Presumed Liability Petition QLD

[fat and old]

Because for personal injury in Queensland, the injured party gets paid whether the other party has CTP or not. The only issue is whether the insurer then comes after the other party.

I was looking at the petition quoted on this first page...

Queensland citizens draw to the attention of the House the concern that our civil compensation system for personal injury is fault based when incidents occur between motorists and vulnerable road users. Thus in a collision, driver error must be proven. Because the default assumption is that the driver has not contributed to the crash, their insurance company is not automatically liable for compensation.

Your petitioners, therefore, request the House to legislate for the reversal of the burden of proof in collisions between motorists and vulnerable road users. The onus should be on the driver’s insurance company to prove that the vulnerable road user caused the collision. Presumed Liability would only affect civil compensation charging standards, not those of criminal prosecution, where the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" would continue to apply. Vulnerable road users involved in a collision - who have the least potential to cause death or injury, are usually the only casualty and often the only witness other than the driver - will often be unable to give evidence due to the injuries sustained. We also believe that, vulnerable road users such as children, older people or those with disabilities, should receive full compensation, regardless of the circumstances. This would align us with many European nations. We believe that the introduction of Presumed Liability into Queensland civil law has the potential to improve outcomes for vulnerable road users, as well as contributing towards the Government's current Cycling Strategy, helping more Queenslanders enjoy a healthier, safer future."

Didn't say anything about CTP. But if that's the case, fair enough

On the case of personal insurance, each to their own. I'm insured to the gills....doesn't mean everyone else has to be

[human909]

I cannot help how people take being told the facts of life

You aren't telling people the fact of life. You are saying "buy insurance or you are irresponsible".

if you really think insurance is bad, then why do you bother having any at all? You cannot honestly tell me that you have absolutely no insurance for anything you own or value.

I "self insure" mostly. I have a healthy amount of investments. I have very little insurance for my possessions. If something breaks or is stolen then I replace it, it really isn't that complicated. The only reason why my car is insured is because it only costs me only $70 more a year over third party. The amount of money I've saved over the years by not having comprehensive car insurance more than covered my on my one incident when I hit a kangaroo. I don't own a house, though if I did I'd likely insure it.

So not insuring things that you place value on is tacitly irresponsible of you.

No. It is not irresponsible of me. This isn't true not matter how many times you repeat it. Furthermore, what I value most cannot be insured.

It is a actuarial fact that self insurance is cheaper. I self insure for almost everything except for the few items where I cannot afford to. (Medical cover while travelling for example.)

[il padrone]

So not insuring things that you place value on is tacitly irresponsible of you.

Yes, this ^^^ is the insuting part. If I choose to take my own responsibilty for my losses/damge, rather than sharing it with everyone else and contribuing to the coffers of some faceless corporation, how is this irresponsible? Looking after oneself is now 'irresponsible'. How galling

I insure things where there is real value and service. I do not have private health insurance - the value has never been there in the past 35 years.

I do not have bicycle insurance. It would be nice but the premiums I have always seen quoted (for cover in use) have been exhorbitant.

In 40 years of cycling I have had two accidents that caused damage to the bike (though as in one case it did not fail until 5 years after the crash and the other was just a bent handlebar, I doubt any cover would have been granted), and one instance of theft which was recovered with assistance of an alert bike shop owner. So I reckon I'm ahead on the damage versus premiums score.

[il padrone]

Yes, but if I do not insure the bike, then some driver wipes me out, I will take them to task over the damage. It is their responsibilty for the damage they've caused, and in no way is it reasonable to suggest that the victim was irresponsible because they did not pay to insure their bike. This is victim-blaming, full stop.

[human909]

I cannot be held responsible for people feeling insulted when they do not understand something as simple as how the insurance system works.

...It is a actuarial fact that self insurance is cheaper....

Bold statement, care to back that up with supporting evidence.

Pure comedy gold Oxford. Seriously. That is quite funny. If you need supporting evidence then YOU don't understand how insurance works.

[Aushiker]

So you claim self insurance is proven, factually, to be cheaper by actuaries but cannot support your comment with evidence. Not sure you really understand my request. Do you have evidence to support this claim that self insurance is cheaper? You made this claim not me, I simply want you to provide the evidence that your claim is based on. If it is your opinion, that is fine, you are entitled to an opinion on the matter, but please be clear about that so that people can take that into account. But if it is a fact as you claim, then it must have evidence to support the notion.

Evidence [1]? Wasn't that provided before ... you know a sample of one

Andrew

[human909]

So you claim self insurance is proven, factually, to be cheaper by actuaries but cannot support your comment with evidence. Not sure you really understand my request. Do you have evidence to support this claim that self insurance is cheaper? You made this claim not me, I simply want you to provide the evidence that your claim is based on. If it is your opinion, that is fine, you are entitled to an opinion on the matter, but please be clear about that so that people can take that into account. But if it is a fact as you claim, then it must have evidence to support the notion.

Sorry. I was under the impression that my statement didn't need supporting "evidence" in the same way that I think that I need supporting evidence on the claim than businesses desire to make a profit.

The entire operation of an insurance rests on ensuring that on average the revenue from premiums (+excess) is greater than the costs of their claims. The role of an actuary is to crunch the numbers and ensure that this is the case. Conversely on average an individual will pay out more in insurance premiums (+excess) than the expected out they will receive in claims. The existence of profitable insurance firms is the evidence.

I'm really incredulous that I need to explain to you how insurance works.

Evidence [1]? Wasn't that provided before ... you know a sample of one

Andrew

Precisely the opposite. Which is entirely the point.

Here is the wiki page on self insurance:
The idea of self-insurance is that by retaining, calculating risks, and paying the resulting claims or losses from captive or on-balance sheet financial provisions, the overall process is cheaper than buying commercial insurance from a commercial insurance company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-insurance" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Mulger bill]

I have a fair bit of insurance on various but not all parts of my life.

I've thought most of the pros and cons out for each item. For those items I do insure it's quite simple, if the faecal matter comes into contact with the rotary air displacement device, I want someone else to wipe the blades clean because the job is either too big or too messy for me.

[human909]

And your theory is just that, theory,

Now you are sounding like people trying to dismiss the theory of evolution.

And for that matter why shouldn't a company profit from offering insurance, are you begrudging anybody who offers a service from making a profit?

I wholeheartedly support insurance companies making a profit. I suggest you read what I wrote again, slowly. The very fact that they do make a profit is the evidence you were after.

You are delusional and quite unrealistic.

The claims I have made are a factual reality of the insurance industry. It is not delusional it is factual. If I was you I'd be extremely embarrassed for you stance. But it is clear you still can't understand simply logic. Nor do you seem to have much of a grasp on the very industry you work in.

I have a fair bit of insurance on various but not all parts of my life.

I've thought most of the pros and cons out for each item. For those items I do insure it's quite simple, if the faecal matter comes into contact with the rotary air displacement device, I want someone else to wipe the blades clean because the job is either too big or too messy for me.

An intelligent attitude. Just to be clear I think insurance is a very important financial service.

The truism that "self insurance" is statistically cheaper is in no way shape or form a suggestion that insurance is not a useful risk management service.

[human909]

Oxford. Lets try another angle. If an insurance company pays out more in claims than it receives in premiums (+excess) would you consider that a good or a profitable business practice? Or do you agree that insurance companies takes more money from its customers than it gives back?

The corollary to this, is that on average customers pay more money than they receive from an insurance company. Is that not correct?

If a customer on average receives less compensation than the premiums (+excess) that they pay. Can you not see that this is more expensive on average than self insurance?

[redsonic]

Oxford. Lets try another angle. If an insurance company pays out more in claims than it receives in premiums (+excess) would you consider that a good or a profitable business practice? Or do you agree that insurance companies takes more money from its customers than it gives back?

The corollary to this, is that on average customers pay more money than they receive from an insurance company. Is that not correct?

If a customer on average receives less compensation than the premiums (+excess) that they pay. Can you not see that this is more expensive on average than self insurance?

I can see what you are saying, Human, and I mostly agree with your logic. But... Perhaps Oxford is suggesting that it's not a zero sum game. Maybe the insurance company has efficiencies of scale that are not available to an individual. Such as direct negotiations with another party's insurers, avoiding lengthy court proceedings. Plus expert knowledge and experience settling claims against other parties involved, whereas the individual may need to hire people to advocate for them.

[human909]

I can see what you are saying, Human, and I mostly agree with your logic. But... Perhaps Oxford is suggesting that it's not a zero sum game.

Thanks for reading and understanding. If oxford is wanting to suggest anything he is welcome to do so.

I didn't expect that this would turn into a debate. I considered my statement to be a truism. But clearly there is a lack of understanding of how insurance operates.

[Mulger bill]

I can see what you are saying, Human, and I mostly agree with your logic. But... Perhaps Oxford is suggesting that it's not a zero sum game. Maybe the insurance company has efficiencies of scale that are not available to an individual. Such as direct negotiations with another party's insurers, avoiding lengthy court proceedings. Plus expert knowledge and experience settling claims against other parties involved, whereas the individual may need to hire people to advocate for them.

That's what I said

[human909]

Back to PLL discussion for me.

I'll agree with that.

If you want to educate yourself. Have a chat to one of your actuaries in your offices.

[il padrone]

All you have provided is ideas and theories, no empirical evidence that self insurance is cheaper. It is not a truism, it is an idea (your words), a theory and certainly not self evident as you have provided nothing of an evidentiary nature to support the idea.

I think that human909's "idea" is based on the concept used in business that P = COGS + Pt (and I think you know this well ennough, or you would not be in the commercial insurance game);

where P - price
COGS - cost of goods & services, and
Pt - profit.

Or else you follow the maxim that P = <whatever the market will bear>, but I doubt this will ever be anything less than the first formula. So as COGS has Pt added to it it is unlikely that it will ever be more than P.

[Dragster1]

Insurance people what a bunch of crooks they wreck every industry they are involved with been proven many times. RACQ approved repairer I have seen it many times they bully companies around with their short cut work to save money on repairs .Think what you like what a disgusting bunch I haven't quite yet seen an industry that tries to scam money from people as bad as them. Yes lets write a pdf that takes hours to read and requires a legal person to comprehend it, lets make the excess on metallic painted cars so high that's it not worth claiming a small dent on the car, lets charge a higher premium on a car that's devalued 20 grand in five years but when it was new you had to pay out 46 grand now 5 years later you have to pay out 26

[Dragster1]

20 Years ago comprehensive insurance was just that you paid your premium and you knew you were covered for everything. Insurance cover didn't deviate a lot from company to company and they were honest and told you the differences now days its everyone for themselves.

[Aushiker]

A cyclist has been ordered to pay his friend nearly $1.7 million in damages after the man was knocked off his bike and hit by a car when the pair collided on their way home from work.

Court documents said David Blick was riding slightly ahead of Michael Anthony Franklin on the off-ramp from Capital Circle onto Canberra Avenue during the evening peak hour on June 17, 2009.

Mr Blick hit a large wooden tree stake that was lying in the bike lane and veered into his friend, causing him to fall off his bike and into the path of an oncoming car.

Canberra Times

Andrew

[il padrone]

Proposal for presumed liability in Scotland.

However we know from the experience of nations across Europe that shifting the burden of proof onto the motorist does help foster a more considerate attitude to vulnerable road users. This can only be helpful in reducing accidents, and pedestrians and cyclists who have been injured would also benefit from fairer and swifter access to compensation.

The French Federation of Insurance Companies is a strong supporter of stricter liability regimes as vulnerable road users are compensated quickly without going to court and thus costs are significantly reduced.

[fat and old]

Proposal for presumed liability in Scotland.

However we know from the experience of nations across Europe that shifting the burden of proof onto the motorist does help foster a more considerate attitude to vulnerable road users. This can only be helpful in reducing accidents, and pedestrians and cyclists who have been injured would also benefit from fairer and swifter access to compensation.

The French Federation of Insurance Companies is a strong supporter of stricter liability regimes as vulnerable road users are compensated quickly without going to court and thus costs are significantly reduced.

Aye? Isn't Scotland a country?

[il padrone]

The French situation has been paralleled to Australia by some who say there level of infrastructure is around the same as Australia's. After the PLL was introduced (mid 90's if I recall) cycling injuries and deaths by motor vehicles apparently dropped by around one half. Okay, this is a country where cycling is revered so how much that contributed is hard to tell, but it still tells a story.

However cycling was revered before the legal change as well as after, so the impact of the PLL is still relevant and measurable.

[il padrone]

Aye? Isn't Scotland a country?

It might be...... ??

Go easy on the Glen Fiddoch

[high_tea]

Well, now, Cycle Safety Scotland have done some research on presumed liability schemes: http://www.cycling-accident-compensatio ... r%20SG.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

I takea couple of interesting lessons away:

There are significant differences in how PLLs are implemented.
Their effect on road safety is not well settled (not surprising - that sort of the thing is hard to show).
Comparative law is hard Well, I kind of already knew that.

Anyway, worth a read.

[il padrone]

For a slightly different viewpoint - another report on how strict or presumed liability is applied across a wide range of European nations, by FEVR, the European Federation of Road Traffic Victims.

This is the UN Decade for Action on Road Safety

I was thinking about the contrast today as I attempted to cross a Melbourne suburban street - in Italy the drivers drive like they are going to have to stop, at any moment. In Australia drivers drive like there's no stopping until we get there.