Just when I was beginning to feel better
View Full Version : Just when I was beginning to feel better
...I get a letter from the insurers of the person that ran me down demanding that I cover the cost
of repairs to her car on the basis that "information presented to us suggests that you were
responsible".
Ho ho. What jinks! I suspect her case may be weakened by her having admitted in the local paper that
she pulled out without having checked the road was clear. Incidentally, don't some insurance
policies have a clause that removes your cover if you admit liability?
Also, the letter "assumes" I have insurance and that under section 154 of the RTA I have a duty to
provide details to them. Cheeky. Section 154 *does* place a duty on those involved to give details
of insurers but section 145, on which, 154 is contingent only refers to *motor* vehicles.
I think the fully-comp element of insurance ought to be banned on road safetyu grounds. Just think
how much more carefully people would drive.
[Not Responding] wrote:
> ...I get a letter from the insurers of the person that ran me down demanding that I cover the cost
> of repairs to her car on the basis that "information presented to us suggests that you were
> responsible".
Oh well, the reply should be short. Two words will cover it ;-)
>Oh well, the reply should be short. Two words will cover it ;-)
>
Indeed. The first one beginning with "F" and the second with "O".
Sounds like standard insurance bully-boy tactics to me.
Cheers, helen s
Cheers, helen s --This is an invalid email address to avoid spam-- to get correct one remove
dependency on fame & fortune h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**s@$*$a$$o**l.c**$*$om$$
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 08:32:08 +0000, "[Not Responding]"
<not_responding@dev.null.invalid> wrote:
>Ho ho. What jinks! I suspect her case may be weakened by her having admitted in the local paper
>that she pulled out without having checked the road was clear. Incidentally, don't some insurance
>policies have a clause that removes your cover if you admit liability?
Aha! Can you say "insurance fraud?"
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk (http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/)
In article <inrh00tmjlt5gndmjgol8p6r0gftqmr9hv@4ax.com>, one of infinite monkeys
at the keyboard of "[Not Responding]" <not_responding@dev.null.invalid> wrote:
> Ho ho. What jinks! I suspect her case may be weakened by her having admitted in the local paper
> that she pulled out without having checked the road was clear.
>[chop]
> Also, the letter "assumes" I have insurance and that under section 154 of the RTA I have a duty to
> provide details to them.
I wonder if it would be worth taking that letter, along with the admission in the local paper, to
your Trading Standards?
> I think the fully-comp element of insurance ought to be banned on road safetyu grounds. Just think
> how much more carefully people would drive.
Well, I've always taken a similar view to that of protected no-claims.
--
Hutton: Nobody is asking why Blair was so keen to have a damaging inquiry into a minor side-issue of
going to war.
So, what has he successfully deflected media attention from?
"Zog The Undeniable" <ggg@hhh.net> wrote in message
news:buaurv$f9n$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Oh well, the reply should be short. Two words will cover it ;-)
>
Rich
"Nick Kew" <nick@fenris.webthing.com> wrote in message
news:u7abub.581.ln@jarl.webthing.com...
> In article <inrh00tmjlt5gndmjgol8p6r0gftqmr9hv@4ax.com>, one of infinite
monkeys
> at the keyboard of "[Not Responding]" <not_responding@dev.null.invalid>
wrote:
> > I think the fully-comp element of insurance ought to be banned on road safetyu grounds. Just
> > think how much more carefully people would drive.
>
> Well, I've always taken a similar view to that of protected no-claims.
Do you really believe people are more lax in their driving if they pay for those options? What you
imply is that they consciously or subconciously think "it doesn't matter if I prang my car because
the insurance will cough up". So they will put up with risking their life and limb, the upset of
seeing another human injured by their action, the inconvenience of having their journey interrupted
or halted, possible prosecution, a battle with the insurance company etc. etc. because they've paid
to be covered? Or maybe, like my wife, they begrudgingly pay extra so that if somone else who is
uninsured <1> or drives off collides with them they won't suffer extra financial loss and in the
unlikely event they slide off the road by their own error at least they won't have to add financial
loss to their other problems.
<1> Might even be a bicycle, heaven forbid.
I've read a lot about risk compensation on this NG and IMO it only goes so far, people can't see
their abs, air-bags, sips, crumple zones or fully comp insurance when driving so these will have
little effect. They can feel the seat belt and a more comfortable cabin isolates them so these may
increase risk compensation.
They certainly would see a spike on the outside of the steering boss so most likely would drive more
carefully. They wouldn't see a similar spike hidden behind the hooter button in the steering wheel
boss so it would have no effect, this was proven long ago when cars didn't have air-bags,
collapsible steering columns and steering racks mounted as far back as possible and being impaled on
the previously hidden spike was quite common..
--
Pete http://uk.geocities.com/peter28@btinternet.com/Playtime.html
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:34:37 +0000 (UTC), "Peter B"
<peter28@btinternet.com> wrote:
>They certainly would see a spike on the outside of the steering boss so most likely would drive
>more carefully. They wouldn't see a similar spike hidden behind the hooter button in the steering
>wheel boss so it would have no effect, this was proven long ago when cars didn't have air-bags,
>collapsible steering columns and steering racks mounted as far back as possible and being impaled
>on the previously hidden spike was quite common..
Think about it, though. How much safer is a modern car than one from 1950? What would you reckon?
Imagine a 1950 car with no collapsible steering column, no airbag, no seat belt, no anti-submarining
seat, pedal mechanisms which can intrude into the footspace, no crumple zones, no laminated windows.
Now imagine a modern car. How much less likely would you think it would be that you would be killed
or seriously injured in a crash in the modern car? Consider the exact same crash. Forget the
possibility of ABS and better tyres reducing the impact speed.
Take a punt.
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk (http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/)
"Jon Schneider" <jon@jschneider.n.e.t> wrote in message
> I think insurers send these letters as a matter of course as now and again the recipient will
> cave in.
sue them for mental anguish
"[Not Responding]" <not_responding@dev.null.invalid> wrote in message
news:inrh00tmjlt5gndmjgol8p6r0gftqmr9hv@4ax.com...
> ...I get a letter from the insurers of the person that ran me down demanding that I cover the cost
> of repairs to her car on the basis that "information presented to us suggests that you were
> responsible".
>
> Ho ho. What jinks! I suspect her case may be weakened by her having admitted in the local paper
> that she pulled out without having checked the road was clear. Incidentally, don't some insurance
> policies have a clause that removes your cover if you admit liability?
>
> Also, the letter "assumes" I have insurance and that under section 154 of the RTA I have a duty to
> provide details to them. Cheeky. Section 154 *does* place a duty on those involved to give details
> of insurers but section 145, on which, 154 is contingent only refers to *motor* vehicles.
>
> I think the fully-comp element of insurance ought to be banned on road safetyu grounds. Just think
> how much more carefully people would drive.
Bastards buggering about with bully-boy tactics. Play 'em at their own game, somethings along
the lines of:
"Dear Sirs,
I was most upset to receive your letter dated blah. Being in such a fragile state of mind, I find it
most peculiar that a company with as good a reputation as yours would choose to harass me in this
manner, especially after the party you represent admitting full liability in the [name of paper]
dated blah...
[oh, I'm so upset I can't possibly communicate with you directly, please either compensate me or pay
for a soliciter to handle all further commuications and spare me further mental aguish-type
paragraph]"
You never know, you might get some cash out of the buggers :-)
Tom.
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> Think about it, though. How much safer is a modern car than one from 1950? What would you reckon?
> Imagine a 1950 car with no collapsible steering column, no airbag, no seat belt, no anti-
> submarining seat, pedal mechanisms which can intrude into the footspace, no crumple zones, no
> laminated windows. Now imagine a modern car. How much less likely would you think it would be that
> you would be killed or seriously injured in a crash in the modern car? Consider the exact same
> crash. Forget the possibility of ABS and better tyres reducing the impact speed.
>
> Take a punt.
>
Same crash, same impact speed?
Wild guess.
About 75% as likly to die on the spot.
A lot less likely to die waiting for an ambulance or being taken to hospital. Emergency first aid
has come on in leaps and bounds
http://www.killology.com/art_weap_sum_medical.htm
--
Andy Morris
AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK
Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> wrote in message news:<kfii00ddoqg0jg4nnf4bamipuf9uk3qkq9@4ax.com>...
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:34:37 +0000 (UTC), "Peter B" <peter28@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >They certainly would see a spike on the outside of the steering boss so most likely would drive
> >more carefully. They wouldn't see a similar spike hidden behind the hooter button in the steering
> >wheel boss so it would have no effect, this was proven long ago when cars didn't have air-bags,
> >collapsible steering columns and steering racks mounted as far back as possible and being impaled
> >on the previously hidden spike was quite common..
>
> Think about it, though. How much safer is a modern car than one from 1950? What would you reckon?
> Imagine a 1950 car with no collapsible steering column, no airbag, no seat belt, no anti-
> submarining seat, pedal mechanisms which can intrude into the footspace, no crumple zones, no
> laminated windows. Now imagine a modern car. How much less likely would you think it would be that
> you would be killed or seriously injured in a crash in the modern car? Consider the exact same
> crash. Forget the possibility of ABS and better tyres reducing the impact speed.
>
> Take a punt.
None? or even less safe?
"AndyMorris" <AndyMorris@DeadSpam.com> wrote in message
news:bucj80$tmj$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> >
> > Think about it, though. How much safer is a modern car than one from 1950? What would you
> > reckon? Imagine a 1950 car with no collapsible steering column, no airbag, no seat belt, no anti-
> > submarining seat, pedal mechanisms which can intrude into the footspace, no crumple zones, no
> > laminated windows. Now imagine a modern car. How much less likely would you think it would be
> > that you would be killed or seriously injured in a crash in the modern car? Consider the exact
> > same crash. Forget the possibility of ABS and better tyres reducing the impact speed.
Wouldn't hazard a guess. However I think its safe to say car use and therefore mileage has increased
many times yet casualty rates have fallen at the same time. Not all the fall can be attributed to
vehicle design of course, some will be down to better roads that are safer per mile driven and some
down to the fact that more vulnerable users such as peds and cyclists are either kept out of the way
or are not so abundant. Considering the exact speed is not strictly fair as modern cars are not only
faster but handle better at speed and as I intimated before are perhaps more likely to be driven at
inappropriate speeds because of the cabin comfort isolating the driver from the environment. I would
imagine hitting a concrete bridge support at 80 mph would have the same outcome but that's unlikely
to be a common scenario.
Pete
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 00:27:11 -0000, "Thomas" <La de la de la> wrote:
>
>"[Not Responding]" <not_responding@dev.null.invalid> wrote in message
>news:inrh00tmjlt5gndmjgol8p6r0gftqmr9hv@4ax.com...
>> ...I get a letter from the insurers of the person that ran me down demanding that I cover the
>> cost of repairs to her car on the basis that "information presented to us suggests that you were
>> responsible".
>>
most of own post snipped
>
>Bastards buggering about with bully-boy tactics. Play 'em at their own game, somethings along the
>lines of:
>
>"Dear Sirs,
>
>I was most upset to receive your letter dated blah. Being in such a fragile state of mind, I find
>it most peculiar that a company with as good a reputation as yours would choose to harass me in
>this manner, especially after the party you represent admitting full liability in the [name of
>paper] dated blah...
>
>[oh, I'm so upset I can't possibly communicate with you directly, please either compensate me or
>pay for a soliciter to handle all further commuications and spare me further mental aguish-type
>paragraph]"
>
>You never know, you might get some cash out of the buggers :-)
>
>Tom.
>
They're being very cheeky actually as I already have a solicitor working on the case. In fact, as my
solicitor has already written to them, their attempt to come direct to me with the frightners is
downright shoddy.
The downside of having a solicitor is that they get to have all the fun responding to
outrageous demands.
OTOH, the upside of having a solicitor is that I stand a fighting chance of recovering some of the
costs this dopey driver caused. I'm not big into the compensation culture but seeing as the material
damage to proprty alone (bike, clothes etc) comes to 2000ukp I don't want to end up with the bill as
well a duff arm.
[Not Responding] wrote:
>
> OTOH, the upside of having a solicitor is that I stand a fighting chance of recovering some of the
> costs this dopey driver caused. I'm not big into the compensation culture but seeing as the
> material damage to proprty alone (bike, clothes etc) comes to 2000ukp I don't want to end up with
> the bill as well a duff arm.
IMO it is your civic duty and responsibility to sue them for as much as possible. For too long
negligent moronists have assumed the right to drive along like dozy twats relying on their steel box
to protect them, and tough **** on anyone on the outside. In an ideal world there would be better
options than taking money off them (like them losing their licence and/or retraining), but that's
the only option open to you at present.
If you don't want the money, you can always give it to charity - or me.
James
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:34:37 +0000 (UTC), "Peter B"
<peter28@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>"Nick Kew" <nick@fenris.webthing.com> wrote in message news:u7abub.581.ln@jarl.webthing.com...
>> In article <inrh00tmjlt5gndmjgol8p6r0gftqmr9hv@4ax.com>, one of infinite
>monkeys
>> at the keyboard of "[Not Responding]" <not_responding@dev.null.invalid>
>wrote:
>> > I think the fully-comp element of insurance ought to be banned on road safetyu grounds. Just
>> > think how much more carefully people would drive.
>>
>> Well, I've always taken a similar view to that of protected no-claims.
>
>Do you really believe people are more lax in their driving if they pay for those options?
snip
>Or maybe, like my wife, they begrudgingly pay extra so that if somone else who is uninsured <1> or
>drives off collides with them they won't suffer extra financial loss and in the unlikely event they
>slide off the road by their own error at least they won't have to add financial loss to their other
>problems.
This is not as unlikely as you imagine. There's a corner just beyond my garden that about 5 cars a
year fail to negotiate. I know this because I often get involved removing them from the ditch. I am
less than sanguine because it is a road with no pavements or streetlights and the route that is both
my commute and my children's walk/ride to school. I know it's not just my road from the number of
smashed fences, lamposts and signs on roundabouts that I see.
It is just representative of the crap standards of driving that a variety of factors allow. One
factor is the fact that if you're driving you can smash a car quite significantly and still not
get hurt. A second factor is that, given the CPS guidelines, prosecution for bad driving is
incredibly unlikely.
Finally, with fully-comp insurance, there is virtually no financial cost for poor driving. Take my
situation. I was run down by someone who was clearly at fault. There will be no prosecution because
of the required standards of proof. Because of her fully-comp, no excess insurance she won't even
have to meet the cost of replacing her smashed number plate and bent bumper.
There also seems to be no willingness by insurance companies to build-in 'good driving' into their
policies. Compare this with marine insurance where the fully-comp element is invalid if you do not
behave in a "prudent and seamanlike manner" (or somesuch words). The marine insurance industry
*enforces* this and won't pay out if you are a plonker. There was a recent article in the magasines
about someone who managed to drive a brand new 250,000 ukp motorboat into a buoy. The boat sank and
the insurance coy said they weren't going to pay out because the skipper had failed in his duty of
seamanship.
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:04:16 +0000, "[Not Responding]"
<not_responding@dev.null.invalid> wrote:
>The boat sank and the insurance coy said they weren't going to pay out because the skipper had
>failed in his duty of seamanship.
I like that idea :-) As long as it only covers own damage, of course.
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk (http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/)
On 17 Jan 2004 17:05:45 -0800, Martinm2@wcms.org.uk (MartinM) wrote:
>> Imagine a 1950 car with no collapsible steering column, no airbag, no seat belt, no anti-
>> submarining seat, pedal mechanisms which can intrude into the footspace, no crumple zones, no
>> laminated windows. Now imagine a modern car. How much less likely would you think it would be
>> that you would be killed or seriously injured in a crash in the modern car?
The answer is that the crumple zones, airbags, seatbelts, pretensioners, non-intrusion pedals and
all the other safety devices which have combined to allow a car to be crashed into a stationary
object at 30mph without fatal injuries to the crash test dummy inside
- all these things have reduced your chance of dying or being seriously injured by about 50%.
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk (http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/)
In article <dhgk00dkhuipkp6j1j1gt1l0ff77r5qk04@4ax.com>, one of infinite monkeys
at the keyboard of "[Not Responding]" <not_responding@dev.null.invalid> wrote:
> I'm not big into the compensation culture but seeing as the material damage to proprty alone
> (bike, clothes etc) comes to 2000ukp I don't want to end up with the bill as well a duff
> arm.
Before worrying about accepting compensation, consider how much you might expect to get without
question for an equivalent injury and damage at work or on the train.
I don't know how bady you were injured (just hope it's nothing permanent) but consider that the
difference in payments for death and serious injuries on the roads compared to other forms of
transport is a hidden subsidy for the motorist. And if you calculate the subsidy by reference to
extreme cases (like hatfield or lockerbie), it's much greater than the entire cost of motoring!
Take all you can get. If you feel it's more than you're honestly due, make a donation to charity.
--
Hutton: Nobody is asking why Blair was so keen to have a damaging inquiry into a minor side-issue of
going to war.
So, what has he successfully deflected media attention from?
"Richard Goodman" <rich@NOSPAM.rsk.homechoice.co.uk> writes:
> "Zog The Undeniable" <ggg@hhh.net> wrote in message news:buaurv$f9n$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> >
> > Oh well, the reply should be short. Two words will cover it ;-)
> >
>
Or, in the words of the Holy Writ, 'Go Forth and Multiply'
--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
[ This mind intentionally left blank ]
Automatic Translations (Powered by
):
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
