CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News

Presumed liability in the Grauniad

(84 posts)
  • Started 9 years ago by crowriver
  • Latest reply from Darkerside

No tags yet.


  1. fimm
    Member

    "Personal liability insurance ... covers almost all damage for which ... your child ... might be held liable..." seems to imply that four euros a month covered Mr (& Mrs?) Utrecht and all the little Utrechts?

    Though I agree that you'd expect it to cost more to insure a 15 year old than a 15 month old, it might not be the case - I can't speak for the Netherlands, but in Austria car insurance belongs to the vehicle, not the driver, so that, for example, my boyfriend can drive his parents' car (and camper van) when he visits them in Innsbruck without them doing anything to their insurance (while I cannot drive my parents' car, as I am not named on their insurance). So by analogy the AVP might be equalised over all children.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  2. ih
    Member

    Hi @Dave. I think a significant deterrent to running down hundreds of bystanders, is that frequently it's the cyclist that comes off worst. Maybe this is why the Dutch didn't bother too much with introducing 'strict' or presumed liability for cyclists.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  3. Tulyar
    Member

    The Motor Car Act in 1903 correctly recognised that the damage that can be done by a motor car will easily exceed the ability of most drivers to settle any potential claim. It is possible to obtain a VED licence for a car without insurance BUT you'll have to have a fair sum in your bank account (to cover claims of up to £10million IIRC)

    By contrast the likely levels of civil claim against a pedestrian or cyclist are relatively small. Most households have public liability for the adult policy holder(s) and unlimited sprogs up to a defined age limit, doing everyday activities BUT normally excluding sport (when let's face it you'll be pushing the limits and taking more risks). Several policies MAY include cycling for utility purposes but you should read them carefully if you are concerned.

    Eventually (looks for porcine avians) the public at large will understand the difference between liability and guilt, and the concept of due diligence (and the duty of care) for those in charge of dangerous equipment or processes. Walking through a crowded street with a container of concentrated acid, there would be an unquestioned liability for any injuries or damage caused regardless of whether you were at FAULT for a collision which caused the acid to be spilled. After all it is you who brought the acid on to the street, just as the driver would not have caused the same amount of harm if they had been on foot when a collision happens.

    I hope that explains the presumption of liability (at least to basic level) for those using dangerous vehicles on the road, and how motoring law has - since 1903 actually provided for its enforcement. Currently the law is set down in Section 170 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1988, which makes it an offence not to stop and provide insurance, driver and keepers details if the presence of your vehicle causes damage or injury (s.170.2) - to any person reasonably requiring this Section 170.4 makes the failure to do this an offence (ie hit & run)

    Posted 9 years ago #
  4. Greenroofer
    Member

    Here's what my policy (Direct Line) says (my bold)...

    We will pay all amounts you become legally liable to pay as damages in your capacity as occupier of your home, or for any other reason, as a result of:
    a) accidental death of or bodily injury to any person;
    b) accidental loss of or damage to property, which happened during the period of insurance shown in your schedule.

    But not Liability for:
    a) death of or bodily injury to you or your domestic staff;
    b) damage to property belonging to or in the custody or control of you, or your domestic staff;
    c) claims caused by the following:
    i) you owning any land or building, or you occupying any land or building except your home or temporary holiday accommodation;
    ii) any business;
    iii) an agreement unless that liability would have existed anyway,
    d) you owning, keeping or using any:
    i) vehicles except the following while being used for their intended purpose and by a person for whom they were designed: ride on lawnmowers, electrically powered wheelchairs and mobility scooters, electrically powered children’s ride on toys, electrically assisted bicycles and pedestrian controlled electrically powered golf trolleys;
    ii) caravan while being towed;
    iii) watercraft, hovercraft, land yacht or any other wind powered or wind assisted vehicles, windsurfers, kite boards and aircraft except hand-propelled craft or models;
    iv) animals except domestic pets;
    v) horses, donkeys or mules;
    vi) dangerous dogs as described under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 or the Dangerous Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 and any changes to that legislation.
    e) any communicable disease (one able to be passed from one person to another).

    'Vehicle' is defined elsewhere as something with a motor (i.e. doesn't include a bike). Cover is £2m. I think I'm covered...

    Posted 9 years ago #
  5. gembo
    Member

    But not as i read it, if you kill your domestic staff? What sort of world is it where one cannot bump off the char lady? What sort of policy in this day and age even includes reference to domestics? I am going to ask Nicola to get rid of this sort of thing.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  6. Stickman
    Member

    @fimm: in Austria car insurance belongs to the vehicle, not the driver,

    I never knew that.

    Must make things "interesting" for the insurers. Do you know if that is mandated by the government or has it arisen through market practice? I'm guessing that car insurance there must be very expensive, as risk-based premiums would be impossible.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  7. fimm
    Member

    @Stickman I have no idea about the origins of the insurance system in Austria! However I think what it means is that the less risky drivers are "subsidising" the more risky ones: I have no idea if inurance is relatively more expensive, but it does mean that younger drivers (to take the obvious example) will not have very high premiums; I have heard the suggestion that very high premiums for younger drivers (so that the insurance is much higher than the cost of the car) leads to more high risk drivers driving uninsured...

    Posted 9 years ago #
  8. Dave
    Member

    Presumably if you take the total paid out across all cars, divide it by the number of cars then add on whatever factor is required for the running costs of the insurers and their profits, you get the premium cost. I guess it's possible that it wouldn't be all that much more expensive if the median driver isn't that likely to crash?

    I wonder how they provide for crash disincentives in such a system. You have to imagine that there is one, or it would be carnage.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  9. HankChief
    Member

    I believe in South Africa they have a fuel levy built into the price at the pumps which covers 3rd party risks.

    Spreads the costs to those that drive furthest / drive most inefficiently and ensures everyone is covered.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  10. Stickman
    Member

    @Stickman I have no idea about the origins of the insurance system in Austria!

    Sorry, that was my day-job talking there!

    Posted 9 years ago #
  11. fimm
    Member

    @Stickman no need to apologise :-)

    I'm just going on what Boyfriend of Fimm says and my own speculations from a position of ignorance. So I'll speculate that a Ferrari will still cost more to insure than a Fiat 500, and that there will be weighting for the area you are in (as here) too. But I don't know.

    Once thing I do know is that Boyfriend of Fimm's father only insures their campervan for 6 months of the year. I forget how this works, but I know that is what he does because he was telling us about it. Something to do with the registration plate, I think. (Oh, your registration plate belongs to you, not to the car. When you sell the car you take the plate off and put it onto your new car.)

    (Sorry, we seem to have gone well off topic. I have no idea about presumed liability in Austria.)

    Posted 9 years ago #
  12. KeepPedalling
    Member

    I am very interested in ih's post above:

    "Hi @Dave. I think a significant deterrent to running down hundreds of bystanders, is that frequently it's the cyclist that comes off worst. Maybe this is why the Dutch didn't bother too much with introducing 'strict' or presumed liability for cyclists."

    Really? The Dutch don't have it for cyclists?

    When there's ever a cycling issue raised, a common answer is "what would the Dutch do?" So why are "we" planning on doing different?

    Posted 9 years ago #
  13. gembo
    Member

    @keep pedalling, if you keep pedalling through all the comments in this thread you will spot that 90 per cent of the Dutch have liability insurance. Costs 4 euros a month. That is how they are covered and fits with their flat country. Over here it is ridges and valleys. With some UK citizens charged big premiums others not insured etc.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  14. Min
    Member

    So why are "we" planning on doing different?

    Because "we" are a motor-centric society who can't conceive of doing something that might benefit anyone unless cyclists lose out somehow? Plus "we" like to make rules for motorists that cyclists have to follow too even if it is to their detriment.

    I didn't see an answer to Min's question on who comes off worst in ped-bike collisions. Probably nobody bothers to record this in case the answer is politically awkward?

    I am pretty sure it would be. In cycle accident statistics there is usually a column for "no other vehicle involved" which is presumably supposed to make you think the cyclist fell off of their own accord but which must include cycle/ped collisions lumped in.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  15. KeepPedalling
    Member

    Thanks Gembo, but I wasn't referring to insurance. Quite a few posters here are interested in who is really the more vulnerable. I would like presumed liability to be based on evidence. I suspect Min is close to the uncomfortable truth. Great point about "no other vehicle involved". I'd never thought of that.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  16. Dave
    Member

    Let's suppose that there was good data and it showed that there are more/more severe cyclist injuries in bike-ped collisions than pedestrian ones. Would that actually undermine the basis of presumed liability?

    Saying that it is designed to reflect a hierarchy of vulnerability is just a politician's sound-bite. In reality it is a measure which imposes financial and moral consequences according to social norms.

    Our norm is that cyclists are lower down the pecking order than pretty much anyone else - see how the anonymous cyclist was roundly crucified by ourselves after the alleged incident of the totally unlit pedestrian on the unlit path at night (threads passim).

    It would be a big step forward just to move one step up the ladder relative to drivers. Asking for it to be reflective of actual vulnerability would be immensely unpopular even if there was a full evidence base, which seems extremely unlikely.

    I wonder if there are any proxy data. Pet insurers might be able to link claims for vet treatment and claims from injured cyclists in the same incidents (dogs not exactly analogous to people, but maybe similarly robust?). I suppose the problem would be that an unpredictable proportion of dog walkers would even exchange insurance details and the ones that do might have some confounding factor.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  17. gembo
    Member

    This is splitting hypothetical hairs more than ever before. The Dutch have embraced the concept of liability by everyone being insured. Thus if a very big dutch person bumps into a very small dutch person accidentally knocking them over, all will be civilised and the insurers will sort it out. There is data on hill walkers being taken out by cyclists, two I am aware of in the Pentlands over fifteen years, plus the chap who killed the teenager . This is anecdotal. However, there is no data on pedestrian cycling collisions. Thus all we have is conjecture, your honor.

    If any of this ever happens we should focus on the improvement in our lot viz a vis car drivers not some supposition about dog walkers or an obsessional attitude to details such as an unlit path. I ask for this because the PR needed to get the first thing will need us to accept the other thing.

    We don't want to be held responsible but we do want you to be held responsible is not an argument that is going to succeed.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  18. Min
    Member

    We don't want to be held responsible but we do want you to be held responsible is not an argument that is going to succeed.

    I just don't want to be held responsible for someone else injuring me. Is that so wrong? Whose insurance pays for that?

    The Dutch..

    But we are not going to be doing it like those dirty foreigners dahling. Heaven forfend.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  19. Min
    Member

    I am just trying to understand how it is going to work by the way, sorry if it is inducing forum rage but I don't want to give something my wholehearted support if I don't know what it is going to mean just because the Dutch do it well. They do cycle infrastructure well too..

    Posted 9 years ago #
  20. Dave
    Member

    I just don't want to be held responsible for someone else injuring me. Is that so wrong? Whose insurance pays for that?

    You would pay for it as you are deemed responsible for your own injuries, whatever the other party has done. (Unless you're able to prove otherwise, headcams-a-go-go).

    Note that the household insurance quoted up-thread inevitably won't cover it (third party only), but I suppose you might be able to take out private health insurance (£££, or change jobs to try and get it through your employer).

    Posted 9 years ago #
  21. gembo
    Member

    Just to keep this going around in circles

    The liability is a civil law matter. The mythical dutch are all insured. The matter is settled in a discussion between two insurance companies at 4 euros per month, personal liability. This is for the pedestrian on pedestrian or cyclist on cyclist or pedestrian on cyclist or cyclist on pedestrian hypothetical claims. In reality few claims. I base this on the low premiums. Insurance companies will charge very little for something that does not happen very often. But make a lot of money if whole society buys into the idea of liability. People are polite. The matters are correlated but not necessarily causal. All very continental.

    Meanwhile in all nations of the UK, people like to have an edge over other people. I have liability through employment via trade union. I have not yet insured myself against the actions of my teenage children but might now beef this up if the household insurance is weak.

    I cannot see the dutch scenario where as a society they take a consensus view on liability taking off in UK.

    There is a small chance we can get the law altered slightly to marginally favour cyclists in incidents with car drivers but only if we take the hypothetical dog walkers on the chin. I have passed thousands of mutts and not hit one yet. I have had at times heated discussions with the owners but now see the world from their point of view more often. Viz they wish to have their dog off the leash, they have not trained it to heel, it wanders in front of me ( here is where the liability bit comes in) I now brake carefully as I have been observing the environment. Sometimes they even apologise, I say no problem. Everyone happy.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  22. shuggiet
    Member

    I must have missed this tiger fun when @darkerside first published it, but it's getting a lot of attention today now that Chris Boardman is tweeting it!

    https://twitter.com/Chris_Boardman/status/601327947287568384

    http://t.co/pHkL42lFV2

    Posted 8 years ago #
  23. algo
    Member

    excellent article - I'd somehow missed this too. Nice one @darkerside

    Posted 8 years ago #
  24. Darkerside
    Member

    Ha, I wondered why that post had suddenly shot up in traffic...

    Posted 8 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin