Third Party Car Insurance - Cyclist Injury

Zillah

Quick general question!

A friend of mine was involved in a collision with a cyclist, and the cyclist is making claims of pain and other (ambiguous) injuries. It looks like the insurance company is going to pay the cyclist off, they're just deciding how much. The question is this: if they're planning on paying off the cyclist, is it safe to assume they have determined that the driver was responsible? I assume that in a case where the cyclist was considered to be at fault the driver's insurance doesn't come into it?

Thanks!

hullaballoo

No, actual liability is only one of many metrics that insurers use to determine whether or not to make an offer.

I suppose the best way to look at it is that they apply something akin to a cost/benefit analysis whereby they might decide that making a payment now will offset a larger amount that they might be liable to pay after legal proceedings.

Unfortunately, this can impact adversely on your NCB and premium but there's very little that can be done about that in reality.

Zillah

hullaballoo wrote: »

No, actual liability is only one of many metrics that insurers use to determine whether or not to make an offer.

I suppose the best way to look at it is that they apply something akin to a cost/benefit analysis whereby they might decide that making a payment now will offset a larger amount that they might be liable to pay after legal proceedings.

Unfortunately, this can impact adversely on your NCB and premium but there's very little that can be done about that in reality.

Interesting. Presumably they must have some reasonable suspicion as to actual liability to have any fear of a larger sum later? Like, if a cyclist is looking in the wrong direction and rams a legally parked car, the complete lack of liability on the driver's part would rule out their insurance having to pay out third party?

hullaballoo

No, the larger sum they are looking at is the defence of legal proceedings. So, how likely is it that the cyclist will pursue a claim against the driver?

Some might say the probability a cyclist will pursue a claim is abnormally high because cyclists are never in the wrong apparently. Not me, I'd never say that.

coylemj

Zillah wrote: »

The question is this: if they're planning on paying off the cyclist, is it safe to assume they have determined that the driver was responsible?

Not at all, it's more likely that they just want to pay him on the basis of a nuisance claim - "here's some cash, now kindly p1ss off". He will be asked to sign a document stating that he is accepting the payment without admission of liability (on the part of the insured i.e. your friend) and as a full and final settlement of his claim.

Each and every insurance company reserves the right to settle a claim and pay a claimant whether their driver was in the right or not. That is a condition of every motor policy so there is nothing your friend can do about it - other than writing the cheque himself.

The insurance company will then recoup the money from your friend over the next few years in increased premiums. During this period, your friend can go looking for better quotes at renewal time but he will meet a brick wall because nobody will quote him with a recent claim on his record.

Heads they win, tails you lose!

Victor

hullaballoo wrote: »

Some might say the probability a cyclist will pursue a claim is abnormally high because cyclists are never in the wrong apparently. Not me, I'd never say that.

Well, let's be scientific about it, in a cyclist-motorist collision, the cyclist in responsible in only about 20% of cases.

MarkAnthony

Victor wrote: »

Well, let's be scientific about it, in a cyclist-motorist collision, the cyclist in responsible in only about 200% of cases.

FYP! :pac:

Just started if I cycle more than a week I'm getting a helmet cam. Love my dashcam!

Zillah

The reason it came up is because of a recent recommendation by a judge to make insurance mandatory for cyclists! Which I think is ridiculous. My friend is understandably aggrieved by the incident (and maintains her innocence), but my line of thought was that the insurance of the at-fault party would be covering it anyway, so if she's paying now then she'd be paying even if the cyclist had insurance, because she was at fault.

Apparently actual liability isn't as much of a factor as I assumed!

So, lets say the actual liability is unclear with conflicting testimony, and both parties had insurance - the cyclist having her own now-mandatory insurance - would the outcome be different?

goz83

As cyclists use the road (and most ignore the rules of the road) i think they should have insurance, but it would negatively impact the take up rates of cycling (which may not actually be a bad thing lol).

Victor

MarkAnthony wrote: »

FYP! :pac:

Just started if I cycle more than a week I'm getting a helmet cam. Love my dashcam!

Victim blaming is hardly a nice thing. Are you proud of that?

goz83 wrote: »

As cyclists use the road (and most ignore the rules of the road) i think they should have insurance

Insurance exists to protect the vulnerable and injured. So severe is the number of deaths (more than a million a year), injuries and damage from motoring, that most countries have some level of mandatory insurance. The same problem doesn't exist with cycling. To argue otherwise is bigotry, bullying and victim blaming. Whatever about road user behaviour, it is always the motorised vehicle, with their mass and speed, that brings the danger.

In 1998-2012, pedestrian-cyclist collisions killed 2 people (at least one pedestrian) in Ireland and injured 136. Motorist-pedestrian collisions killed 926 (I'm guessing they were all pedestrians) and injured 14,748.
From a pedestrian's point of view, motoring is 108-463 times more dangerous than cycling.

goz83 wrote: »

but it would negatively impact the take up rates of cycling (which may not actually be a bad thing lol).

So, you would like more cars in front of you?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Zillah

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You could cause damage to something walking down the street, and it would be just as difficult to make you pay up. Making insurance mandatory because it would make enforcing civil payments a little easier is not reasonable, otherwise you should be arguing in favour of mandatory pedestrian insurance or rental tenant insurance.

I would like if someone that knows about this sort of thing could answer this question from earlier:

So, lets say the actual liability is unclear with conflicting testimony, and both parties had insurance - the cyclist having her own now-mandatory insurance - would the outcome be different?

It is the current bone of contention with my friend!

Del2005

Zillah wrote: »

So, lets say the actual liability is unclear with conflicting testimony, and both parties had insurance - the cyclist having her own now-mandatory insurance - would the outcome be different?

What ever is easiest for the insurance company, since any money paid out will be recouped by the increased premiums.

Victor

Del2005 wrote: »

What ever is easiest for the insurance company, since any money paid out will be recouped by the increased premiums.

Not necessarily, the increased premium might be a few hundred / thousand per year for a few years. There have been some judgement in the cases of profound injury to young people in the order of €10 million - care can be expected to have to be given for 50 years or more, but with interest rates at around 0%, there is no guarantee of income from the capital.

Del2005

Victor wrote: »

Not necessarily, the increased premium might be a few hundred / thousand per year for a few years. There have been some judgement in the cases of profound injury to young people in the order of €10 million - care can be expected to have to be given for 50 years or more, but with interest rates at around 0%, there is no guarantee of income from the capital.

There's more than one premium they cream from if they pay out too much, which is why car insurance is going through the roof.

goz83

Victor wrote: »

Whatever about road user behaviour, it is always the motorised vehicle, with their mass and speed, that brings the danger.

I would disagree with that blanket statement. While motorised vehicles are involved in and so cause more injuries and deaths than cyclists do; one must consider the numbers of motorised vehicles to cycling vehicles. I see a lot more cars than bikes on the road and I see a lot more bad behaviour from cyclists than I do from those driving cars. Red lights are practically ignored by most cyclists and this behaviour puts us all in danger. I see cyclists in the pitch black with not so much as a light to show they are there.

If not insurance, cyclists should have to carry identification and should be fined when caught braking the rules like the rest of us.

Victor wrote: »

So, you would like more cars in front of you?

I would like a helicopter :cool:

Peregrinus

goz83 wrote: »

I would disagree with that blanket statement. While motorised vehicles are involved in and so cause more injuries and deaths than cyclists do; one must consider the numbers of motorised vehicles to cycling vehicles. I see a lot more cars than bikes on the road and I see a lot more bad behaviour from cyclists than I do from those driving cars. Red lights are practically ignored by most cyclists and this behaviour puts us all in danger. I see cyclists in the pitch black with not so much as a light to show they are there.

It's not just that there are more cars; it's that cars are much more dangerous. They weigh a quartet of a ton, they travel at much higher speeds; it all adds up to a lot of momentum, which makes a collision a much more serious affair. Plus, they come carrying up to 80 litres of volatile explosive fuel. As regards third party injuries (which is all that mandatory insurance covers) they present a societal problem which is simply several orders of magnitude greater than the problem presented by cyclists.

NUTLEY BOY

If we had more detail of what actually happened in the accident we might be able to form a better view of the issue.

When considering liability just remember that the cyclist plaintiff's standard of proof is that of the balance of probabilities. If they can reach that standard it is game over. Insurance companies will settle if they are satisfied that there is a good risk of the cyclist reaching the required standard.

The outcome of the case of cyclist -v- motorist would be no different if the cyclist had insurance. What is relevant is the evidentiary merit of the cyclist's case.

Judgments against a cyclist are perfectly feasible if they have insurance covering their public liability. If they have contents cover for their house there is probably some liability cover in there that would cover it. The trouble is that as it is not compulsory the cyclist does not have to tell you if they have liability insurance ! I would expect prospects against a cyclist to be better if they are gurriers, sorry, couriers working for a commercial outfit as in that case you might well be able to have a go at the employer on grounds of vicarious liability.

schemingbohemia

Zillah wrote: »

Quick general question!

A friend of mine was involved in a collision with a cyclist, and the cyclist is making claims of pain and other (ambiguous) injuries. It looks like the insurance company is going to pay the cyclist off, they're just deciding how much. The question is this: if they're planning on paying off the cyclist, is it safe to assume they have determined that the driver was responsible? I assume that in a case where the cyclist was considered to be at fault the driver's insurance doesn't come into it?

Thanks!

What happened in the accident that has your friend aggrieved at the cyclist seemingly winning their claim?

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Why would it be hard to enforce a judgement against a cyclist?

MarkAnthony

Victor wrote: »

Victim blaming is hardly a nice thing. Are you proud of that?

Quite clearly a tongue in cheek remark. I've said it on numerous occasions that person in big metal box is always almost at fault by virtue of nothing else than being in said big metal box, and rightly so.

That said if there was some more thought given by many self righteous, holier than thou cyclists there would be less animosity. Cyclists should realise that big metal frame puts them at fault with more vulnerable parties such as pedestrians and a bit of courtesy goes a long way - how about not filtering up the left hand side when the left indicator is on and there is no where to go? But I digress.

In short a bit of a sense of humour would be a start, perhaps we can then all move on from there. As both a cyclist, motorist and pedestrian I have a very open mind who is morally at fault in many accidents, a different thing entirely to liability.

hullaballoo

Victor wrote: »

Well, let's be scientific about it, in a cyclist-motorist collision, the cyclist in responsible in only about 20% of cases.

The point of my post is precisely that a scientific approach is not always taken when making a judgement call around settling a case. It is hardly a controversial view that the vast majority of cyclists involved in an accident will seek to attribute blame to another party. The same applies to motorists, pedestrians and pretty much any road user. The biggest cause of road accidents is all road-users being perpetually in the right, irrespective of the actual live circumstances.

That is what gives rise to claims. A cyclist undertakes a motorist who's turning left at a junction - who's in the wrong? The cyclist shouldn't be undertaking. The motorist should check his mirrors to ensure there is no cyclist undertaking him. Both road-users will blame the other party. Who's at fault? Is it the cyclist because they're more vulnerable? They're both at fault. Both can claim against the other.

But that's not how insurers facing a potential claim will view things. They will take into account that irrespective of the actual liability, the risk that the cyclist will sue is higher - the cyclist is likely to have suffered greater injuries whereas the motorist probably only has a few scratches on his car to think about. Pay the cyclist to go away so that it doesn't have to be fought. Penalise the motorist because reasons.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

schemingbohemia

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes but the OP is talking about damage to a vehicle, as pointed out accidents where cyclists are the cause of injury to a person are rare, and ones that would cause damages of 5 or 6 figures rarer still.
Also what makes you think cyclists are more likely to be asset-less or jobless than drivers?

goz83

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Yes but the OP is talking about damage to a vehicle, as pointed out accidents where cyclists are the cause of injury to a person are rare, and ones that would cause damages of 5 or 6 figures rarer still.
Also what makes you think cyclists are more likely to be asset-less or jobless than drivers?

There are plenty of assetless / jobless motorists, but it's ok as long as they are insured to cover damages caused by them. Even if not insured, mibi (other motorists) foot the bill. The same cannot be said of cyclists.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Peregrinus

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well, this is a societal choice. There are more accidents - far more accidents - attributable to people beiing hit by bricks and breezeblocks each year than there are to people being hit by bicycles. Should the people who buy bricks and breezeblocks be required to take out compulsory insurance? It's plainly a bigger social problem. What about scissors? Three times the bicycle accident rate (in the UK; I doubt that it's very different here). Even flower pots are involved in more injuries than bicycles. A hardware store is a veritable arms dump compared to a bike shop. And doin't get me started on garden centres!

We have compulsory motor insurance because the scale of the injury problem is so large. Bicycles just don't present the same problem. It's very hard to make a case for saying that bicycles must be insured but flower pots don't have to be. Plus, of course, in general we want more people on bicycles, not fewer; it improves national health, improves traffic flows, reduces fuel consumption, saves money . . . what's not to like? So if there is a societal cost associated with cycling that needs to be managed in some way - and I remain to be persuaded of this - it doesn't follow that the way it needs to be managed is to make cyclists bear the cost through insurance.

MarkAnthony

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, this is a societal choice. There are more accidents - far more accidents - attributable to people beiing hit by bricks and breezeblocks each year than there are to people being hit by bicycles. Should the people who buy bricks and breezeblocks be required to take out compulsory insurance? It's plainly a bigger social problem. What about scissors? Three times the bicycle accident rate (in the UK; I doubt that it's very different here). Even flower pots are involved in more injuries than bicycles. A hardware store is a veritable arms dump compared to a bike shop. And doin't get me started on garden centres!

We have compulsory motor insurance because the scale of the injury problem is so large. Bicycles just don't present the same problem. It's very hard to make a case for saying that bicycles must be insured but flower pots don't have to be. Plus, of course, in general we want more people on bicycles, not fewer; it improves national health, improves traffic flows, reduces fuel consumption, saves money . . . what's not to like? So if there is a societal cost associated with cycling that needs to be managed in some way - and I remain to be persuaded of this - it doesn't follow that the way it needs to be managed is to make cyclists bear the cost through insurance.

While I would tend to agree with most of your post the majority of flower pots and breeze blocks would be well covered by insurance.

Peregrinus

Ah, but the scissors!

goz83

Peregrinus wrote: »

Ah, but the scissors!

And where the scissors be, so too would be insurance in the vast majority of cases. Home insurance, insurance in schools, employers liability etc. bicycles are getting a free ride

Breeze blocks and flower pot accidents would see more reporting, where bicycle accidents generally wouldn't be reported in most cases unless a claim can be put in.

Peregrinus

goz83 wrote: »

Breeze blocks and flower pot accidents would see more reporting, where bicycle accidents generally wouldn't be reported in most cases unless a claim can be put in.

The accident rates for breeze blocks, flower pots and bicycles alike are all based on records of medical treatment, not insurance claims. Bicycle accidents are only being under-reported if they are less likely than breeze-block accidents and flowerpot accidents to require medical treatment. And, even if that were true, it would indicate that bicycle accidents are, on the whole, less serious than breeze-block and flowerpot accidents, which again would raise the question of why we need to single them out for an insurance obligation.

Del2005

Peregrinus wrote: »

The accident rates for breeze blocks, flower pots and bicycles alike are all based on records of medical treatment, not insurance claims. Bicycle accidents are only being under-reported if they are less likely than breeze-block accidents and flowerpot accidents to require medical treatment. And, even if that were true, it would indicate that bicycle accidents are, on the whole, less serious than breeze-block and flowerpot accidents, which again would raise the question of why we need to single them out for an insurance obligation.

If a pedestrian is hit by a bicycle how is that recorded in hospital, walking or cycling injury?

Peregrinus

Del2005 wrote: »

If a pedestrian is hit by a bicycle how is that recorded in hospital, walking or cycling injury?

It'll turn up in the statistics both for accidents involving a bicycle and for accidents involving a pedestrian. Likewise where a bicycle and a car collide that turns up in both the relevant statistics.

(It's important to note that "accidents involving a bicycle" does not equal "accidents attributable to the negligence of a cyclist". Even if we were to introduce compulsory third-party insurance for cyclists, that would not provide any payout in cases where (a) the accident victim was the cyclist himself (which is, I suspect, the large majority of bicycle accidents) or (b) some third party is injured, but the cyclist is not shown to be at fault.)

Victor

goz83 wrote: »

I would disagree with that blanket statement. While motorised vehicles are involved in and so cause more injuries and deaths than cyclists do; one must consider the numbers of motorised vehicles to cycling vehicles. I see a lot more cars than bikes on the road

But 100-500 times more cars than bikes? Census 2011 1,127,396 drove to work, while 61,177 cycled - an 18:1 ratio.

I see a lot more bad behaviour from cyclists than I do from those driving cars.

The law deals with several types of illegal behaviour - dangerous, obnoxious, nuisance, revenue and technical offences. I won't get into the "I didn't see him" excuse used by motorists.

As the numbers show, it is the motorists that are engaging in the dangerous behaviour, not the cyclists. But, as always, the dominant discourse equates all offences, blaming "the other" and absolving ones-self.

schemingbohemia

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Should joggers who bang into people on footpaths have insurance? Should wheelchair users?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

schemingbohemia

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You mean nothing wrong with forcing insurance on everyone to bolster insurance companies profits?