90% of pilion passenger insurance claims are illegal!

Capt'n Midnight

hibernian.netsource.ie/broker_secure/docs/Abridged%20Govt%20Submission.doc

90% of pillion passenger claims come from the Provisional Licence-holding sector where it is illegal, under the licensing laws, to carry a passenger
...
The Irish motorcycle fatality rate is the highest in Europe
...
70% of motorcyclists hold Provisional licences
...
Ireland is one of a few European countries where road traffic law does not require inexperienced riders to display an L Plate or similar

isolde

in a situation like that, is a claim still valid?

isolde

robinph

I think that the insurers agreed, sorry insurer, that they would pay out on claims by pillion passengers regardless of if the rider was even insured or not as its not the passengers fault. The uninsured, or unlicensed, rider won't get anything though.

seamus

isolde wrote:

in a situation like that, is a claim still valid?

Yes. The insurer is obliged by law to provide the minimum third party insurance cover for a driver, which in 1999 was extended to include pillion pasengers on motorcycles.
Much like a provisional driver at fault in a motorway crash, the insurer has no choice but to pay out all third party claims.

It's an old report (Hibernian don't even offer motorcycle insurance anymore), but it's points/findings are still valid. Most of the findings point to a deficiency in two areas - law enforcement and rider training.

But sure that's what we've been screaming about for years.

isolde

okay, another question so. hypothetically speaking what if a driver (provisional or otherwise) crashed into a motorcyclist while the motorcyclist was driving in the bus lane (motorcyclist obviously shouldn't legally be in the bus lane, but is). Is the motorcyclist entitled to claim against the motorist's insurance regardless?

~ isolde.

MorningStar

I remember before when I thought about getting a moped that I was told it is not legal to have a passanger regardless of licence. Something to do with the cc rules. If they actually advertised the requirements for drivers to have passangers the blame could be distributed. If you get into a car when you know the driver is over the limit you must also be at fault.

seamus

isolde wrote:

okay, another question so. hypothetically speaking what if a driver (provisional or otherwise) crashed into a motorcyclist while the motorcyclist was driving in the bus lane (motorcyclist obviously shouldn't legally be in the bus lane, but is). Is the motorcyclist entitled to claim against the motorist's insurance regardless?

~ isolde.

Yes, because he had right of way. Although the blame may be shared if it goes to court, essentially the biker has right-of-way, even if he is undertaking illegally.

There's also the common scenario of traffic queuing outisde the bus lane, even when the bus lane is not in use, or it's out of hours. In this case it's perfectly legal for the bike (or any vehicle) to be undertaking in the bus lane. If you cross his path, you're 100% in the wrong.

I remember before when I thought about getting a moped that I was told it is not legal to have a passanger regardless of licence. Something to do with the cc rules. If they actually advertised the requirements for drivers to have passangers the blame could be distributed. If you get into a car when you know the driver is over the limit you must also be at fault.

Afaik, it's perfectly legal to carry a pillion passenger on a 50cc machine, on condition that a pillion seat is provided (and once you're licenced, of course). The problem with "acknowledged blame" is that the law still allows them to claim third party damages regardless.

MorningStar

seamus wrote:

The problem with "acknowledged blame" is that the law still allows them to claim third party damages regardless.

Your claim is dependent on your responsibility for the accident AFIK. My uncle was killed in a car crash and the payment was reduced due to the fact he was not wearing a safety belt. He was disabled and exempt from wearing the belt but that didn't matter the accidental death was partially his fault!

seamus

MorningStar wrote:

Your claim is dependent on your responsibility for the accident AFIK. My uncle was killed in a car crash and the payment was reduced due to the fact he was not wearing a safety belt. He was disabled and exempt from wearing the belt but that didn't matter the accidental death was partially his fault!

Curious. I didn't know this was possible. I knew that partial blame was possible, but only where full blame wasn't obvious, and I certainly didn't think that compensation could be reduced for certain minutae of the situation. Was your uncle the driver or a passenger? That *could* possibly make a difference.

saobh_ie

70% of motorcyclists hold Provisional licences

I find that one hard to believe... because 6 out of 8 of the provisional motorcyclist i know directly/indirectly passed their test on the first go after waiting five to six months on average. The countless others i know, have spoken to, have met, read about, Bleagh, all have full licenses.

Although on second though. motorcyclist also refers to the legions of 17 year old kids on their 50cc scoots etc.

Regards the pillion thing. I don't know how many times I've seen a moped with two kids on board and you just know that the rider hasn't gotten a full licence.

It actually gets me pretty incensed as they're buzzing around without a clue and putting their passenger in harms way, and you can bet the passenger has even less clue of the dangers.

I'm all for L plates for learners, proper road surfaces, driver education, etc, etc.

And yeah, the story quoted in the post above is correct. Insurance companies will do thier damnest to reduce thier claims. You've got to do everything legally, and safely and correctly and then take the extra step ovf using whatever safety equipment is avalible.

My recent claim against a car driver you just came out and ran over me was helped because she didn't see me but in my initial report to the insurance comapnay i mentioned that i was wearing a bright red jacket, had my lights on, had an inidcator on too, trousers covered with reflective piping, it was mid day with great weather and good visability, i was making a shed load of noise (it being a dual carraige way away from everybody). And that would have helped had she continued to dispute the claim but she didn't. She just shut up, which was probaly worse.

MorningStar

seamus wrote:

Curious. I didn't know this was possible. I knew that partial blame was possible, but only where full blame wasn't obvious, and I certainly didn't think that compensation could be reduced for certain minutae of the situation. Was your uncle the driver or a passenger? That *could* possibly make a difference.

He was the driver but it was said that if he had worn his belt he would probably not have died therfore the porportion of the result was deemed to be his fault. It was reduced due to his part in the outcome. This applies to all things as far as I know. I know a farmer was found not to be responsible for the injures of a person on his farm becasue they were the cause of the accident by entering the area.