Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [greenwichcyclists] Insurer in court appeal against teenager hit by claimant's car - Yahoo! Finance UK

Expand Messages
  • Dalla Jenney
    This case is worrying in one way but good in another: the issue of cyclists contributory negligence in an accident when not wearing high viz/ helmets is a
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 14, 2013
      This case is worrying in one way but good in another:  the issue of cyclists' contributory negligence in an accident when not wearing high viz/ helmets is a legally undecided issue.  This case, regarding a pedestrian, should clarify the law for cyclists too and, if necessary, provoke a change in the law.  

      There will be an outcry if the law is declared to be that pedestrians need to wear high viz at night or else risk uncompensated personal injury when struck by a vehicle.  The exact same logic applies to cyclists although it somehow seems to be accepted by Joe Public that it is a cyclists' DUTY to wear high viz and helmets, whereas that argument is rarely made for pedestrians.  Yes, it's a very good idea to wear high viz (and a helmet) but that should not automatically mean that, if we decide not to, it makes accidents somehow our fault and that we can be knocked down by motorists and have the insurance companies not  pay full compensation.  

      If the insurance company had taken a similar case against an adult cyclist then there would not be the same public reaction as would be provoked if this case goes against that poor girl.  I am hoping that the Court will also discuss whether or not the girl should have been wearing a helmet (the arguments for a pedestrian on the road are the same as for a cyclist if one is discounting "falling off" accidents and just looking at being struck by a vehicle).  I would be amazed if the Court decided that not wearing one makes her culpable.  Hopefully there will be some discussion of the position of cyclists at the same time but even if not, there will be some carry across anyway.  We need to know what the law is before we can campaign to change it if it is unacceptable.




      On 14 February 2013 12:20, John Phillips <johnp1616@...> wrote:
       

      Worrying this.

      On 5 February 2013 16:46, <austin970@...> wrote:
       

      Your friend austin970@... has shared a link with you.

      Personal message:

      I'm sure this case would not be allowed in the Netherlands. Let's Go Dutch.
      Insurer in court appeal against teenager hit by claimant's car - Yahoo! Finance UK
      http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/insurer-court-appeal-against-teenager-120214077.html
      Insurance group Churchill has brought a case against a teenage girl they say was partly responsible for being knocked down by a car.
      Read the full story



    • Stephen Craven
      This accident happened on a country road at night. Anyone used to driving on country roads knows that there is always the possibility of an animal on the road
      Message 2 of 4 , Feb 15, 2013

        This accident happened on a country road at night.  Anyone used to driving on country roads knows that there is always the possibility of an animal on the road (cow, sheep, deer etc depending on the locality).  Presumably animals aren’t expected to wear high-vis coats.   Why should driver take any less care with the possibility of a person on the road?

         

         

        From: greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com [mailto:greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dalla Jenney
        Sent: 14 February 2013 12:43
        To: greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [greenwichcyclists] Insurer in court appeal against teenager hit by claimant's car - Yahoo! Finance UK

         

         

        This case is worrying in one way but good in another:  the issue of cyclists' contributory negligence in an accident when not wearing high viz/ helmets is a legally undecided issue.  This case, regarding a pedestrian, should clarify the law for cyclists too and, if necessary, provoke a change in the law.  

         

        There will be an outcry if the law is declared to be that pedestrians need to wear high viz at night or else risk uncompensated personal injury when struck by a vehicle.  The exact same logic applies to cyclists although it somehow seems to be accepted by Joe Public that it is a cyclists' DUTY to wear high viz and helmets, whereas that argument is rarely made for pedestrians.  Yes, it's a very good idea to wear high viz (and a helmet) but that should not automatically mean that, if we decide not to, it makes accidents somehow our fault and that we can be knocked down by motorists and have the insurance companies not  pay full compensation.  

         

        If the insurance company had taken a similar case against an adult cyclist then there would not be the same public reaction as would be provoked if this case goes against that poor girl.  I am hoping that the Court will also discuss whether or not the girl should have been wearing a helmet (the arguments for a pedestrian on the road are the same as for a cyclist if one is discounting "falling off" accidents and just looking at being struck by a vehicle).  I would be amazed if the Court decided that not wearing one makes her culpable.  Hopefully there will be some discussion of the position of cyclists at the same time but even if not, there will be some carry across anyway.  We need to know what the law is before we can campaign to change it if it is unacceptable.

         

         

         

        On 14 February 2013 12:20, John Phillips <johnp1616@...> wrote:

         

        Worrying this.

        On 5 February 2013 16:46, <austin970@...> wrote:

         

        Error! Filename not specified.

        Error! Filename not specified.

        Error! Filename not specified.

        Your friend austin970@... has shared a link with you.

        Error! Filename not specified.


        Error! Filename not specified.

        Personal message:

        I'm sure this case would not be allowed in the Netherlands. Let's Go Dutch.

        Error! Filename not specified.

        Insurer in court appeal against teenager hit by claimant's car - Yahoo! Finance UK

        Error! Filename not specified.

        Error! Filename not specified.

        Error! Filename not specified.

        http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/insurer-court-appeal-against-teenager-120214077.html

        Error! Filename not specified.

        Insurance group Churchill has brought a case against a teenage girl they say was partly responsible for being knocked down by a car.

        Error! Filename not specified.

        Read the full story

        Error! Filename not specified.

        Error! Filename not specified.

         

         

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.