CRASH=no insurance compensation?

Originally Posted by Patch

And of course your legal advisors MIB to get recdourse for you didin't they? What no? What a shame you are not a lawyer yourself

http://www.rowecohen.com/%5Fnews/?sh...layitem&ID=107

What?

OK since the story is not that clear.

A biker who happens to be a lawyer crashed on some diesel. The solicitor who his insurance company directed to act for him told him that there was nothing that could be done because the person responsible could not be traced.

He appointed another solicitor who sued the first legal firm as they did not approach MIB on his behalf and had therefore not fulfilled their duty to their client, he won. The ruling stated that although the MIB may not have had a duty to pay the law firm had a duty to check. The biker was awarded damages in the region of £1,000,000.

Of course his injuries were severe but there was every chance that such a malpractice law suit would work on the reclaimation of the damages that you sustained if the legal firm failed to exhaust all avenues on your behalf.

Originally Posted by silent

i know its not a normal reaction but if your going to bin it hit the car it proves fault that way.

just my 2ps worth

p.s. i am sorry to hear about the incident and i sympathize

thats the one

Originally Posted by mart

thats the one

As much as you think its a good idea to hit something to make the insurance easier, its really not that good an idea.

Most serious injury and deaths to bikers occur when theres an impact with something from travelling with a relatively high momentum. The chances of sustaining serious injury are lessened with the avoidance of hitting something solid.

Also, how does hitting a car actually prove fault on the drivers part? Thats not a guaranteed outcome either.

So on the basis any suggestion its a good idea to hit something and increase my risk of injury while not guaranteeing fault will be found with the driver is not something I will be heeding.

if you choose to hit it, you anticipate and jump clear...although admitedly yes the risk is more...however when you avoid you may avoid as reaction and it may be in to a brick wall/lampost etc...so there are arguements either way...

You must assess the risk either way...if you feel hitting even with anticipation will hurt more, avoid...

if it is a crash where it will be their fault, like this, they turn acros you...hit them, they cant deny it, preferably hit the wheel and smask their axle...they cant drive off then either. there is no guaranteed outcome, but we all know a fault/non fault/5050 crash when we have it, some just have troubnle admitting which one it is...if its there fault go for it, any of the others avoid.

if you dont want to do it fine, im not precious about my viewpoint...oh and as i may or may not have said in my two crashes i tried to avoid knowing full well they werent my fault...so even though i preach it i havent been able to practice it yet...

andy

p.s. in my two crashes only one of which would i have chosen to hit...the other would have been far more damaging to me than if i had tried to avoid but still got hit.

Originally Posted by silent

if you choose to hit it, you anticipate and jump clear...although admitedly yes the risk is more...however when you avoid you may avoid as reaction and it may be in to a brick wall/lampost etc...so there are arguements either way...

You must assess the risk either way...if you feel hitting even with anticipation will hurt more, avoid...

if it is a crash where it will be their fault, like this, they turn acros you...hit them, they cant deny it, preferably hit the wheel and smask their axle...they cant drive off then either. there is no guaranteed outcome, but we all know a fault/non fault/5050 crash when we have it, some just have troubnle admitting which one it is...if its there fault go for it, any of the others avoid.

if you dont want to do it fine, im not precious about my viewpoint...oh and as i may or may not have said in my two crashes i tried to avoid knowing full well they werent my fault...so even though i preach it i havent been able to practice it yet...

andy

p.s. in my two crashes only one of which would i have chosen to hit...the other would have been far more damaging to me than if i had tried to avoid but still got hit.

You write it like you have a choice to hit something or not. As you and I both know, as does everyone whos had one, accidents dont happen like that. They happen and pretty damn fast.

To suggest you have time to see whats happening and jump clear or choose to hit something or not would only happen in a rare number of accidents where the rider was actually slow enough to start with. And where there is an element of good luck involved.

But my objection is more about people posting that people should aim to hit something without any regard for the consequences that hitting things brings all to make the insurance easier.

[fizzwheel]

Originally Posted by lynw

But my objection is more about people posting that people should aim to hit something without any regard for the consequences that hitting things brings all to make the insurance easier.

Personally I would have thought that aiming to hit another vehicle is going to be pretty well impossible to do. I personally think that survival instinct is going to take over and you'll do anything you can to avoid the car or whatever it is that you are going towards.

Often these things happen in a split second and you can't do anything but try and survive often theres no time to think.

[21QUEST]

Originally Posted by lynw

You write it like you have a choice to hit something or not. As you and I both know, as does everyone whos had one, accidents dont happen like that. They happen and pretty damn fast.

To suggest you have time to see whats happening and jump clear or choose to hit something or not would only happen in a rare number of accidents where the rider was actually slow enough to start with. And where there is an element of good luck involved.

But my objection is more about people posting that people should aim to hit something without any regard for the consequences that hitting things brings all to make the insurance easier.

Silent , I fully understand what you are saying and where you coming from .


Lynw , you are making a mountain out of an anthill. Obviously you are are failing to understand his point.

I can't comment on the statistics but the point you make about jumping clear or hitting something has a lot to do with how quickly a rider brain is able asses + process a given situation and their controlled(or not) reaction to it. Hence the reason why some people panic , lock the brakes and fall off. So yes you can indeed make your own luck.

Of course your chances of injury are lessened by not hitting a solid object but that doesn't help if you consequently get run over by other vehicles.(see riders ability to asses and process a particular situation)

Cheers
Ben

[21QUEST]

Originally Posted by lynw

Im not failing to see his point, just disagreeing with it totally.

.

Fair enough I guess

Originally Posted by lynw

Silent wrote his last post like everyone has that option to jump clear or avoid it, when we all know the reality is that its more than likely not to be the case..

He never said that. You only read it like that as it's obvious that can't be the case.

Originally Posted by lynw

As for mountain out of an anthill, thats your opinion. Likewise, Im entitled to mine and to make my objections if I disagree or think the advice is unsound

.

Personally I don't see any advice given. he voiced his thoughts.

Originally Posted by lynw

Im not saying you wont hit something else avoiding a car, but that wasnt what was originally suggested. The original suggestion was it was a good idea to hit the car. Not saying avoiding it doesnt guarantee you wont hit something else, but the point is you should be trying to avoid hitting ANYTHING because its the impact that causes serious injuries. But to suggest its even a remotely good idea to deliberately hit something is just not good advice..

Again can't see where that advice was being given as I said previously. Maybe I'm guilty of believing that people can actually think for themselves.

Originally Posted by lynw

And no-ones actually come back to defend how hitting something automatically equates to a no fault claim which was the other presumption that was made to support hitting a car being a great idea.

I took that to mean all things being equal that would be a great idea . Saying that we all know nothing is equal when it comes to insurance. I should know as I've got two on-going claims which on paper should be straight forward .

Cheers
Ben






















PS: Kid , do not attempt any of the above. All the hypothetical scenarios portrayed have assumed the individuals(actors) involved are capable of thinking for themselves :P

Originally Posted by 21QUEST

..............

You know, I was only trying to point out the fallacy of hitting a car being a good idea to the people who think that.

Consider 17 mph is about 27 ft/s. Thats still a lot of momentum involved when you impact and go to 0 ft/s. Its also why its so damn hard to make the right choice in an accident because everythings happening so fast your brain cant process it all. And its also why if you "choose" to hit something [as silent suggests you have that choice by the "if you choose to hit" comment previously made hence me taking it as him suggesting theres a choice] you really dont have the time in the majority of accidents between choice and impact really to actually physically jump clear.

Best advice all round is dont panic, try not to hit anything, if bike goes down and youre ok photo the scene and take driver details. Not to consider hitting a car would be good for the insurance claim - because even if you do, theres still no guarantee it will be automatically a no fault on your part.