Anyone for chicken?

Yes, yes, bad form, but before anyone jumps on this, "...*road*
accident insurance is a legal requirement for _many road users
including the biker in question_..."

OK?

 

criminal damage for a start if he was the sole cause of the accident ,

 

(The Older Gentleman) wrote in

A more than reasonable definition, thanks.

So, doesn't it follow that from the POV of the child it was a 'crash'
and from the POV of the bike rider it was an 'accident'...

 

Harsh, but more than fair really.

 

That's only if the accident is with another *insured* party.

I don't, for example, expect to be able to sue someone if I round a
corner and collect a shopping trolley.

I draw the line at where there's someone to sue; in this case he's not
suing the cause of the accident or his insurers (one assumes he wasn't
sufficiently covered); he's going after the CICB which I believe is the
tax payer.

But he's not going through the insurance system.

 

Well, that's the thing: where's the line?

In that scenario, neither would I expect to sue someone. *But*, should
there be some sort of catch-all insurance? I'm ambivalent about this,
BTW.

You don't see the CICB as a form of insurance?

 

Ironically in this case you *can* sue someone, as it is the responsibility
of the Supermarket to keep them all herded together at the store. Note the
sudden rise in:

a) Devices to lock the wheels of trolley beyond the store perimiter, and
b) Free phone numbers on the trolley handles to get the store to come and
collect them.

I'm not sure exactly what law/legal precedent was set for this, but I do
remember an awful lot of retro-fitting/new trolleys arriving about 12 years
back.

 

That's Ok for domestic ones, but what about the wild or feral trolley,
gambolling free across our council estates, its fleeting presence only
revealed in the dead of night by that one squeaky wheel?

 

No, not at all.

 

Heh. Busted.

 

He could sue the parents. I probably would.

 

you could sue the owner of the trolley

that was one of the reasons that many of the big chains introduced
wheel lock trolleys so that they can not be taken out of the car parks
and the fact that trolleys ain't cheap

--

 

I don't believe you. You can bullshit and lob bait around all you like
but I still won't believe you.

 

What if you came round a corner and someone pushed a shopping trolley
out into the road in front of you?

 

Here we agree.

 

Posting drunk is a bad idea - I don't mean that as an excuse, just a
reason. I do apologise for and retract the personal attack. I don't
entirely know what my opinion of you is; you're obviously intelligent
and better educated than I am, and (no offence intended) older by some
too - enough that you've got memories of this country Before Thatcher,
which I can't say I have significantly. You occasionally appear to
argue for the sake of argument itself, which isn't wrong or unusual
(especially on UKRM), but I often fail to see the justification in the
positions you take on a given subject. Otherwise you're just words on
a screen, and I don't know you well enough from that to judge.

I see what you're saying, that state coffers should not be held to
account for the misdeeds of a 12-year old qualifying for a Darwin
Award, and to some extent understand that. Also you certainly have
knowledge of the road in question, which gives you a different view
from mine. However, the motorcyclist was found to be blameless, when
it would have been all too easy to say otherwise (and most often would
be so).

The parents aren't responsible for their child's actions. My views
are coloured by the fact that I have no children, and intend that not
to change, but I believe parents should have legal responsibility for
their children. That doesn't mean I want the parents punished; losing
a child must be bad enough, but there should be recognition that the
child died as a direct result of doing something not only completely
and utterly stupid, but deliberate and avoidable.

I don't know if the rider reclaimed his losses through insurance; if
so it would have been a claim on his own insurance, assuming he had
comprehensive cover. Why, then, should he be further penalised by his
insurers (as he would be by higher premiums) as a result of having
made a claim? Alternatively, he may have had TPFT cover, in which
case he had no such option. If he had been taken out by an uninsured
driver, he could have claimed through the MIB scheme - surely the CICA
is there for similar reasons, and should be used accordingly?

Of course my assumptions and knowledge could be flawed and/or lacking,
so I await any corrections with an open mind.

 

I fully intend that to be the case. Either way my wishes are unlikely
to affect that state of affairs anyway.

 

(The Older Gentleman) wrote in

That's a deliberate action; I'd expect to pursue the person who pushed
the shopping trolley at me.

 

Oh dear. Now you're making me feel small minded.

Please, don't apologise.

Well, it's clear I like to take contrary positions and often end up
trying to defend the indefensible; although, naturally, not on this
occasion.

He probably was blameless respecting causing the accident. I'd like to
think I could have avoided it through better observation but in reality
I'm probably flattering myself. Won't stop me though.

He isn't, in my eyes, blameless in his selection of lawyers and deciding
to either allow them to sue the CICB and to speak to the media about it.
It's not the fact he hit the kid that bothers me, it's the legal action.

I think there is recognition of this. I also think that parents are
responsible for their children's actions, up until the children reach
some age or other- arguably when the child becomes criminally culpable
in the eyes of the law or 16? 18 seems far too old to me.

Because the insurers are in business to make a profit and if they don't
penalise him then others have to pay- the shareholders or other policy
holders.

And... re the maligned shareholder; if people didn't invest their
savings in the hands of investment trusts etc. etc. there wouldn't be
much in the way of new businesses and employment. There's nothing wrong
with a shareholder expecting a return of more than they'd get at the
bank on their funds, after all they are risking losing the lot.

Well, we're back to whether it's right for the wider populace to
'insure' individuals against risks that the individual could have
insured themselves against.

Ditto...

 

What's the difference between them throwing a shopping trolley in front
of you and throwing their body in front of you? Both would cause damage.