Bus driver jailed for attack on cyclist

W1

First Aspect wrote:

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?

I said it was effective - and in reality, it's very hard to argue that if someone hits you from behind, it is somhow your fault. That is not the same in a car/bike or bike/ped collision, where that presumption is far less clear. Ditto a zebra crossing in fact.

No-one has said that peds fling themselves at cars on zebra crossings to claim compo. What has been argued is that the ability to get comepnsation without having to prove very much has created a fraud including "cash for crash" accidents involving (for example) low speed (i.e. low risk) accidents with difficult to prove "injuries". If presumed liability was brought it, I'm unconvinced that that wouldn't encourage similar low risk, low speed "accidents" between cars and bikes (presumtion againt the motorist) or maybe bikes and peds (presumption against the bike).

bails87

First Aspect wrote:

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

I had "my hip still hurts and I was hobbling for a couple of weeks" and "four weeks ago [after the accident] I had trouble sleeping because my shoulder also hurt" and "my neck was a bit stiff for a few days".

That was it. Plus a photo of a small graze on my hip.

I was totally honest with what happened, and I know some insurance companies can be awful, but I was treated very well. Maybe the fact that they knew I'd been hit by a car and thrown across the bonnet and onto the road* made them expect a certain level of injury.

*Confirmed by the driver. Also, the driver was totally at fault, if it was a disputed claim maybe they'd be less generous or less willing to pay out at all.

W1

First Aspect wrote:

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

I can't see anything where you explain why presumed guilt and presumed liability are different in principle.

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

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

Yes, but Holland has an entire different culture to England. Within that culture you may see a different approach and attitude to driving where laws there work within that attitude they may have a negative effect here.

It's not good enough to simpl say in Holland they do this "ain't it wonderful".

I could say in Germany the motorway is derestricted and they have less accidents. That doesn't mean that's going to work here.

W1

First Aspect wrote:

. 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.

Why is needing to positively prove liability absurd?

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

I think that halting progression because of fear that a small minority might abuse an already flawed system is a very British attitude to have. Its ludicrous for people to argue that cyclists will be throwing themselves under cars left right and center to get in on the free pay outs from insurance claims. The only reason why this is a problem for whiplash cases is because the claims industry has spun out of control and its less hassle for insurance companies to just pay out and increase premiums, than it is for them to actually put up sufficient resistance to make bogus claims less easy.

NB: Before you pounce on me, First Aspect, I'm not saying Whiplash doesn't exist or that everyone who has it is faking it. I'm just saying that there is a huge incentive for people to claim to say they have whiplash after being approached by a claims company who promises them money for nothing.

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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

Yes, but Holland has an entire different culture to England. Within that culture you may see a different approach and attitude to driving where laws there work within that attitude they may have a negative effect here.

It's not good enough to simpl say in Holland they do this "ain't it wonderful".

I could say in Germany the motorway is derestricted and they have less accidents. That doesn't mean that's going to work here.

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 don't see how it wouldn't work here, though, as I said before, it would be eased if the highway code was made clearer and more in line with the law. In Holland, presumed liability for the motorist combines with the cyclist's right of way over traffic in most normal situations.

Your German example doesn't work because it's obvious why they're both true - because their motorways are better. There's nothing stopping anyone saying UK motorways are sh!t and should be sorted out. I say the same about UK roads for bikes - many are not fit for the purpose of taking both motorised vehicles, from cars to lorries AND bicycles in a tolerably safe manner.

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

I think that halting progression because of fear that a small minority might abuse an already flawed system is a very British attitude to have. Its ludicrous for people to argue that cyclists will be throwing themselves under cars left right and center to get in on the free pay outs from insurance claims. The only reason why this is a problem for whiplash cases is because the claims industry has spun out of control and its less hassle for insurance companies to just pay out and increase premiums, than it is for them to actually put up sufficient resistance to make bogus claims less easy.

NB: Before you pounce on me, First Aspect, I'm not saying Whiplash doesn't exist or that everyone who has it is faking it. I'm just saying that there is a huge incentive for people to claim to say they have whiplash after being approached by a claims company who promises them money for nothing.

But a cyclist deliberately throwing themselves under a car should be eminently provable. How wouldn't it be - especially if you were driving carefully, and giving the cyclist enough room?

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

It very much depends whether you think those who make accusations and claims against others should have to do so with any sort of proof or not. I rather presumed that it was accepted that it's only proper that someone making accusations needs to prove them in order to make a successful claim, but clearly I was wrong and some posters are content to be accused (and found liable) for accidents which have no substantiation at all.

Personally it's fundamentally wrong to be found liable for something based on nothing but (a) an accuser and (b) a presumption. I don't want to have to prove my innocence or prove someone elses recklessness in order to refute a claim which might be wholly fraudulent or without merit.

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

I think that halting progression because of fear that a small minority might abuse an already flawed system is a very British attitude to have. Its ludicrous for people to argue that cyclists will be throwing themselves under cars left right and center to get in on the free pay outs from insurance claims. The only reason why this is a problem for whiplash cases is because the claims industry has spun out of control and its less hassle for insurance companies to just pay out and increase premiums, than it is for them to actually put up sufficient resistance to make bogus claims less easy.

I'm not trolling, but everyone is ignorning me. Still I have to bite.

On one hand you say that's it's ludicrous for people to argue that cyclist will deliberately crash into cars to abuse the system. On the other you give an example where people have been deliberately abuse the system. Time was it was ludicrous to believe that people would deliberately crash their cars to make a claim. That happens.

How is being against strict liability ('the drivers fault') halting progression if you don't believe it is progression in the first place?

NB: Before you pounce on me, First Aspect, I'm not saying Whiplash doesn't exist or that everyone who has it is faking it. I'm just saying that there is a huge incentive for people to claim to say they have whiplash after being approached by a claims company who promises them money for nothing.

So in the same breath it could become a huge incentive for people to claim that they a car crashed into them, when in actual fact they crashed into the car, right?

W1

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

I think that halting progression because of fear that a small minority might abuse an already flawed system is a very British attitude to have. Its ludicrous for people to argue that cyclists will be throwing themselves under cars left right and center to get in on the free pay outs from insurance claims. The only reason why this is a problem for whiplash cases is because the claims industry has spun out of control and its less hassle for insurance companies to just pay out and increase premiums, than it is for them to actually put up sufficient resistance to make bogus claims less easy.

NB: Before you pounce on me, First Aspect, I'm not saying Whiplash doesn't exist or that everyone who has it is faking it. I'm just saying that there is a huge incentive for people to claim to say they have whiplash after being approached by a claims company who promises them money for nothing.

Sorry, what is flawed about a system whereby you need to prove that what you are claiming is true before getting a payout?

Is it any less flawed than a system whereby you'd have to prove your innocence? Both require "proof" in order for the right result to be achieved.

The bit in bold - why don't you think the same would happen as a result of presumed liability?

dhope

First Aspect wrote:

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?

The damage to the bike was actually non existent at first. The bike shop signed it off with a clean bill of health. When I spoke to the insurance company I said that as it was a carbon frame then it's possible that it's failed without visible signs. They gave me £900 for the £1000 bike on the assumption the rest of the kit would make up the £100 if sold (obviously it would have). As it turned out the frame had failed and the crack only showed after I picked it up from the bike shop and pootled back the 1mi home (my 75kg was enough stress to crack the lacquer that'd been hiding the break from the crash).
As for feeling undeserving of the remaining money then that's purely because I'm not an expert at assigning a value to a fairly minor injury. It was painful and an inconvenience but then so are a bunch of things that aren't my fault and I don't expect to get compensated for them. I like getting money but doesn't mean I'll always feel instantly entitled to it.

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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

Yes, but Holland has an entire different culture to England. Within that culture you may see a different approach and attitude to driving where laws there work within that attitude they may have a negative effect here.

It's not good enough to simpl say in Holland they do this "ain't it wonderful".

I could say in Germany the motorway is derestricted and they have less accidents. That doesn't mean that's going to work here.

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.

No, law is because of culture. Laws change in-line with cultural change and progression. Gay marriage wasn't passed as a law and then peoples attitudes towards gay people suddenly changed. People changed, became more accepting etc and the law changed accordingly.

Equal pay, gender equality, gay adoption. All the same thing.

I don't see how it wouldn't work here, though, as I said before, it would be eased if the highway code was made clearer and more in line with the law. In Holland, presumed liability for the motorist combines with the cyclist's right of way over traffic in most normal situations.

Wouldn't work here with the sheer volume of cars and people in cities such as London and Birmingham. Ref. Culture/Attitude.

Your German example doesn't work because it's obvious why they're both true - because their motorways are better. There's nothing stopping anyone saying UK motorways are sh!t and should be sorted out. I say the same about UK roads for bikes - many are not fit for the purpose of taking both motorised vehicles, from cars to lorries AND bicycles in a tolerably safe manner.

How is the autobahn better? How do our motorways need sorting out?

notsoblue

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.

Just to add to this, I think that the chances of Presumed Liability being introduced in this country are pretty slim. But I think that its introduction would really help make cycling an activity that everyone can enjoy. Most people perceive cycling to be a very risky activity, this perception would definitely be changed if the authorities sought to protect them through the law. It would be a clear message from authority that they support cycling as a rational activity.

And people *do* respect authority. The fact that they constantly misquote from the Highway Code indicates that they see it as a validator of their behaviour.

W1

notsoblue 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.

Just to add to this, I think that the chances of Presumed Liability being introduced in this country are pretty slim. But I think that its introduction would really help make cycling an activity that everyone can enjoy. Most people perceive cycling to be a very risky activity, this perception would definitely be changed if the authorities sought to protect them through the law. It would be a clear message from authority that they support cycling as a rational activity.

And people *do* respect authority. The fact that they constantly misquote from the Highway Code indicates that they see it as a validator of their behaviour.

But, for reasons you've not explained, you think the law as it stands (with, for example, insurance for cars and potential prison sentences for errant motorists), don't provide that protection, whereas a presumption of liability somehow would. Sorry NSB, I just don't buy it.

DonDaddyD

notsoblue 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.

Just to add to this, I think that the chances of Presumed Liability being introduced in this country are pretty slim. But I think that its introduction would really help make cycling an activity that everyone can enjoy. Most people perceive cycling to be a very risky activity, this perception would definitely be changed if the authorities sought to protect them through the law. It would be a clear message from authority that they support cycling as a rational activity.

And people *do* respect authority. The fact that they constantly misquote from the Highway Code indicates that they see it as a validator of their behaviour.

I'm sorry but the initial point is wrong.

The only reason why you are talking about this now and the fact that it is being listened to is that there are more cyclists, the general public's attitude to cycling and cyclist has changed and if new laws have passed it will be because British culture has become more aware and accepting of the viritues of cycling and the importance of keeping cyclist safe.

rick_chasey

No, law is because of culture. Laws change in-line with cultural change and progression. Gay marriage wasn't passed as a law and then peoples attitudes towards gay people suddenly changed. People changed, became more accepting etc and the law changed accordingly.

Equal pay, gender equality, gay adoption. All the same thing.

Eh?

We're talking about road law here. Not minority law. MASSIVE difference. Don't confuse the two.

They're not remotely related.

You're right that if everyone cycled, it'd be popular to change the law. However, I would suggest that driving behaviour would change if the law was changed. If that behaviour happens for a while, then it becomes part of the DRIVING culture.

You make it law that everyone drives on the left? People will. In the UK, because it is enforced, there is a culture (for drivers) to obey traffic lights. Right? In Iran for example, it's not, and you don't get prosecuted for jumping lights (in reality, since the law isn't enforced).

Wouldn't work here with the sheer volume of cars and people in cities such as London and Birmingham. Ref. Culture/Attitude.

Be specific. What wouldn't work? What would the outcome be, beyond some far fetched insurance scam (which is illegal anyway, by the way)?

How is the autobahn better? How do our motorways need sorting out?

The bits that are unrestricted are enormous, wide, straight, great quality, and never particularly congested.

First.Aspect

W1 wrote:

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.

Highlighted in bold, above:- I've not argued this. 2+2>4?

The statement underlined and the statement in italics are unrelated. Kind of like "collecting underpants" and "profit".

I agree that its now easier to claim, and that there is a "compensation culture". However you make it seem like a bad thing in all cases. My view is that it increases the link between behaviour and consequence. There's no link between injury and money in reality, of course, but it is the only mechanism available. (and please don't argue that the criminal route is an alternative, because it is relevant to so tiny a proportion of accidents and injuies)

The end result of this "compensation culture" (which can be re-framed as not letting people get away consequency free with injuring people any more) will not be some unaffordable motoring armageddon, but intead will lead to different types of motor insurance, and a large financial penalty if you hurt someone, by way of increased premiums later. You can already see that happening. Not great if you are 17, but I can't say I mind.

At the moment though, it is still the case that if you have protected no claims, and/or no one else saw, there is probably absolutely no consequence whatsoever to driving into something or someone. What sort of behaviour does this lead to? Careless? Negligent? Reckless? Yes, and we all know it and experience it.

---

Okay, so we diagree irrevocably on that lot.

Anedotaly, there seems to be a ceiling of about £2-£3k for these unsubstantiated claims of injury. My own experiences have been rather above this threshold, so perhaps I'm wrong in regard to the efforts needed to extract a quick titanium frames' worth out of Standard Life.

Assuming this is the case, are the numbers of £2-3k settlements contributing to increased motoring costs? If they are, what proportion of these are unjustified? What is the contribution to your insurance premium of the estimated unjustufied settlements? How does this compare, for example, to costs to fund the MIB to cover uninsured drivers, or costs associated accidents with defective vehicles? Until you start breaking things down like this, the debate to me seems no different in tone to chasing "benefits cheats". i.e. An undefined evil which should be stamped out (even though they only cost about a tenth as much as tax evasion)*.

figures plucked from the ether - I have no idea, which is kind of the point

rjsterry

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.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

NB: Before you pounce on me, First Aspect, I'm not saying Whiplash doesn't exist or that everyone who has it is faking it. I'm just saying that there is a huge incentive for people to claim to say they have whiplash after being approached by a claims company who promises them money for nothing.

So in the same breath it could become a huge incentive for people to claim that they a car crashed into them, when in actual fact they crashed into the car, right?

Whiplash is soft tissue damage and is hard to diagnose. I think (I could be wrong) that even a MRI wouldn't be able to conclusively prove it. Bogus claimants exploit the fact that you can get a diagnosis from your GP based on feedback you give them about pain. The huge increase in reported whiplash injuries in specific regions over a relatively short period of time would suggest that either there has been a very sudden and geographically contained weakening of people's necks, or no-win no-fee companies have targeted an area and are convincing people to claim bogus injuries.

The difference between a bogus whiplash injury and an injury sustained by someone *purposefully* running into a car to exploit a presumed liability law is that its very hard to fake the broken bones or ruptured internal organs that are likely to be the result of this. Thus putting the cost/benefit ratio on a par with pedestrians running out in front of cars on zebra crossings to get a pay out. If you still want to argue that there will be a significant number of people out there willing to sustain life changing injuries for the chance to get an insurance payout then honestly I have no idea how to talk about this issue with you further. Sorry.

Stevo_666

notsoblue wrote:

Just to add to this, I think that the chances of Presumed Liability being introduced in this country are pretty slim.

Nail on head - I'd say very slim. It's all a bit iof a theoretical argument as it just isn't going to happen in the foreseeable future.

Have to say I don't agree with the idea, but it looks like the arguments have already been done to death.

rick_chasey

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.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

I think that halting progression because of fear that a small minority might abuse an already flawed system is a very British attitude to have. Its ludicrous for people to argue that cyclists will be throwing themselves under cars left right and center to get in on the free pay outs from insurance claims. The only reason why this is a problem for whiplash cases is because the claims industry has spun out of control and its less hassle for insurance companies to just pay out and increase premiums, than it is for them to actually put up sufficient resistance to make bogus claims less easy.

NB: Before you pounce on me, First Aspect, I'm not saying Whiplash doesn't exist or that everyone who has it is faking it. I'm just saying that there is a huge incentive for people to claim to say they have whiplash after being approached by a claims company who promises them money for nothing.

Sorry, what is flawed about a system whereby you need to prove that what you are claiming is true before getting a payout?

Is it any less flawed than a system whereby you'd have to prove your innocence? Both require "proof" in order for the right result to be achieved.

The bit in bold - why don't you think the same would happen as a result of presumed liability?

I don't believe a statistically relevant size of the population would go out of their way to sustain potentially life changing injuries to get insurance pay outs. You can lie or exaggerate whiplash, but you can't do the same about a fractured femur or a serious head injury. The flaw isn't that you can claim for injury, the flaw is that certain injuries can be faked.

First.Aspect

Does anyone actually have any numbers relating to the whiplash issue?

It doesn't follow that an increase in claims correlates to an increase in fraud. Its a bit like crime statistics - the second a particular type of crime is focussed on, reporting goes up and yoyu see a spike in aparrent occurrence. If you suddenly started enforcing ASL's there'd be a 10,000% increase in ASL related crime.

However, it is probably true that at least a proportion of the increase claims will be fraudulent and that someone will have an estimate of the numbers. The big outstanding question I have is whether this actually accounts in any way for 30% increases in insurance premiums. I'd bet my house that it doesn't come even close.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

NB: Before you pounce on me, First Aspect, I'm not saying Whiplash doesn't exist or that everyone who has it is faking it. I'm just saying that there is a huge incentive for people to claim to say they have whiplash after being approached by a claims company who promises them money for nothing.

So in the same breath it could become a huge incentive for people to claim that they a car crashed into them, when in actual fact they crashed into the car, right?

Whiplash is soft tissue damage and is hard to diagnose. I think (I could be wrong) that even a MRI wouldn't be able to conclusively prove it. Bogus claimants exploit the fact that you can get a diagnosis from your GP based on feedback you give them about pain. The huge increase in reported whiplash injuries in specific regions over a relatively short period of time would suggest that either there has been a very sudden and geographically contained weakening of people's necks, or no-win no-fee companies have targeted an area and are convincing people to claim bogus injuries.

The difference between a bogus whiplash injury and an injury sustained by someone *purposefully* running into a car to exploit a presumed liability law is that its very hard to fake the broken bones or ruptured internal organs that are likely to be the result of this. Thus putting the cost/benefit ratio on a par with pedestrians running out in front of cars on zebra crossings to get a pay out. If you still want to argue that there will be a significant number of people out there willing to sustain life changing injuries for the chance to get an insurance payout then honestly I have no idea how to talk about this issue with you further. Sorry.

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.

W1

D.P.

First.Aspect

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?

notsoblue

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.

W1

First Aspect wrote:

Does anyone actually have any numbers relating to the whiplash issue?

It doesn't follow that an increase in claims correlates to an increase in fraud. Its a bit like crime statistics - the second a particular type of crime is focussed on, reporting goes up and yoyu see a spike in aparrent occurrence. If you suddenly started enforcing ASL's there'd be a 10,000% increase in ASL related crime.

However, it is probably true that at least a proportion of the increase claims will be fraudulent and that someone will have an estimate of the numbers. The big outstanding question I have is whether this actually accounts in any way for 30% increases in insurance premiums. I'd bet my house that it doesn't come even close.

All you are going to get are estimates because not all fraud is discovered.

But with cars getting safer and fewer serious accidents occurring I simply do not believe that claims for whiplash injuries should be going up. The fact that they are increasing at the same time as claiming is becoming (a) easier (b) cheaper (c) less risky and (d) widely advertised is more likely than not to be based to a significant degree on exaggerated claims in my opinion. I would see the possibility being exactly the same for other types of "presumed" liability.

I accept that some people claim today for legitimate injuries who would not have claimed (or known how to claim) 10 or 20 years ago. But personally I think they are in the minority.

I get regular texts from comanies saying I'm entitled to £3k for a crash I haven't even had - to anyone involved in an accident, if there is an offer of £3k on the table at no cost or risk to you, many people would take it regardless of injuries because they "deserve" it.

notsoblue

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.