BBC encourage insurance fraud.

[glenn forger]

Driven into a cyclist? No problem! Just don't tell the police or your insurer!


"Dennis couldn't have been nicer about the entire incident. We agreed he'd pay for repairs to my bike (£140), which he did, and leave it at that. No police, no insurance, no need really."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36159430

No, no need. You are asking your insurer to underwrite the risk of you driving into things. So a good way to save money is lie to your insurer and say you haven't driven into anyone.

 

[fossyant]

His picture is on the BBC, wonder who insures him.

My bike got away with my crash, big scratch that will mean a fork replacement as they are carbon, not the same can be said for me.

He is stupid to settle like that. You just don't know for a while how bad things maybe.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

I read this article on the train this morning.

I'm not one for really caring about phrasing of sentences. But even this one, made me "wtf, did they actually print that?"

The quote in question is:
"It's never happened before and I worried about it," he said. For two or three weeks afterwards, he said, his driving was too cautious. His wife would tell him: "You're half way across the road just to miss that bike."

Is this a suggestion that you shouldn't be far away from the bike to avoid them?! As that is certainly what it is suggesting. A shocking piece of editorial work in my opinion.

He is also worried about it, I wonder if his worry has extended to further driver training to refresh his abilities? Or whether his worry doesn't actually go that far to resolve the danger?

 

[Globalti]

The car windows are clear so the driver simply mustn't have looked carefully enough. I can't see anything wrong with the driver offering to fix the damage for cash; it's what I would do but he ought to notify his insurers because the victim might just change his mind in a few weeks when one of the claims "specialists" gets him on the phone.

As for the driver being "halfway across the road" that's a natural reaction to the accident; when I was a teenager my Dad was involved in an accident in which a cyclist died and it tramuatised him so bady that for the rest of his life he would flinch and go for the bake whenever he saw a cyclist nearby.

Perhaps the cyclist ought to insist that the quite elderly driver gets an eye test.

 

[glenn forger]

he ought to notify his insurers because the victim might just change his mind in a few weeks

Er, no, he should inform his insurers because not doing so is insurance fraud that could leave him with no cover. That's the whole point. The article breezily endorses lying to conceal poor driving.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Driven into a cyclist? No problem! Just don't tell the police or your insurer!


"Dennis couldn't have been nicer about the entire incident. We agreed he'd pay for repairs to my bike (£140), which he did, and leave it at that. No police, no insurance, no need really."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36159430

No, no need. You are asking your insurer to underwrite the risk of you driving into things. So a good way to save money is lie to your insurer and say you haven't driven into anyone.

You're reading too much into that.

The quote is from the cyclist in the context of being happy to accept the repairs being paid without recourse to the driver's insurance. What the driver does in relation to telling his insurers of a notifiable event is nothing to do with the cyclist, or the BBC.

GC

 

[glenn forger]

What the driver does in relation to telling his insurers of a notifiable event is nothing to do with the cyclist, or the BBC.

GC

I'm afraid you're wrong. If the rider accepts the £140 he has no further redress. You don't get a second go. So the beeb is breezily endorsing behaviour that could seriously impact those hurt by drivers' inattention.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

I'm afraid you're wrong. If the rider accepts the £140 he has no further redress. You don't get a second go. So the beeb is breezily endorsing behaviour that could seriously impact those hurt by drivers' inattention.

He could have had a second go if he didn't make it public with the BBC unless there's other evidence of it

 

[glenn forger]

This idea that drivers who say "Let's not go through the insurers" are harmless is very, very wrong.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

I'm afraid you're wrong. If the rider accepts the £140 he has no further redress. You don't get a second go. So the beeb is breezily endorsing behaviour that could seriously impact those hurt by drivers' inattention.

I'm not talking about further redress, I'm talking about the driver's obligation to notify his insurers of a collision. That is his responsibility and nothing to do with the cyclist or the BBC.

GC

 

[glenn forger]

A driver who fraudulently conceals his poor driving is nothing to do with cyclists?

 

[classic33]

He could have had a second go if he didn't make it public with the BBC unless there's other evidence of it

No second go, the thing is settled from a legal standpoint.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

A driver who fraudulently conceals his poor driving is nothing to do with cyclists?

Glenn, you're being deliberately obtuse here. I've expressed very clearly my point.

Have you any evidence that the driver has not yet informed his insurers of the collision?


GC

 

[glenn forger]

And then the insurers can set a premium that reflects the risk of a driver who fails to see other road users, rather than the premium being artificially lowered by dishonesty. So good driving is rewarded and bad driving is penalised. Something this cyclists doesn't seem bothered about.

 

[classic33]

A driver who fraudulently conceals his poor driving is nothing to do with cyclists?

Just the same as swapping insurance companies used to be.