Insurance question...

open topic, for anything cycling related.

Re: Insurance question...

Postby trailgumby » Sat Aug 24, 2013 9:50 pm

ColinOldnCranky wrote:The situation was a wet road with all parties doing the right thing but someone had dumped a bin of KFC refuse over the road in the early hours of the morning which a resident had then replaced in the bin. Tyres and all were fine. Speeds were fine. Your belief "point" that I was at fault was not the case. Even the other driver had no issue with our shared misfortune.

Colin, that's an extenuating circumstance.

As always, these things are decided on both the law and the facts. Prima facie you are at fault if you rear end a vehicle as you are assumed not to have been keeping an adequate braking distance or not paying attention and it is the responsibility of the following driver to do those things. However, if you were keeping an adequate braking distance for the known conditions and something unforeseeable such as grease on the road causes you to crash, that is an "out". You were not negligent.

If being cut off, and the act of being cut off directly causes you to collide with the car doing the cutting off, or prevents you avoiding the collision, that is another out.

However, hitting the back of the car that has been cut off is generally not, unless he cuts into your lane while trying to evade the collision and that causes you to hit him. However, if he is simply braking suddenly for whatever reason (eg, avoiding running over a cat or a child or another car) and you hit him from behind, that is not an "out" for you. He has not broken a rule to cause you to hit him.

In the situation of the OP, in the absence of any such extenuating facts provided, he would normally be regarded as at fault.
"People have a right to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Evidence must be located, not created, and opinions not backed by evidence cannot be given much weight." -- James W Loewen

http://www.facebook.com/Drive2WorkDay
User avatar
trailgumby
 
Posts: 9928
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney

by BNA » Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:20 pm

BNA
 

Re: Insurance question...

Postby clackers » Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:20 pm

ColinOldnCranky wrote:Doesn't explain why the insurer gave me a no-fault on it.


Who knows?

Look, Colin, there are firms that let you keep your Rating One for life.

The principle is to stop churning ... they're already paying out, they may as well do what they can to get their money back by retaining customers. If they were able to control costs by also happening to be the other party's insurer, it's even sweeter for them.

As for your legal opinion about fault, it is not shared by this law firm for instance. Check "Rear-Ended".

http://www.marshallgibson.com.au/blog/working-fault-car-accident/

Police will steer clear of car collision damage, at least here in Victoria. You're unlikely to see a cop at an accident unless someone's been hurt or there's a hazard to traffic.
User avatar
clackers
 
Posts: 1738
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 10:48 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Insurance question...

Postby Carrots » Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:44 pm

Depending how long you've had a full no claim bonus you can earn one at fault protection to your NCB. Ie if you have a one claim in a year whilst on an earned protected full no claim bonus you'll not drop back a peg.
User avatar
Carrots
 
Posts: 177
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:50 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Insurance question...

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Mon Aug 26, 2013 10:34 am

For the record I have not mentioned or referred to my no claim bonus at anyime. I have been referring to the individual assessments, accident by accident. Yes I had a "lifet time no claim protected bonus" but it was able to be revisited when I had to start from a clean slate after my daughter wrote off my car so my policy terminated and I had to go with a new one for a car a little later. It is at that time that the individual assessments became relevant to me and which I had no trouble getting. For the record I also had a couple that I was assessed as at fault.

I have never said that rear ending does not factor into assessment of fault and do not now. Onlythat it is NOT a given and that, other than my case, I am aware of some that were not deemed to be fault of the following driver at all. That is the issue I seek to clarify - that is NOT black and white to insurers, courts or police. I don't need or want to challenge every case that rear ending HAS been deemed to be the trailing driver at fault. If anyone expects me to address those as though I believed that then I suggest that that is a paper tiger - an position that I have not put nor hold to.

Each rear ender should be assessed on it's merits, not some blind certainty. Posters see this in so many situations which I often challenge.
Unchain yourself - Ride a unicycle .Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4298
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: Insurance question...

Postby clackers » Mon Aug 26, 2013 11:53 am

ColinOldnCranky wrote:
Each rear ender should be assessed on it's merits, not some blind certainty.


All cases are on merit, that's why there's a judge.

But insurers know it's almost never worth going to a court if their customer rear ends someone or turns into someone who was driving legally in a straight line.

They suck it up and start doing all the paperwork. :smile:
User avatar
clackers
 
Posts: 1738
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 10:48 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Insurance question...

Postby backofthebunch » Wed Aug 28, 2013 3:49 pm

AndyRevill wrote:Having recently been hit and replaced my bike (on their insurance) I also checked all this out. While My home insurance via RACT wouldnt cover my bike while being ridden it does cover me for broader third party liability if I cause damage/ hit someone so worth checking it out with whoever you're insured with.

Andy

this is usually the case
backofthebunch
 
Posts: 227
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: Insurance question...

Postby briztoon » Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:23 pm

backofthebunch wrote:
AndyRevill wrote:Having recently been hit and replaced my bike (on their insurance) I also checked all this out. While My home insurance via RACT wouldnt cover my bike while being ridden it does cover me for broader third party liability if I cause damage/ hit someone so worth checking it out with whoever you're insured with.

Andy

this is usually the case


A good reason to be a member of you State cycling body.

Member Insurance - Bicycle Queensland.

http://www.bq.org.au/join/insurance/
Image
briztoon
 
Posts: 1236
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 1:15 am
Location: Belmont, Brisbane

Re: Insurance question...

Postby atmurray » Thu Oct 31, 2013 11:07 am

AndyTG wrote:ColinOldnCranky - interesting (and potentially cash saving) point.

trailgumby - I'm with Comminsure and lo and behold - "If you have purchased contents cover, you are covered for up to $20 million for damages, legal fees and disbursements, costs and expenses that you are legally liable to pay another person/s as a result of an incident that occurs outside your insured address but within Australia that causes:
• the death or bodily injury of someone other than you ; or
• physical loss of or damage to the property of someone other than you or your family member."

According to a guy I work with with an insurance background, the trick is around 'legally liable' i.e. 'don't admit it, be found it'.


I'd be careful, the latest CommInsure PDS includes the following exclusion:
What is not covered ... the use of any mechanically propelled vehicle ...

and it looks like you're right re 'don't admit it':
Additionally, you are not covered under this Insured Event: ... if you admit liability ...
atmurray
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 10:59 am

Re: Insurance question...

Postby atmurray » Thu Oct 31, 2013 11:29 am

argh, it looks like "mechanically propelled vehicle" might be a legal definition that might exclude self propelled vehicles:
http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10. ... 0105356515
A motor vehicle driven by petrol, oil, steam, or electricity (s 185, Road Traffic Act 1988 or s 136, Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984). The term includes a locomotive.

probably a good idea to check this with your insurer
atmurray
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 10:59 am

Re: Insurance question...

Postby kicker661 » Fri Nov 01, 2013 2:34 pm

ColinOldnCranky wrote:If bikes = cars in the eyes of the law (the common view here) then the OP is at fault - completely. If he'd been a car he'd be paying up now.


In fact the Police in WA seldom take action against rear enders on the freeway during peak hour, even in dry conditions.[/quote]

If a cyclist damaged your vehicle and it was their fault, you would claim via your car insurance company. You would then sue the person for your deductible assuming they don't want to pay up.

If you had no insurance you would have to sue the person in civil court for all damages assuming they don't want to pay up. Yeah you could go this route regardless of whether you have insurance but if it's a few grand it'll be a headache.

As for Police, the charge is neg driving. Generally handed out when a vehicle is in a major accident and needs to be towed or someone carted away in an ambulance. If everyone is ok, best to deal with it yourselves as no fines handed out that way.
kicker661
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:24 pm

Re: Insurance question...

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Mon Nov 04, 2013 1:16 am

kicker661 wrote:
ColinOldnCranky wrote:If bikes = cars in the eyes of the law (the common view here) then the OP is at fault - completely. If he'd been a car he'd be paying up now.


In fact the Police in WA seldom take action against rear enders on the freeway during peak hour, even in dry conditions.


Cut and paste can be a b1tch. :? You have attributed to me what LinzOC said.
Unchain yourself - Ride a unicycle .Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4298
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Previous

Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: am50em, Lukeyboy, reefer



Support BNA
Click for online shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Cycling Express Cycling Express
Ebay Ebay AU
ProBikeKit ProBikeKit UK
Evans Cycles Evans Cycles UK
JensonUSA Jenson USA
JensonUSA Competitive Cyclist