Driving is obviously too cheap - making it more expensive, especially in terms of insurance, might make people value the privilege more highly and think more carefully about how they exercise it. But then I tend to agree with Dan anyway - your post was more alarmism than anything else.
Presumed liability - e-Petition
- Thread starter hatler
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Paul99
Über Member
But this is a completely different thing. Insurance companies won't chance an expensive court case if their policy holder is already held to be at fault. It will be cheaper to just pay any claim. That cost will be collected up front in premium.
No making it more expensive will just create more uninsured drivers on the roads. People who need to use a car, or use a car because they don't like the alternatives won't stop driving because it has been made more expensive. It's not alarmist.
I just got an online quote for Eur80/month for comprehensive insurance on a new Ford Fiesta somewhere in central Rotterdam. There were a couple of questions I guessed the answer to because I don't know any Dutch, and I don't know how much of this premium is for theft or fire or other insurance, so it's not really directly comparable with UK insurance, but it's definitely same ballpark as last time I looked at insurance prices in London
Paul99
Über Member
It's not really comparable at all, but thanks for bothering.
It's one data point, which is one more data point than you provided for your claim that insurance would go "through the roof".
Paul99
Über Member
You got a quote from another country, you're not sure what it is for but because it is similar in monetary value to the last quote you had in London, you are trying to present it as evidence that presumed liability will have no effect on motor insurance prices in the UK.
You win. Congratulations.
GrasB
Veteran
- Location
- Nr Cambridge
Wasn't the introduction of presumed liability, actually I think it was strict liability, linked to a reduction in all types of collisions somewhere? Just saying.
snorri
Legendary Member
- Location
- East coast, up a bit.
If it helps to make the roads safer for me as a cyclist, I really don't care if my car insurance premium goes up a bit. Money is not everything.
However, I see no reason for premiums to be increased, as drivers are encouraged to take more care around cyclists there should be fewer crashes and fewer claims on insurance.
glenn forger
Guest
Yep. The number of collisions goes down so so do premiums. Plus, of course, lives are saved and people aren't hurt, aside from the crucial monetary implications.
So much rubbish is written about Presumed Liability, it really doesn't mean herds of cyclists will be throwing themselves under car wheels, good grief. A cyclist behaving injudiciously WOULD NOT automatically get a payout, that would be taken into consideration.
The thing about presumed/strict liability is that logically it should reduce costs for the insurers, and therefore costs for motorists.
At the minute, looking at the breakdown of insurance costs, going to court costs far, far more than it does to settle before court. Some of the examples I have seen include damages being estimated at £2000. So a pre trial settlement would costs the insurance company (and therefore the insurance pool) £2000. If they insist on going to court, and lose, this figure can spiral up to £10,000, or even £20,000, as once they lose, they will have to pay court costs, their own costs, and the costs of the injured party, on top of damages.
But our current system encourages motorists to avoid an early settlement, as the onus of proof is on the injured and vulnerable party. As such, insurers can sit back and stick to their guns, continuing to deny liability.
Presumed liability switches this around, and puts the onus on to the more powerful road user. If a motorist has acted negligently, and is faced with having to demonstrate fault on the behalf of the vulnerable road user in order to escape liability, it is far, far less likely that they will get anywhere close to court scenario. Thus costs are reduced for everyone, insurance premiums will fall, and there will be a reduced burden on the already strained court system.
At the minute, looking at the breakdown of insurance costs, going to court costs far, far more than it does to settle before court. Some of the examples I have seen include damages being estimated at £2000. So a pre trial settlement would costs the insurance company (and therefore the insurance pool) £2000. If they insist on going to court, and lose, this figure can spiral up to £10,000, or even £20,000, as once they lose, they will have to pay court costs, their own costs, and the costs of the injured party, on top of damages.
But our current system encourages motorists to avoid an early settlement, as the onus of proof is on the injured and vulnerable party. As such, insurers can sit back and stick to their guns, continuing to deny liability.
Presumed liability switches this around, and puts the onus on to the more powerful road user. If a motorist has acted negligently, and is faced with having to demonstrate fault on the behalf of the vulnerable road user in order to escape liability, it is far, far less likely that they will get anywhere close to court scenario. Thus costs are reduced for everyone, insurance premiums will fall, and there will be a reduced burden on the already strained court system.
chewa
plus je vois les hommes, plus j'admire les chiens
It is only presumed liability and you probably find that there is some elements of that now, if not enshrined in law (e.g rear ending of one car by another or a cyclist hitting a pedestrian- in both one could presume who is liable - and insurers do in the former- but that presumption can be swept aside by fact). It's a civil liability issue, while the presumption is that the more "powerful" or dangerous vehicle would be at fault, in any civil case (or even discussions with insurers) any claim will rely on the same factual information.
I can't see why it would automatically lead to an increase in insurance premiums, it's just a starting point in any discussion of a civil claim and would only really be relevant in an incident where it was your word against mine.
I can't see why it would automatically lead to an increase in insurance premiums, it's just a starting point in any discussion of a civil claim and would only really be relevant in an incident where it was your word against mine.
If you read the rest of the thread you'll find that Paul99 has accepted that he was wrong on that claim
Paul99
Über Member
I did no such thing. I just haven't bothered as yet to point out that the UK's motor insurance industry isn't directly comparable to any other country, neither is the infrastructure.
Those who think that motorists will change their driving styles overnight to be far more cautious are having a wet dream. Presumed liability is also utopia for the crash for cash brigade.
And don't be thinking that they won't turn their attention to cyclists either.
Premiums in the UK would rise, I have no doubt about that. Neither do the colleagues I have spoken to on the subject either.
For the record, I don't disagree with the principle just the potential application.
Wobblers
Euthermic
- Location
- Minkowski Space
You claimed that insurance premiums would "go through the roof". A reasonable prediction based on that claim would be to expect insurance premiums in countries to be markedly higher than in the UK. As Dan B showed, they are not. Therefore, you are wrong.
