Insurance changes!!!!
08 July 2002, 12:21 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh for ****'s sake...
BBC News Story on car insurance.
Discuss, personally I'll exercise my right to US residency and get out.
BBC News Story on car insurance.
Discuss, personally I'll exercise my right to US residency and get out.
08 July 2002, 12:35 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'No fault liability'
Currently, if a pedal cyclist or pedestrian has an accident with a motorist, liability rests with the one who was at fault.
The new proposals would effectively put an end to any dispute, since the motorist would always be judged liable.
Currently, if a pedal cyclist or pedestrian has an accident with a motorist, liability rests with the one who was at fault.
The new proposals would effectively put an end to any dispute, since the motorist would always be judged liable.
1. Get pissed
2. Stand infront of moving vehicle
3. Sue their ***.
EU to55ers.
08 July 2002, 12:45 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 10,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a fecking joke. [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
The EU does NOTHING for us - waste of fecking space they are [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
Getting fed up of the whole "Europe" thing now.
The EU does NOTHING for us - waste of fecking space they are [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
Getting fed up of the whole "Europe" thing now.
08 July 2002, 12:46 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: In a house
Posts: 5,153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If thats the case, when you run them over, you run them over good and proper. Make sure you also run over the witnesses so they can't ID you. I know, I've been playing GTA3 again.
At least I've had soem training if this does become the case...
At least I've had soem training if this does become the case...
08 July 2002, 12:49 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Near Bath
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a crock of sh1te , it will just make more hit and run stats . About time we told europe to go and get stuffed , we don't need anymore stupid laws . Bring back lbs and ounces !!!!!!!!!
Trending Topics
08 July 2002, 12:52 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Warrington
Posts: 4,554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The obvious answer is to license ALL road users, including cyclists, pedestrians, horses etc., then ensure that they have adequate insurance for 3rd party claims.
This would be prohibitively expensive and unenforceable. But wait a minute, since everyone is a pedestrian at some time, why not add it to general taxation?
This is exactly what happens at the moment. QED. We already have the most sensible solution in place.
Euro meddlers [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
This would be prohibitively expensive and unenforceable. But wait a minute, since everyone is a pedestrian at some time, why not add it to general taxation?
This is exactly what happens at the moment. QED. We already have the most sensible solution in place.
Euro meddlers [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
08 July 2002, 12:56 PM
#9
Scooby Newbie
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is one country in EU would could learn from. Germany, when they catch someone driving un-insured, as the car is not legally on the road they take it away and crush it.
That'll teach un-insured drivers.
That'll teach un-insured drivers.
08 July 2002, 02:30 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've actually had a look at the EU directive, rather than the BBC's alarmist reporting, and it's not all that bad.
All the EU is saying is that the fact that cyclists and pedestrians are covered by the motor vehicle's policy is not determined by who was to blame. Cyclists and pedestrians MUST be covered, in principle, by the policy.
However, this IN NO WAY means that any form of compensation must be paid to cyclists or pedestrians involved in an accident, unless an award is made by the appropriate authorities (i.e. court).
Basically, if you have an accident, and you get sued, and a court says you have to pay compensation, your insurance policy MUST cover it.
If you have an accident, and you get sued, and the court says "Sorry Mr. Cyclist, but you caused the accident by riding through the red light", you don't have to pay up.
At least, that's how I read it, and it's not particularly clear.
All the EU is saying is that the fact that cyclists and pedestrians are covered by the motor vehicle's policy is not determined by who was to blame. Cyclists and pedestrians MUST be covered, in principle, by the policy.
However, this IN NO WAY means that any form of compensation must be paid to cyclists or pedestrians involved in an accident, unless an award is made by the appropriate authorities (i.e. court).
Basically, if you have an accident, and you get sued, and a court says you have to pay compensation, your insurance policy MUST cover it.
If you have an accident, and you get sued, and the court says "Sorry Mr. Cyclist, but you caused the accident by riding through the red light", you don't have to pay up.
At least, that's how I read it, and it's not particularly clear.
08 July 2002, 02:31 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's the problem with EU directives, it's down to the member states to implement them, so there could be all sorts of different subtleties that get lost in the many translations...
Simon.
Simon.
08 July 2002, 02:39 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: West Byfleet, Surrey
Posts: 1,653
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't realise somebody had already opened a thread on this one - I did check the first page...
What was even more infuriating than the original directive, was the comment from the director of the London Cyciling Campaign, with his Roger Irrelevant comments about motorists speeding! What has that got to do with the price of cheese? If a motorist causes an accident with a cyclist because he (the motorist) is speeding, then the motorist is already at fault. If the cyclist causes an accident because he is drunk/has no lights on/hasn't read the Highway Code/delete as appropriate then he/she will be able to sue the driver!
BTW, I'm not anti-cyclist - I've been on the receiving end of amny a "you don't pay road tax" rant as I scrape myself up of the tarmac. But this just stinks...
What was even more infuriating than the original directive, was the comment from the director of the London Cyciling Campaign, with his Roger Irrelevant comments about motorists speeding! What has that got to do with the price of cheese? If a motorist causes an accident with a cyclist because he (the motorist) is speeding, then the motorist is already at fault. If the cyclist causes an accident because he is drunk/has no lights on/hasn't read the Highway Code/delete as appropriate then he/she will be able to sue the driver!
BTW, I'm not anti-cyclist - I've been on the receiving end of amny a "you don't pay road tax" rant as I scrape myself up of the tarmac. But this just stinks...
08 July 2002, 03:45 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well that's just great. It's bad enough that you're accosted all the time by Legal firms encouraging you to sue if you [reading badly from a script voice]trip over a peice of wood that shouldn't have been there[/reading badly from a script voice] but now all the scumbags will just hurl themselves into traffic. WooHoo, free money 
Who would like to hazard a guess as to how much the following statistics will increase?
1) Pedestrians/cyclists involved in RTA's with vehicles
2) Hit and run incidents
3) Uninsured drivers
I'm guessing at least 25% across the board.
Who would like to hazard a guess as to how much the following statistics will increase?
1) Pedestrians/cyclists involved in RTA's with vehicles
2) Hit and run incidents
3) Uninsured drivers
I'm guessing at least 25% across the board.
08 July 2002, 03:54 PM
#20
Bl00dy Typical!!!
We will end up getting the crazy lawsuits that the US currently has a monopoly on!!
"The driver drove off and broke my fingers, ok - I was trying to steal his hubcaps at the traffic lights but he is at fault!"
[img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
We will end up getting the crazy lawsuits that the US currently has a monopoly on!!
"The driver drove off and broke my fingers, ok - I was trying to steal his hubcaps at the traffic lights but he is at fault!"
[img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
08 July 2002, 03:55 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 1600cc's of twin scroll fun :)
Posts: 25,565
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Isnt it about time that cyclists do a road going test?
Also make it compulsary that they have some form of insurance whilst on the road and that safety helmets/pads are worn?
What happens if a driver gets caught without their seatbelt fitted?
Why dont cameras on traffic lights ever get cyclists who go through red lights?
Hmmmmm you cant persecute one group without educating the other first.
Tony
Also make it compulsary that they have some form of insurance whilst on the road and that safety helmets/pads are worn?
What happens if a driver gets caught without their seatbelt fitted?
Why dont cameras on traffic lights ever get cyclists who go through red lights?
Hmmmmm you cant persecute one group without educating the other first.
Tony
08 July 2002, 07:59 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swilling coffee at my lab bench
Posts: 9,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All the EU is saying is that the fact that cyclists and pedestrians are covered by the motor vehicle's policy is not determined by who was to blame. Cyclists and pedestrians MUST be covered, in principle, by the policy.
However, this IN NO WAY means that any form of compensation must be paid to cyclists or pedestrians involved in an accident, unless an award is made by the appropriate authorities (i.e. court).
However, this IN NO WAY means that any form of compensation must be paid to cyclists or pedestrians involved in an accident, unless an award is made by the appropriate authorities (i.e. court).
Case 1) Your insurance covers it. You have a claim on your record, lose your NCB, and end up paying even more for the next few years.
Case 2) Your insurance doesn't cover it. Now, not only is there an accident on your record (which will make your premiums go up anyway), but you're now also personally liable for the cost of medical treatment and/or compensation.
Personally I favour case 1. Think of the extra insurance cost that the Directive might entail as 'wrongful conviction insurance'.
Of course, if the Directive ends up actually holding motorists liable for all accidents that aren't their fault, then that's a different matter entirely, and highly immoral IMHO.
Why not join the ABD in any case? Not just think about it, but actually join - today. Their home page is here and the link to apply for individual membership is here. It costs just twenty quid, which is less than half the price of a tank of petrol. Do it today.
Andy.
08 July 2002, 08:52 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 9,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
basically, when this passes you can get a crappy old bike and start smashing into cars waiting at junctions for fun. Hell it's the car drivers fault for being on the road!!!
At present, I think cyclists pay more attention to other road users than they will if this passes - as they will assume car drivers are scared sh*tless of hitting them - which surely will make it more dangerous.
Andy
At present, I think cyclists pay more attention to other road users than they will if this passes - as they will assume car drivers are scared sh*tless of hitting them - which surely will make it more dangerous.
Andy
08 July 2002, 09:29 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with the general theme of the thread in that this appears to be another case of the modern world gone mad.
I must admit that I haven't read the report or the directive but just to pick up on the points highlighted by dharbige and AndyC_772, if the directive simply says that the insurance policy must cover for compensation to pedestrians & cyclists in the event that the motorist is held liable then it is totally pointless because that is already the case. The scenario that Andy gives will always resolve as he describes in point 1. Thats how UK motor insurance has been since the Road Traffic Act 1988.
My gut reaction is one of concern because I don't see why they would be re-stating the existing situation, particularly as it is much the same across all of the EU.
Sh*te.
I must admit that I haven't read the report or the directive but just to pick up on the points highlighted by dharbige and AndyC_772, if the directive simply says that the insurance policy must cover for compensation to pedestrians & cyclists in the event that the motorist is held liable then it is totally pointless because that is already the case. The scenario that Andy gives will always resolve as he describes in point 1. Thats how UK motor insurance has been since the Road Traffic Act 1988.
My gut reaction is one of concern because I don't see why they would be re-stating the existing situation, particularly as it is much the same across all of the EU.
Sh*te.
08 July 2002, 09:39 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typical number of fatalities caused by road accidents per year:
UK: 3500
France: 9000
Germany: 9000
I'm not so sure I want these kind of "standards" adopted across Europe thanks very much.
Here's a novel concept: how about making unelected Eurocrats accountable - let alone liable - for their actions? Bet we won't see that happen in the near future!
UK: 3500
France: 9000
Germany: 9000
I'm not so sure I want these kind of "standards" adopted across Europe thanks very much.
Here's a novel concept: how about making unelected Eurocrats accountable - let alone liable - for their actions? Bet we won't see that happen in the near future!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post