hairyben wrote:
Stop me if I'm wrong, but insurance company "statistics" are probably some of the most reliable you'll ever see. They have to be, their business depends on it.
Everyone else, well, they can pick at, twist and embellish stats till it suits to "prove" whatever they want to show, but if the likes of LV don't get their stats right and true, they'll fail to assess risk properly and go bust.
Ben
I do declare you to be a voice of great wisdom and common sense. You restore faith in human nature.
Now I think CW to be very sensible most of the time in its outlook. The editor is no "car hater" per most editorials - and I would say the published letters relfect a fair balance of opinion out there.
to CW. As you perhaps gather - I have a subscription to this weekly ragggy mag. I take C+ for 2 months each year and borrow the mag the rest of the time .. from family and pals
But I like CW. It sometimes does the "cycling zealot thing" - but by and large - healthy attitude to life out there. But having said that - I gave full plaudits to C+ and its monthly advice on safe cycling which ironically - included all COAST headers
So we know some note even if they scoff at the advice. But then I know that some did mock my acid lecture when I was Black Ratting on daily shift patrols before promotions. Let's just say - they found out that Black Rodents have sharp teeth ... later on
CW are simply reporting what the CTC said as this would be of interest to cyclists. I happen to have read the same reports in the Times/Telegraph and GUARDIAN (which all reported from same agency source in reallity
) but the agency version was not quite like the CW summarised version which left out salient points and thus fed some "zealoted bgot"
- to be blunt-minded.
'
All insurance companies will use their own data and rely on claims as submitted to this industry whethr reported to us or not. And let's face it.. we only really get involved if serious and if ambulance /fire colleaugues are called.
The routine collisions which result in mild injury - driveable/rideable damages - our emergncy teams wil advisethe caller to exchange details - taking names/addresses/policy numbers if known .. but insurers will contact from database as soon as informed anyway.
I will stres that we do record and log all such calls... so if one party fails in his or her obligations to inform insurers of crunch - then we take action If each party has agreed to some private repair arrangement - then fine. We will not worry over much provided all verbal/written contracts are met between the parties concerned.
I am well aware some officers may state that the law dicatates informing insurance comapnies of all matters. I and many others take the view that folk are entitled to redress damage for damage privately if they so choose to do so. A private matter and a contract between those parties. If that contract is broken - then a CIVIL court decides and NOT a criminal one.
But then . I am the real policeman and not some chattering one on the internet. I am also lucky or unlucky
(depends on what they get up to
)
to be related to some right "feline" rebels m But I know them in the flesh Nice law abiding folk . but witth their very direct and wryly dry sense of justice all the same
.
I post when I can. Usually when free. Usually at weekends.
I cannot quite figure how others find time. Ho hum.
But yes. ben. I AGREE! I trust the insurers' stat before all others as they get the claim forms - ALL of them
Good . bad .. disputed liabiilty and I will state that these firms only go to court if they think they wil win the case.
Sharks they may be. Stupid - Nope. Not at all. I know the Mad Cats had to fight to get redress as the company did claim their insured was not insured as probably dead before he hit Wildy.
To the mad cats credit - they fought back. Won.. and got damages for his widow as well as redress for their own selves.
And no. They were not after compo as such. Just justice and replacing Wildy's car and helping with the restart of her life at the time. The wdow's plight was a bonus as they did not know that the rogue insurer had impacted on her as well at the time.
OK /. so it took them some time to heal .. but they made that lady an honorary granny to their post accident children/
That makes the mad cats rather sweet natured and special in my rather biased opinion.
Oh sure .. damages - they admit - wiped out their debts at the time.m But they won for the other party's widow as well at the same time. They admit that until that point - they had no idea what she was facing and felt awful and wretched - because they had ignored her plight completely.
]
I think this was actually the turning point for the mad Cats and the entire Swiss rebels who want fair play only and require some justice for the other party who hurt them - but still accept their human feelings and senses of innate decency and comprising guity conscience.
I admit that I have learned from them in the such intensiity of their feelings.
I already admitted on this board that after Ferdl died after collision with a defective vehiclle and almost losing my cousin Wildy that way.. I became the nightmare cop from hell. Pulling anyone on the slightest pretext./ Mouthing off at them. Mounting the old high horse. A nightmare and a I admit .. I did not serve justice at all for those few months of unprofessional emotion and my guvs noted it - and gave me a very understanding "talking to" to snap me out of it.
I emerged from all of that perhaps stronger as a person and certinly mor understanding of all others and what causes carnage and distress to all out there.
I learned, from personal grief and intense worry over a woman I'd known from being just days old as a baby girl, that a seriously good cop understands all involved in a nasty situation. That I had to be objective.. and be very non judgemental of whoever we think caused the nightmare for all parties.
I am sorry /. but I think I have to vent my inner feelings here.
I thus know that insurance companies reflect truly on what folk submit to them by way of claims. they cannot price or risk assess (aka load fairly) without such accuracy.
They do base on what customers tell them - and civii; disputes do depend on argument submitted and a judge's preference which depends more on the gift of the gab on the day than reality of the incident under dispute
I apologise for a long rant. But even police have to blow off steam
on occasion
But ben THANK YOU for making great posts of reasin.
And APOLOGIES for venting spleen.
Folk? Not statistics - but people in need and in distress. ALL of them really.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
) ) - their claim data to date allegedly per press releases shows a 29% 
But are they not constantly claiming how "vulnerable" all cyclists are? Hmmm. I think an insurance company, which is reporting similar findings to previous research by Norwich Union (or whatever it's called ..Aviva or something? ) and Cornhill alike - will know quite a bit more than the CTC which is a "campaign organisation" - which like the AA /RAC can perhaps broker some deals with the companies - but is NOT an insurance COMPANY. But this same campaign group - which relies on donations to supply legal and other advice 
since the average speed in a congested town per the same government research when trying to sell congestion charging to the motorists claims that traffic only moves at 20 mph? :scratchchhin: 
