrelevant, the point is people do do it. I would argue that forensic evidence and the investigations into fiding the cause is such that it is harder to get away with burning down your house than it is claiming whiplash or crashing your car in such a way it looks like someone has rammed themselves into the back of you. People go for the easiest path, with the least amount of consequence or punishment if found out and not the most complex and most severe punnishments.

I had whiplash once. I fell snowboarding. It wasn't a bad fall and I got up and carried on for the evening. But for about the next 6 months I couldn't turn my neck fully to shoulder check when cycling, or support the weight of my own head from some angles. Most of the time it was okay and it really was pretty minor, as whiplash goes. Now, if someone did that to you by driving carelessly, and every time you rolled over in bed for 6 months you had pain, how would you feel?

I just spoke to a guy I've not seen for 3 years. He had whiplash from being left hooked in 2007. He still gets physio done on his neck, but you'd never know by looking at him and he was back at work a few days after the accident. Now, if someone did that to you by driving carelessly, and every time you rolled over in bed for 5 years you had pain, how would you feel?

I don't understand the relevance of the question within the context of the discussion. "WHOOSH" I believe is the term.

You can make up your own mind, but I personally think that we are observing a change of attitude, which is quite reasonable, and which won't and shouldn't change back. Why should we pay for all these whiplash claims (and other PI claims)? Well, because people drive carelessly and cause injuries, that's why. It was always the case, but cars have been owned in large numbers for less than 50 years. Attitudes are still catching up.

Yes, but you're missing the point. The point isn't about denying access to justifiable claims. The point is not opening up a gate for those who abuse the system.

Furthermroe peoples collective attitudes change when the assumption is that "if hit it's the other persons fault". That doesn't endear itself to making either party more cautious.