 |
|
 |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| BBCTom |
This post is not being displayed .
|
BBCTom
Borekit Bruiser
Joined: 02 Jan 2009
Karma :  
|
 Posted: 09:48 - 30 Jan 2009  Post subject: Accident Advice/Filtering Advice - Any Questions, Just Ask! |
 |
|
I have decided to create a thread containing all of the advice I have posted for members of www.gixerjunkies.net
Feel free to use this thread for advice or clarification of any issue relating to the topic.
If you would like any advice, please post in this thread so the advice is available to all members. Only PM me if you would like to keep the issue private. Thank you
Filtering - How it differs from an 'Overtake'.
Contrary to the belief of some motorists, filtering is entirely legal in the UK, providing that it is done safely.Once traffic speeds are high enough to suggest that the traffic is no longer queuing, the police may then regard your manoeuvre as a dangerous overtake.
Where is it illegal to filter?
As with any manoeuvre, you must not cause danger or force other vehicles to alter course or speed. Typically its not a matter of where, but when. There are a few situations where it would be illegal to filter. Two that spring to mind is passing queuing traffic in a no overtaking zone (e.g. solid white lines or after a no overtaking sign) or on the approach to a crossing, with zig-zags.
If the road you are on is split by a solid white line, it's still legal providing you follow the rules set out above and you DO NOT CROSS THE SOLID WHITE LINE! If you can safely pass (filter) on your side of the road, this is fine.
Accident Liability
One of the problems the filtering motorcyclist faces in the event of an accident is the prejudice legal precedents that were established during the 1960s, 70s and 80s. Unfortunately, when a judge appoints blame for a particular incident, it forms what is known as a legal precedent. Legal precedents are the foundation of both civil and criminal law and allow the law to evolve over time. Essentially, a legal precedent means a future judge is bound to find liability in the same way when presented with a similar case.
There are a number of examples of bad legal precedent, which almost always appoint the majority of blame against the motorcyclist. Essentially the courts appear to have ruled that motorcycling is a risky and dangerous business and the rider as the vulnerable road user is typically to blame when an accident occurs.
For example the case of Powell vs. Moody (1966) found the motorcyclist to be 80% to blame for an accident where a motorist collided with the filtering motorcycle. In similar circumstances the case of Clarke vs. Whinchurch (1969) found the motorcyclist 100% at fault. In the case of Leeson vs. Bevis Transport (1972) the motorcyclist was found equally responsible for an accident where a van driver emerged from a side road. Most recently in the case of Worsford v Howe (1980) the motorcyclist was found 50% at fault when a vehicle changed lanes at the last moment in order to turn right and collided with motorcyclist. Clearly these are all examples of bad legal precedent, which prejudices the court against the motorcyclists. However, these precedents are not always definitive today. Essentially the courts will look at the speed and position of both vehicles, whether the traffic was stationary or moving and how fast the emerging vehicle was travelling. Most importantly the courts will listen to the opinions of any witness when apportioning blame.
Then came Davis v Schrogin. Mr Schrogin was stuck in a traffic jam in his car on a straight road. Mr Davis was riding a motorcycle along the same road in the same direction and was able to overtake the stationary queue as nothing was coming in the opposite direction. Mr Schrogin decided to leave the queue by executing a U-turn. Although Mr Davis' motorcycle was visible, Mr Schrogin did not see him until his car collided with the motorbike. Mr Schrogin accepted in evidence that he was looking the wrong way. Mr Davis first saw Mr Schrogin's car moving towards the kerb in preparation for the u-turn and was no more than five cars' length back from the point of impact.
The trial judge found Mr Schrogin negligent in making the u-turn without looking properly, and that Mr Davis was not to blame. Mr Schrogin argued that Mr Davis had accepted that he had paused to react and was contributory negligent. The Court of Appeal held that Mr Davis was so close to the point of impact that he could not have avoided the collision, so there was no basis for a finding of contributory negligence.
Farley v Buckley - The defendant motorist (Buckley), who drove out of a side road to turn right into a major road where a large vehicle was waiting to turn left and obstructed his view of oncoming traffic, did not have a duty of reasonable care to stop just beyond the offside of that vehicle before proceeding further. Accordingly, the defendant was not liable for injuries to the claimant who overtook the stationary vehicle and hit the motorist's car.
*Note - You will never win a filtering case if you filter past a large vehicle without stopping, then collide with a vehicle infront of the large vehicle. I.e. Bus, Lorry, Skip Wagon...even a pickup truck. If you cannot see infront of the vehicle you are passing, then you MUST NOT pass, until you know it is safe to do so.
In regard to the Davis v Schrogin case: The Appeal Court's unwillingness to challenge the decision of the judge's finding confirms each case will be decided upon its own facts.
Here is some information provided by Tink to assist anyone who currently has a claim underway, or for those who are unaware of the 'rules of filtering'.
Rules for motorcyclists:
Section 88 Manoeuvring
| Quote: | ............Additionally when filtering in slow-moving traffic, take care and keep your speed low. |
Road users requiring extra care
Section 211 Motorcyclists and cyclists:
| Quote: | It is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists, especially when they are coming up from behind, coming out of junctions, overtaking you or filtering through traffic Always look out for them............ |
So the new Highway Code does recognise filtering and presumably failure to comply with Section 211 by a driver that takes out a biker could influence a claim.
Link to Motorcyclists Highway Code - https://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAn...ists/index.htm
__________________
____________________
GSXR600 Corona Alstare SRAD + Race Tuned Aprilia SR125  see public bio for specs. |
|
| Back to top |
   |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| BBCTom |
This post is not being displayed .
|
BBCTom
Borekit Bruiser
Joined: 02 Jan 2009
Karma :
|
Posted: 09:49 - 30 Jan 2009  Post subject: |
|
|
Filtering Continued
Letter to Insurance Company - Provided by Tink
| Quote: | Ref- Accident {date & time}
Further to our previous conversations I feel it may make matters clearer by reference to the Highway Code. I shall compare my road position and manoeuvre with that of the other driver. You will see it is abundantly clear that I was doing nothing wrong and that the driver is entirely to blame.
My Circumstances
I was slowly overtaking a stationary line of traffic.
I refer you to rule 71 of the Highway Code in the section "Rules for Motorcyclists" which reads as follows:
71: Manoeuvring. You should be aware of what is behind and to the sides before manoeuvring. Look behind you; use mirrors if they are fitted. When overtaking traffic queues look out for pedestrians crossing between vehicles and vehicles emerging from junctions.
A number of important points arise from this rule.
1. Note the use of the word WHEN as emphasised in the rule. It does not say "Do not overtake traffic queues" (or words to that effect), or suggest that it is an inappropriate course of action to take. It is clearly not a prohibitive instruction (see for example rule 74 which give prohibitive instructions). This clearly envisages that motorcyclists may, in the normal course of riding, overtake traffic queues.
2. I had already checked my mirrors and glanced behind to make sure nothing was overtaking the traffic queue already.
3. It was only the fact that I was progressing relatively slowly, in order to check for pedestrians who may be crossing between the vehicles making the accident much less serious than it would otherwise have been.
Before I move on, it is probably worth referring to the General rules for motorcyclists set out in rules 67 to 69. Again, I have reproduced these below.
67: On all journeys, the rider and pillion passenger on a motorcycle, scooter or moped MUST wear a protective helmet. Helmets MUST comply with the Regulations and they MUST be fastened securely. It is also advisable to wear eye protectors, which MUST comply with the Regulations. Consider wearing ear protection. Strong boots, gloves and suitable clothing may help to protect you if you fall off.
68: You MUST NOT carry more than one pillion passenger and he/she MUST sit astride the machine on a proper seat and should keep both feet on the footrests.
69: Daylight riding. Make yourself as visible as possible from the side as well as the front and rear. You could wear a white or brightly coloured helmet. Wear fluorescent clothing or strips. Dipped headlights, even in good daylight, may also make you more conspicuous.
You will note that:
1. I had complied with rule 67 by wearing protective clothing, which again helped reduce the seriousness of the accident.
2. I had complied with rule 68.
3. I had complied with rule 69 by using dipped headlights. I always ride with dipped headlights as it is considered good practice and safer to do so.
Accordingly, the only conclusion which may be drawn from the above is that I was riding my motorcycle safely and as envisaged by the Highway Code. I cannot, therefore, be to blame in any way for the accident.
Mr Xs Circumstances
I now turn to Mr Xs driving manoeuvre.
I shall compare his manoeuvre to two fairly similar manoeuvres; setting off from rest as he was stationary and making a right turn.
Setting Off From Rest
This is governed by rule 135 of the General Rules for Using the Road. This is reproduced below:
135: Before moving off you should
use all mirrors to check the road is clear
look round to check the blind spots (the areas you are unable to see in the mirrors)
signal if necessary before moving out
look round for a final check.
Move off only when it is safe to do so.
Check the blind spot before moving off
It is quite clear that Mr X failed to undertake all, or more likely any, of the requirements given that my body was level with his drivers door when he made the manoeuvre.
Turning Right
This is governed by rule 155 of the Road Junction section for Using the Road. This is reproduced below:
155: Well before you turn right you should:
use your mirrors to make sure you know the position and movement of traffic behind you
give a right-turn signal
take up a position just left of the middle of the road or in the space marked for traffic turning right
leave room for other vehicles to pass on the left, if possible.
The first point to note, however, is that Mr X was not turning right as I approached. He was stationary in a queue of traffic for a red light. Clearly, Mr X does not have the patience to wait for lights to change so decided to take a different route by turning right. He chose to make this decision as I was level with him.
Again, however, the emphasis of the first two requirements is on observation and signalling. As set out above, Mr X failed these on both counts.
Accordingly, the only verdict which can be reached from the above analysis of Mr Xs manoeuvre is that it was undertaken without sufficient care and attention to myself and other road users.
Conclusion
Mr X was stationary and I took all reasonable care to overtake a stationary vehicle. I checked before doing so, no right indicator on the car, no mirror checks carried out by Mr X, no wheel turns to indicate movement, and the car remained stationary so I proceeded to overtake.
Mr Xs lack of patience to wait in a queue to move clearly made him decide to take a different route. The issue here is he pulled out without mirror checks or signals whilst I was LEVEL with him by the drivers door. Not only is this driving without due care and attention, how Mr X could not HEAR my engine next to him, or be aware of movement right next to him is clearly indicative that he was not concentrating on what was going on around him.
Mr X is young and appears to only have had his licence a short while. But this does not excuse him for not making the proper checks - what if I were a pedestrian or pedal cyclist? More substantial injuries could have been caused by his inattention.
As shown above, I have followed the road rules clearly and exactly and am in no way responsible for this accident. If Mr X had made all the checks required as shown above or been paying attention he would have been aware of my presence and not moved until I had passed, in which case this accident would not have occurred.
I trust this is sufficient to pass to his insurers..
regards etc etc etc |
Please note, it may be worth checking the Highway Code before quoting it as it is updated regularly and the numbers will change.
____________________
GSXR600 Corona Alstare SRAD + Race Tuned Aprilia SR125 see public bio for specs.
Last edited by BBCTom on 09:53 - 30 Jan 2009; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| BBCTom |
This post is not being displayed .
|
BBCTom
Borekit Bruiser
Joined: 02 Jan 2009
Karma :
|
| Posted: 09:49 - 30 Jan 2009 Post subject: |
|
|
Insurance Companies - How they operate following an accident
If you have been involved in an accident that wasn't your fault, you will contact your insurance company or broker to report the incident. It is at this point that the usual fun and games begin.
L.E.I (Legal Expense Insurance)
Some 'Fully Comprehensive' policies come with LEI as standard, but most of the time it's an 'optional extra' charged at around £50 for the duration of the policy. LEI covers your legal expenses in the event of an accident.
That sounds all well and good, but as most of you will know from experience, LEI is simply the proverbial 'dead horse' being 'flogged'.
I have spoken with many bikers who currently have a case running with some 'muppet' solicitors who have no idea about motorcycle claims, so just aim to settle as low as 20% liability and I would like to take the time to explain why this is the case.
How The Con Works
Key: Company = The Insurance Company
Firm = The Solicitor
Firms will speak with the company regarding referring P/I (Personal Injury) work to them, for a referral fee.
The Company will choose to work with the Firm that offers the most money for the claim, as they are in the business of making money, not customer service/satisfaction.
The Company will then charge their clients around £50 for what they like to call 'Legal Expense Insurance', then when the client has an accident, The Company will sell the clients details to the highest bidder... in this case, the aforementioned 'Firm'.
The Firm now has a case that they have just spend thousands on purchasing, so they need to recoup this money as quickly and efficiently as possible.
This is how it's done.
The Firm will evaluate the clients case based on the clients out of pocket expenses and, if the cost is above a certain amount, immediately go for split liability.
The money the solicitor receives is directly connected to the out of pocket expenses of the client. If the amount is considerable, the solicitor will go for split liability as this is the quickest way for them to cover their fees and see a good return!
Not so good for the biker, who was positive his was a 'open and shut' case.
So What Should You Do?
Forget the LEI, regardless of the insurance company you are using.
The only time the LEI may come in handy is when persuing a claim against a 3rd party and only having a 5% chance of winning. There isn't a FREE solicitor in the world that would take on a case with only a 5% chance of success, but with LEI you can force somone on the panel to take it.
LEI is totally useless when PI is involved in a non fault accident.
Following an accident, contact your insurance company, then when the firm of 'Joe Bloggs Solicitors' contacts you to inform you that they will act on your behalf say
| Quote: | "Sorry but I've already instructed my own solicitor and I'm very happy with them". |
Now Joe Bloggs Solicitors is legally obliged to leave you alone.
Then, find a company that specialise in the field and operate on a 100% FREE basis.
Companies that offer a 100% free service get paid based on the amount the client wins (you will receive 100% of the compensation. The company receives a percentage of your compensation ON TOP of that awarded to you). So, a company offering a 100% free service will fight for maximum compensation and liability...not screw you for 50% liablity at the drop of a hat!
A 100% free service with a specialist who will fight for 100% liability is better than a free conveyancing solicitor who will settle for any split of the liability. 
____________________
GSXR600 Corona Alstare SRAD + Race Tuned Aprilia SR125 see public bio for specs.
Last edited by BBCTom on 10:03 - 30 Jan 2009; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| BBCTom |
This post is not being displayed .
|
BBCTom
Borekit Bruiser
Joined: 02 Jan 2009
Karma :
|
| Posted: 09:49 - 30 Jan 2009 Post subject: |
|
|
Public Liability - Diesel Spills, Icy Roads, Potholes, Un-even Surface, Loose Road Surface etc...
Public Liability claims are claims against the state. If you have hit a pothole, written off the bike and bruised your leg as a result, you would instruct a solicitor to send a letter of claim to the local council informing them of the accident, stating that you believe them to be liable and that you intend to claim back your out of pocket expenses + compensation.
A few years ago, this worked very well...too well infact.
Due to the fact that PL cases were practially unheard of, very few precedents had been set, so when the 'PL Compensation Culture' hit, ridiculous cases were being won left right and centre. Drunks tripping over curbs were claiming thousands, people slipping on Ice were suing the local council and winning, something had to change.
The courts started to set precedents at an alarming rate, to the point where it became VERY hard to win a case against the council.
Un-even Surfaces and Potholes
The local councils have certain obligations when it comes to maintaining the highway, these vary from inspecting them every 6 months to every 12 months. If the defect wasn't there when the inspection took place and it hadn't been reported to them before Joe Bloggs got his wheel stuck in a rut, fell off and hurt his leg, then the chances are the council won't have to pay a penny - they had taken all necessary precautions in their previous inspection and nothing had been reported since. If this does happen, you need to then provide Section 58 witnesses who will testify that the defect had been there prior to their last inspection, the only way to do this is go door knocking! This is their get out clause, thats why it's imperative that if you ride a route regularly that is in bad condition, you should inform the local council, as should you fall off due to this, there will always be a record that this was reported, and then they will have to answer to the courts as to why this was not rectified.
Diesel Spills/Icy Roads
Diesel Spills is an odd one. Unless the accident is fatal/catastrophic it is very unlikely that any payout will be given. Your first port of call would be to the police to let them know and then to the council for them to come and put grit on the spill. Unless you knew who was responsible for the diesel spill, this would be an MIB claim as the council will use the same excuse as they did when Joe Bloggs fell off and the rut hadn't been reported for them to do anything about it. These claims are becoming more commonplace and I think the law will have to make some changes in order to allow for compensation to be sought when such accidents occur. The same goes for icy roads.
================================================== ================================================== ======================================
Merlins Advice
| Quote: |
DAMAGE ONLY ACCIDENTS (No one hurt)
These are non-reportable, i.e police will not usualy turn up unless a road is blocked etc. If you have an accident and another vehicle was involved, then BY LAW the driver of the other vehicle HAS to furnish you with their name, address, insurance details. This has to either be done at scene or as soon as practicable. If the details have not been exchanged within 7 days of the accident then they commit an offence to which they can be had. If they are refusing to give details or just drive of then it becomes a damage only fail to stop/provide details and it becomes a REPORTABLE incident (where police will get involved) and they automatically have commited an offence. If they just drive off and tell you to eff off, go to your local nick and ask for a self reporting form and fill this in AS SOON AS POSSIBLE with as much detail as you can remember (in all cases remember the index of the other vehicle!)...
PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENTS
If anyone ever has an accident as is hurt in ANYWAY then it becomes a reportable incident. In ALL PI accidents the police SHOULD/MUST be called. They should turn up and complete a collision accident reporting book (carb). If there is an injury that you think you may have to go to hospital/see gp etc DO NOT MOVE ANY VEHICLE until the police have noted the position on the road (this is crucial evidence). Dont worry about pissing other motorists off, this is you and think of yourself here. At this stage the officer will probably remain impartial BUT the evidence he is recording will swing a decision at a later stage ok as to prosecute for driving offences and ultimately this could have a dramatic effect on the insurance outcome should the whole lot be contested and end up in a civil court for an insurance ruling. Officers reports ARE submitted to insurance companies on request so this is where everything comes into play. The other driver in this situation has to give you there details (as before) either at scene or WITHIN 24 hrs of the accident, or they commit an offence.
Hopefuly this helps someone, there is more but I dont want to confuse things and if you stick by this you should be ok. Snap away with cam phones all you want, sometimes these can be used too. Get as many witness details as you can also.
CompenClaim Edit - It sounds daft, but some people actually press 'Record' on their mobile phone camera, then discuss the accident with the third party. This will record them admitting liability at the scene, so when their insurance company tells them to deny deny deny, you have that to fall back on |
Keep it rubber side down people 
____________________
GSXR600 Corona Alstare SRAD + Race Tuned Aprilia SR125 see public bio for specs. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| sharpee1984 |
This post is not being displayed .
|
sharpee1984
Borekit Bruiser
Joined: 02 Jan 2009
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
 |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| BBCTom |
This post is not being displayed .
|
BBCTom
Borekit Bruiser
Joined: 02 Jan 2009
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| arry |
This post is not being displayed .
|
arry
Super Spammer
Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Karma :  
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| frez |
This post is not being displayed .
|
frez
Nova Slayer
Joined: 02 Dec 2008
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| BBCTom |
This post is not being displayed .
|
BBCTom
Borekit Bruiser
Joined: 02 Jan 2009
Karma :
|
Posted: 16:09 - 30 Jan 2009  Post subject: |
|
|
| arry wrote: | | CompenClaim wrote: |
A 100% free service with a specialist who will fight for 100% liability is better than a free conveyancing solicitor who will settle for any split of the liability. [/b] |
Except for the company that's actually going to pay for your extortionate fees on top of the "100% liability" that is going to be paid to the IP, who then pass the cost back to the the end consumer anyway. There's only one winner out of this little arrangement and thats YOU.
Seriously, you are going to sit there having a pop at "LEI" as you call it and then offer basically the same service after discouraging people to take it out? |
I'm sorry, you've lost me and I don't appreciate you insinuating that we rip people off.
As I don't understand your post, I will break it down to maybe make some sense of it.
| CompenClaim wrote: |
A 100% free service with a specialist who will fight for 100% liability is better than a free conveyancing solicitor who will settle for any split of the liability. [/b] |
| arry wrote: | Except for the company that's actually going to pay for your extortionate fees on top of the "100% liability" that is going to be paid to the IP, who then pass the cost back to the the end consumer anyway. There's only one winner out of this little arrangement and thats YOU. |
Well that doesn't seem to follow on from my quote, nor does it seem to make any sense.
How are we ripping people off or 'passing the cost back to the consumer' as you so ignorantly put it?
We operate on a 100% free basis.
The only way that we can operate in this manner is to take an insurance policy known as an 'Indemnity Insurance Policy' to cover the costs that we incur in the event of the case being lost.
So WE take out an insurance policy that WE pay for to ensure that YOU don't incur any costs if your case is lost.
Then we take care of vehicle hire, vehicle repairs, engineers reports, police reports, witness statements, medical reports, specialist medical treatments, replacement kit...All on OUR credit.
Then when you win the case, you receive you're compensation IN FULL!
We receive our costs and fees from the negligent partys insurance company.
So please, tell me where we are ripping people off so blatantly?
| arry wrote: | Seriously, you are going to sit there having a pop at "LEI" as you call it and then offer basically the same service after discouraging people to take it out? |
I'm sorry but I can't take you seriously.
LEI as I call it? As if I am just making up words and randomly stringing them together 
Ok, so, lets imagine that LEI is a real thing for a moment.
We have worked with insurance companies in the past, offering our free service to their clients.
Insurance are greedy b******* though, so they kindly accept our offer, then offer it to their Fully Comp customers free of charge, but charge their TPFT and TPO clients around £50 for it.
Charging £50 for someone elses free service is simply unethical in my opinion...but I'm sure you will form your own random opinion, as you seem to have been doing thus far.
Then, if a client is involved in a non fault accident, their insurance company charge the solicitor a vast sum of money for the claim.
Now, the way LEI works when it comes to non fault accident claims is included in the terms and conditions, usually to the effect of "Legal Expense Cover will cover your legal fees in te event of any accident. You may use any of the solicitors on our panel, but ONLY solicitors on our panel. If you choose to instruct a solicitor of your own, you will no longer be covered by us so costs may be inincurred."
The LEI ONLY entitles you to use their solicitors, this is because they have a contractual agreement with their solicitors stating that they will be paid X amount of money per claim. If you were to take your claim to another solicitor, the insurance company don't get paid.
If you're happy to pay £50 for a conveyancing solicitor to take care of your claim and concede 50% liability unnecessarily then be my guest.
I, along with everyone else who knows how insurance companies work will use the free motorcycle accident solicitors who will guarantee me the best chance of winning.
Tom
____________________
GSXR600 Corona Alstare SRAD + Race Tuned Aprilia SR125 see public bio for specs. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| arry |
This post is not being displayed .
|
arry
Super Spammer
Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| BBCTom |
This post is not being displayed .
|
BBCTom
Borekit Bruiser
Joined: 02 Jan 2009
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| frez |
This post is not being displayed .
|
frez
Nova Slayer
Joined: 02 Dec 2008
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| BBCTom |
This post is not being displayed .
|
BBCTom
Borekit Bruiser
Joined: 02 Jan 2009
Karma :
|
Posted: 16:41 - 30 Jan 2009  Post subject: |
|
|
| frez wrote: | | CompenClaim wrote: |
I'm sure that Lee, a recent client of mine who was riding down the road safely, when a car pulled out without looking would disagree with you.
|
Would disagree with what exactly? That solicitors are blood-sucking leeches making profit from the misery of others?
Maybe I should have tagged it <tongue-in-cheek>, but I thought that it was blindingly obvious. You clearly live up to the stereotype of lawyers having no sense of humour. |
I understand that you were attempting to make a joke, but combining calling me a 'blood sucking leech' with the cost of the compensation claim inevitibly being paid by the policy holders through increases in their premium left a bad taste in my mouth, as you're indirectly complaining about bikers being paid out for their suffering.
It's not your post that anoyed me, but I just feel that at the current time you are adding fuel to that childs fire (the one further up, I forgot his name).
Now this isn't aimed at you, but I would just like to say that there are always going to be people out there who complain because their tax went up 20p so that war victims could be paid out, or moan about their insurance premium going up 2p so that families could be compensated for the loss of their relative.
I'm not here to debate this, I'm here to offer FREE advice.
We are a business, so we get paid, so in that childs eyes...we win.
But we never take money from the client, so they win.
Tom
____________________
GSXR600 Corona Alstare SRAD + Race Tuned Aprilia SR125 see public bio for specs. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Nebzor |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Nebzor
Trackday Trickster
Joined: 17 Feb 2008
Karma : 
|
| Posted: 16:49 - 30 Jan 2009 Post subject: |
|
|
CompenClaim, I'd ignore arry if I were you.
He seems to be confusing specialist motorcycle advice (incidentally which is free) as being the same worth as £50/year LEI from any random lawyer that the insurance companies choose to go with.
I'd say thanks for the advice
____________________
Peugeot Speedfight 2 - Honda VFR400 - Honda CB500 |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| BBCTom |
This post is not being displayed .
|
BBCTom
Borekit Bruiser
Joined: 02 Jan 2009
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| frez |
This post is not being displayed .
|
frez
Nova Slayer
Joined: 02 Dec 2008
Karma :
|
Posted: 17:00 - 30 Jan 2009  Post subject: |
|
|
| CompenClaim wrote: | I understand that you were attempting to make a joke, but combining calling me a 'blood sucking leech' with the cost of the compensation claim inevitibly being paid by the policy holders through increases in their premium left a bad taste in my mouth, as you're indirectly complaining about bikers being paid out for their suffering.
|
Wow, now that was a huge leap you took going from me stating the fact that "the cost of the compensation claim inevitibly being paid by the policy holders through increases in their premium" to "you're indirectly complaining about bikers being paid out for their suffering".
The fact is every time the insurance companies have to pay out the risks and cost for claims in the future are adjusted, they, like you, as you kindly pointed out, are a buisiness.
Your business results in higher costs for the other party's insurer if they are found liable than if they had used their own insurer's lawyers. Partly because of your fees, and partly because someone with the comfort of the indemnity you secure will be more inclined to use hire vehicles and so on.
I do not for one minute complain about the level of compensation bikers or anyone else for that matter receive for injuries received as a result of negligence on the part of third parties, except perhaps in the USA where some of the awards for trivial injury are obscene.
Personally if I was unfortunate enough to suffer such an accident myself I would use a specialist firm such as the one you represent, in the full knowledge that it is fueling a viscious circle of higher insurance premiums and higher compensation claims. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| multijoy |
This post is not being displayed .
|
multijoy
World Chat Champion
Joined: 03 Oct 2008
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| BBCTom |
This post is not being displayed .
|
BBCTom
Borekit Bruiser
Joined: 02 Jan 2009
Karma :
|
| Posted: 17:13 - 30 Jan 2009 Post subject: |
|
|
| frez wrote: | | CompenClaim wrote: | I understand that you were attempting to make a joke, but combining calling me a 'blood sucking leech' with the cost of the compensation claim inevitibly being paid by the policy holders through increases in their premium left a bad taste in my mouth, as you're indirectly complaining about bikers being paid out for their suffering.
|
Wow, now that was a huge leap you took going from me stating the fact that "the cost of the compensation claim inevitibly being paid by the policy holders through increases in their premium" to "you're indirectly complaining about bikers being paid out for their suffering".
The fact is every time the insurance companies have to pay out the risks and cost for claims in the future are adjusted, they, like you, as you kindly pointed out, are a buisiness.
Your business results in higher costs for the other party's insurer if they are found liable than if they had used their own insurer's lawyers. Partly because of your fees, and partly because someone with the comfort of the indemnity you secure will be more inclined to use hire vehicles and so on.
I do not for one minute complain about the level of compensation bikers or anyone else for that matter receive for injuries received as a result of negligence on the part of third parties, except perhaps in the USA where some of the awards for trivial injury are obscene.
Personally if I was unfortunate enough to suffer such an accident myself I would use a specialist firm such as the one you represent, in the full knowledge that it is fueling a viscious circle of higher insurance premiums and higher compensation claims. |
Nezbor pointed out the misunderstanding with that other member, so I understand the thread a bit better now 
I apologise, because you seemed to be agreeing with the earlier post by the other member who had misunderstood the service completely, I thought you were bitching about the payouts bikers get following a non fault accident.
It's true what you say, we get paid by the third party insurer who don't want to flip the bill personally, so they bump their policy holders premium prices up accordingly.
Regardless of who is instructed, be it an independany specialist or a member of the insurers panel, the claims are only going to get bigger, as are the premiums.
Tom
____________________
GSXR600 Corona Alstare SRAD + Race Tuned Aprilia SR125 see public bio for specs. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| BBCTom |
This post is not being displayed .
|
BBCTom
Borekit Bruiser
Joined: 02 Jan 2009
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| frez |
This post is not being displayed .
|
frez
Nova Slayer
Joined: 02 Dec 2008
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| headlamp |
This post is not being displayed .
|
headlamp
World Chat Champion
Joined: 26 Nov 2003
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| BBCTom |
This post is not being displayed .
|
BBCTom
Borekit Bruiser
Joined: 02 Jan 2009
Karma :
|
| Posted: 22:05 - 30 Jan 2009 Post subject: |
|
|
| headlamp wrote: | OK - I am in the position whereby I have used my insurance company's appointed solicitors - a firm called New Law. They have arranged physio for me and I am seeing through them or one of their agents a doctor - I still have injuries - notably a damaged thumb and major pain down my left arm where I connected with the car...my accident is similar to the situation of Davis vs. Schrogin, except my muppet started to turn as I was level with his door - my thumb was almost ripped off by his door mirror....if my legal people decide to accept a degree of liability on my behalf - can I not reject that - quoting the aforementioned case... |
Of course.
You are entitled to reject any offer of liability. Be advised though that if you do reject an offer of liability, against the advice of your solicitor, then it goes to court and you receive LESS than the offer you rejected - you will be liable for the 3rd partys costs!
If you feel that you were doing everything in your power to ride safely, however, you should be fine.
When you say "my muppet started to turn as I was level with his door", what was he attempting to do?
We may currently be working on a case similar to yours.
Our client was filtering past slow moving traffic on his KTM RC8. He was on the right hand side of the traffic, but remained on his side of the road. He was traveling at 15mph when he began to filter past the 3rd partys white car.
It was at this point that the 3rd party, who was wanting to turn right 50 yards down the street, spotted a break in the traffic on the opposite side of the road. He pulled out, in an attempt to drive down the opposite side of the road and make his turn.
This is when my client crashed into the side of him.
This is a 100% in favour of the biker case.
Now, there are MANY factors to consider when it comes to cases like this. I will list a few so you can check them off with your case.
1. Speed and Position: Were you traveling within the legal filtering speed limit? Also, were you on your side of the road, or on the opposite?
2. Clear View: Did you have a clear view of the road and vehicles ahead? As I have mentioned above, you must NOT pass a vehicle if you can't see in front of it.
3: Signalling: Was the vehicle signalling that it was going to make the manoeuvre or were the wheels turned in preparation?
4: The manoeuvre: What manoeuvre was the 3rd party attempting to make? If it was an illegal manoeuvre, this will aid you in your case.
5: Witnesses: Do you have any? independant witnesses are vital to most cases.
Check your accident details with the above points and see how you do.
Tom 
____________________
GSXR600 Corona Alstare SRAD + Race Tuned Aprilia SR125 see public bio for specs. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| headlamp |
This post is not being displayed .
|
headlamp
World Chat Champion
Joined: 26 Nov 2003
Karma :
|
| Posted: 12:46 - 31 Jan 2009 Post subject: |
|
|
| CompenClaim wrote: | | headlamp wrote: | OK - I am in the position whereby I have used my insurance company's appointed solicitors - a firm called New Law. They have arranged physio for me and I am seeing through them or one of their agents a doctor - I still have injuries - notably a damaged thumb and major pain down my left arm where I connected with the car...my accident is similar to the situation of Davis vs. Schrogin, except my muppet started to turn as I was level with his door - my thumb was almost ripped off by his door mirror....if my legal people decide to accept a degree of liability on my behalf - can I not reject that - quoting the aforementioned case... |
Of course.
You are entitled to reject any offer of liability. Be advised though that if you do reject an offer of liability, against the advice of your solicitor, then it goes to court and you receive LESS than the offer you rejected - you will be liable for the 3rd partys costs!
If you feel that you were doing everything in your power to ride safely, however, you should be fine.
When you say "my muppet started to turn as I was level with his door", what was he attempting to do?
We may currently be working on a case similar to yours.
Our client was filtering past slow moving traffic on his KTM RC8. He was on the right hand side of the traffic, but remained on his side of the road. He was traveling at 15mph when he began to filter past the 3rd partys white car.
It was at this point that the 3rd party, who was wanting to turn right 50 yards down the street, spotted a break in the traffic on the opposite side of the road. He pulled out, in an attempt to drive down the opposite side of the road and make his turn.
This is when my client crashed into the side of him.
This is a 100% in favour of the biker case.
Now, there are MANY factors to consider when it comes to cases like this. I will list a few so you can check them off with your case.
1. Speed and Position: Were you traveling within the legal filtering speed limit? Also, were you on your side of the road, or on the opposite? YES pn my side and I made sure the polie who attended were aware of that
2. Clear View: Did you have a clear view of the road and vehicles ahead? As I have mentioned above, you must NOT pass a vehicle if you can't see in front of it. YES
3: Signalling: Was the vehicle signalling that it was going to make the manoeuvre or were the wheels turned in preparation? NOT THAT I SAW
4: The manoeuvre: What manoeuvre was the 3rd party attempting to make? If it was an illegal manoeuvre, this will aid you in your case. he was attempting a U Turn
5: Witnesses: Do you have any? independant witnesses are vital to most cases. None
Check your accident details with the above points and see how you do.
Tom |
Thanks for that...appreciate your help!
____________________
Using a mobile phone while driving a car should be made a capital offence! |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| BBCTom |
This post is not being displayed .
|
BBCTom
Borekit Bruiser
Joined: 02 Jan 2009
Karma :
|
| Posted: 14:02 - 31 Jan 2009 Post subject: |
|
|
You're welcome
____________________
GSXR600 Corona Alstare SRAD + Race Tuned Aprilia SR125 see public bio for specs. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Pete. |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Pete.
Super Spammer
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Karma :
|
| Posted: 15:09 - 31 Jan 2009 Post subject: |
|
|
I have a claim going right now. I was filtering past standing traffic and a guy u-turned (across chevrons too) when I was just a couple of metres from his rear bumper, there was no road or turning on the right for him to use as an excuse. I have a witness (lorry driver behind me) who has stated I was 'riding carefully at 15mph'.
They have offered a 50/50 deal which of course I rejected. I was surprised at the offer - I expected them to just accept responsibility and pay-up given the evidence. In your experience Tom, is it common for the 3rd parties insurers to try for a split deal like this and then end-up paying out in full anyway or does it more often end being haggled to a percent-deal?
____________________
a.k.a 'Geri'
132.9mph off and walked away. Gear is good, gear is good, gear is very very good |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
Old Thread Alert!
The last post was made 17 years, 215 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful? |
 |
|
|
This page may contain affiliate links, which means we may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. By clicking on an affiliate link, you accept that third-party cookies will be set.
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
Read the Terms of Use! - Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
Debug Mode: ON - Server: birks (www) - Page Generation Time: 0.23 Sec - Server Load: 0.66 - MySQL Queries: 13 - Page Size: 184.78 Kb
|
Help & FAQs
Search BCF
Members
Groups
Events Calendar
rating
rating