T
Tony W
Guest
"Gary Sinnott" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> No relation? Explain...? (Maybe I wandered into a thread on which QR kit to buy or something?)
>
> I see a paltry fine is levied in two different cases and nobody seems to give a rat's about those
> left behind. (No offence intended and I'm not getting into anything deeper or more complex - I'm
> sticking to this issue.) Quite a few of us go off full tilt about how shamefull it is that the law
> didn't take the driver/whatever out and hang the sod, mostly justified but that's about it.
>
> The family of the *victim* tend to be left with nothing but memories of the deceased and seeing a
> driver losing about a week's pay. Is life that cheap? Granted, £££ won't bring the person back -
> but there are still bills to pay, even if the victim had mortgage insurance, etc. I wouldn't like
> to be the one to say, "Sorry missus, your husband's dead - killed by a **** on a bike. Said he
> didn't see him. Ta-ta." - But that's how it seems to end up in essence.
>
> I don't care if it's a tank driving over the front of a PSV, the **** in the Renault smearing a
> cyclist or a rickety old cycle flattening a pedestrian (or *any* other combination you might think
> of!) The question is still valid in this thread.
>
> If motor insurance or criminal injuries payments would (partially?) cover damages, then what level
> of financial protection does the family of the average-bloke-on-foot have against someone who is
> just as dangerous on a bike? What level of protection has anyone in this kind of situation?
Going back to the original case, there are two separate issues here:-
1. Legal sanctions against a person who caused a death by negligence.
2. 'Compensation' of the victim's family.
They are separate. The first is a function of the Criminal Law. As such, it it not interested in the
victim except in that there was one and for the evidence that he can provide. By fining the woman a
few pence, putting 6 points on her licence and telling her not to do it again the legal system is,
in effect, accepting that it was 'a tragic accident' despite the evidence that she simply failed to
be arsed to look to see if she was about to run someone down.
The second is separate. The victim's family can now claim for 'compensation' against the woman --
this would usually be covered by her insurance but, in principle, the claim is against the
criminal herself.
If the criminal is unable (through lack of insurance or of assets -- or because they are unknown
(which is clearly not the case here but is in a hit & run incident)) there are various schemes to
provide some compensation -- either as a government based scheme or as an insurance industry
'responsibility sharing' one.
If the criminal's weapon of choice is a motor vehicle then at least the victim has the 'comfort' of
knowing that an insurance company is involved or that a criminal offence (triggering criminal injury
compensation) has been committed (driving without insurance).
In principle a cyclist running down a crumbly pedestrian would be in exactly the same. The victim
claims civil damages against the cyclist who pays up through his 'assets' -- typically through third
party liability insurance held somewhere or somehow (e.g. household, cycling, CTC membership etc.)
The crux of the problem is -- is it necessary to have a criminal offence to trigger the compensation
schemes of victims of uninsured 'assailants'? If it is then the victim might need a criminal
conviction to get anything if the cyclist is both uninsured and poor.
Moral -- get hit by a rich ******* with loadsa insurance.
T
>
> No relation? Explain...? (Maybe I wandered into a thread on which QR kit to buy or something?)
>
> I see a paltry fine is levied in two different cases and nobody seems to give a rat's about those
> left behind. (No offence intended and I'm not getting into anything deeper or more complex - I'm
> sticking to this issue.) Quite a few of us go off full tilt about how shamefull it is that the law
> didn't take the driver/whatever out and hang the sod, mostly justified but that's about it.
>
> The family of the *victim* tend to be left with nothing but memories of the deceased and seeing a
> driver losing about a week's pay. Is life that cheap? Granted, £££ won't bring the person back -
> but there are still bills to pay, even if the victim had mortgage insurance, etc. I wouldn't like
> to be the one to say, "Sorry missus, your husband's dead - killed by a **** on a bike. Said he
> didn't see him. Ta-ta." - But that's how it seems to end up in essence.
>
> I don't care if it's a tank driving over the front of a PSV, the **** in the Renault smearing a
> cyclist or a rickety old cycle flattening a pedestrian (or *any* other combination you might think
> of!) The question is still valid in this thread.
>
> If motor insurance or criminal injuries payments would (partially?) cover damages, then what level
> of financial protection does the family of the average-bloke-on-foot have against someone who is
> just as dangerous on a bike? What level of protection has anyone in this kind of situation?
Going back to the original case, there are two separate issues here:-
1. Legal sanctions against a person who caused a death by negligence.
2. 'Compensation' of the victim's family.
They are separate. The first is a function of the Criminal Law. As such, it it not interested in the
victim except in that there was one and for the evidence that he can provide. By fining the woman a
few pence, putting 6 points on her licence and telling her not to do it again the legal system is,
in effect, accepting that it was 'a tragic accident' despite the evidence that she simply failed to
be arsed to look to see if she was about to run someone down.
The second is separate. The victim's family can now claim for 'compensation' against the woman --
this would usually be covered by her insurance but, in principle, the claim is against the
criminal herself.
If the criminal is unable (through lack of insurance or of assets -- or because they are unknown
(which is clearly not the case here but is in a hit & run incident)) there are various schemes to
provide some compensation -- either as a government based scheme or as an insurance industry
'responsibility sharing' one.
If the criminal's weapon of choice is a motor vehicle then at least the victim has the 'comfort' of
knowing that an insurance company is involved or that a criminal offence (triggering criminal injury
compensation) has been committed (driving without insurance).
In principle a cyclist running down a crumbly pedestrian would be in exactly the same. The victim
claims civil damages against the cyclist who pays up through his 'assets' -- typically through third
party liability insurance held somewhere or somehow (e.g. household, cycling, CTC membership etc.)
The crux of the problem is -- is it necessary to have a criminal offence to trigger the compensation
schemes of victims of uninsured 'assailants'? If it is then the victim might need a criminal
conviction to get anything if the cyclist is both uninsured and poor.
Moral -- get hit by a rich ******* with loadsa insurance.
T
