Hi Viz

[fontana]

Was your case decided in court, or by insurance companies/solicitors? The latter type of settlement has no bearing whatsoever on cases that follow, the former may well do....but Lord Denning's rulings could impact on any claim.

Pete

My case was decided by solicitors.
The fact is that me not wearing hi viz, on a dark Winters night, had no impact on my case whatsoever.
As regards protective clothing.
It can at least be proven that a helmet for example, can help stop head injuries.
There is no research that proves beyond doubt that Hi Viz is effective at preventing collisions, so in order to reduce the amount of compensation payable, any insurer, solicitor or court would be flogging a dead horse.

[milleplod]

Was your case decided in court, or by insurance companies/solicitors? The latter type of settlement has no bearing whatsoever on cases that follow, the former may well do....but Lord Denning's rulings could impact on any claim.

Pete

My case was decided by solicitors.
The fact is that me not wearing hi viz, on a dark Winters night, had no impact on my case whatsoever.
As regards protective clothing.
It can at least be proven that a helmet for example, can help stop head injuries.
There is no research that proves beyond doubt that Hi Viz is effective at preventing collisions, so in order to reduce the amount of compensation payable, any insurer, solicitor or court would be flogging a dead horse.

Your own particular case was an agreement between solicitors and insurers, nothing more.

It doesn't matter what can be proved in respect of helmets, or what can't be proved in respect of protective clothing, for the reasons Lord Denning gave - a normally prudent person would take such precautions, even though there's no legal requirement to do so.

If you don't want to accept his ruling, that's your prerogative, but you not accepting it doesn't make your belief correct. His ruling will always override what you want to think is right...unless, of course, you can put evidence to a higher court that will lead it to overrule him!

Pete

[fontana]

It doesn't matter what can be proved in respect of helmets, or what can't be proved in respect of protective clothing, for the reasons Lord Denning gave - a normally prudent person would take such precautions, even though there's no legal requirement to do so.

If you don't want to accept his ruling, that's your prerogative, but you not accepting it doesn't make your belief correct. His ruling will always override what you want to think is right...unless, of course, you can put evidence to a higher court that will lead it to overrule him!

Pete

What you seem to be suggesting is that Lord Dennings ruling constitutes a benchmark, so it naturally follows that there should be no exceptions in regard to an insurers right to reduce or even deny a payout in the case of not wearing Hi Viz.
But that is not the case.
It just isn't.
Assuming that you are correct, and Hi Viz comes under the heading of protective clothing, could you explain this, when clearly according to you, there are no exceptions

[milleplod]

I've not mentioned hi-viz in the context of potential reductions in compensation after an accident. Conversely, you have mentioned protective clothing, or the lack of it - that's why I keep banging on about Lord Denning.

Pete

[fontana]

I've not mentioned hi-viz in the context of potential reductions in compensation after an accident. Conversely, you have mentioned protective clothing, or the lack of it - that's why I keep banging on about Lord Denning.

Pete

I've been researching Lord Denning, and interestingly, a search just comes up with stuff about helmets.
I can find no reference to protective clothing in the general sense.
As you seem to be "up" on this, perhaps you could provide the information I am looking for, and you are referring too.
Cheers.
Anyway, I concede that an insurer may try and reduce a claim in the event of injuries if the rider was not wearing protective clothing, but you are taking a very simplistic view of this.
According to a friend of mine, who specialises in injury compensation, it depends on the injuries.
If you were to slide down the road in a pair of shorts, then potentially you could lose out financially, although this is not a certainty because there is no precedent.
However, if you broke your leg, then protective clothing would not affect the outcome because great though it is, leather and Kevlar do not prevent broken bones and other internal injuries, so the outcome would have been much the same even with protective clothing.
I still maintain though that not wearing Hi Viz on a motorcycle would not reduce a potential claim.
If that's wrong, I would love to see an example that disproves that.
Can you imagine the floodgates such a ruling would open.
Perhaps the driver of a black car who gets hit from behind at night can have his claim reduced because he / she should have been driving something brighter

[milleplod]

I've not mentioned hi-viz in the context of potential reductions in compensation after an accident. Conversely, you have mentioned protective clothing, or the lack of it - that's why I keep banging on about Lord Denning.

Pete

I've been researching Lord Denning, and interestingly, a search just comes up with stuff about helmets.
I can find no reference to protective clothing in the general sense.
As you seem to be "up" on this, perhaps you could provide the information I am looking for, and you are referring too.
Cheers.
Anyway, I concede that an insurer may try and reduce a claim in the event of injuries if the rider was not wearing protective clothing, but you are taking a very simplistic view of this.
According to a friend of mine, who specialises in injury compensation, it depends on the injuries.
If you were to slide down the road in a pair of shorts, then potentially you could lose out financially, although this is not a certainty because there is no precedent.
However, if you broke your leg, then protective clothing would not affect the outcome because great though it is, leather and Kevlar do not prevent broken bones and other internal injuries, so the outcome would have been much the same even with protective clothing.
I still maintain though that not wearing Hi Viz on a motorcycle would not reduce a potential claim.
If that's wrong, I would love to see an example that disproves that.
Can you imagine the floodgates such a ruling would open.
Perhaps the driver of a black car who gets hit from behind at night can have his claim reduced because he / she should have been driving something brighter

Excellent news! I'll leave you to do the research, I've done with this now.

Pete

[JamesL]

Hmm...

FWIW I wear hi-viz on the basis that although the ones who won't see you never will, those who are looking tend to pick you up earlier. It's probably more helpful than not and within limits I don't really care about the look. Actually mine is one of the smart ones via the BMW Club; I'm not a logo person but they're decently made and at a good price, and if / when I get too embarrassed I'll unpick the badge (which thankfully doesn't seem to be reflective).

Insurers are all tight as a wotsit's wotsit and they'll use every excuse not to pay out and that's life I suppose. If wearing hi-viz gives them one less thing to renege on that's probably a good thing. Would I specifically buy hi-viz to please the insurers? Not sure about that one.

If it helps, on the rare occasions when I get to air the Lewis Lightning jacket, with special extra-length fringe , hi viz stays in the shed...

[fontana]

Excellent news! I'll leave you to do the research, I've done with this now.

Pete

How did I just know you'd run away when asked to provide evidence.

Anyway, glad you concur that the lord Denning ruling was related to helmets, and NOT protective gear in general.
Glad we sorted that one out.

Insurers are all tight as a wotsit's wotsit and they'll use every excuse not to pay out and that's life I suppose. If wearing hi-viz gives them one less thing to renege on that's probably a good thing. Would I specifically buy hi-viz to please the insurers? Not sure about that one.
..

Don't worry.
No claim would ever be reduced on the basis of not wearing Hi Viz.
I'd certainly love to see just one example if I'm wrong

[milleplod]

Excellent news! I'll leave you to do the research, I've done with this now.

Pete

How did I just know you'd run away when asked to provide evidence.

Anyway, glad you concur that the lord Denning ruling was related to helmets, and NOT protective gear in general.
Glad we sorted that one out.

/quote]

As you will have noticed, I didn't concur with anything you said, but don't let that stop you thinking exactly what you want.

Had you ever thought of trying to be less objectionable in your posts? Just wondering.

Pete

[milleplod]

Excellent news! I'll leave you to do the research, I've done with this now.

Pete

How did I just know you'd run away when asked to provide evidence.

Anyway, glad you concur that the lord Denning ruling was related to helmets, and NOT protective gear in general.
Glad we sorted that one out.

As you will have noticed, I didn't concur with anything you said, but don't let that stop you thinking exactly what you want.

Had you ever thought of trying to be less....how shall I put this?.... objectionable in your posts? Just wondering. There's really no need for it you know.

Pete

[fontana]

[quote="milleplod]As you will have noticed, I didn't concur with anything you said, but don't let that stop you thinking exactly what you want.
[/quote]

I asked you to provide the evidence that I was looking for, which was that the Lord Denning case you are so keen on referring too, has anything to do with protective clothing IN GENERAL.
The fact that you can't, kind of proves my point.

[milleplod]

Of course it does.

Pete

[fontana]

Of course it does.

Pete

Feel free to prove me wrong.
Nah
Didn't think so

[milleplod]

Pete

[fontana]

:roll:

Pete

Just so that everyone else knows.

The case of Lord Denning, which the poster above was so keen to use as evidence of his claim, was in relation to helmets only.
Not, protective clothing in general.
NEXT