Herb wrote:Same with motorcycle accidents. The law says you only have to wear a helmet, but don't expect the insurer to pay in full if you get knocked of wearing nothing but a helmet and a pair of shorts.
Sorry but that is just plain wrong.
As the law stands, if you sustain injuries that you may not have done, as a result of not wearing protective clothing, it makes no difference to the claim, because there is no legal requirement and you have not broken the law.
An insurer simply cannot wriggle out of a claim if all points of legality in relation the vehicle and rider have been met.
That is to say, he or she is wearing an approved crash helmet, and the bike is roadworthy
That's about it.
No insurer can reduce the amount payable if these criteria have been met.
Oh they may try, but it would never stand up in court.
That would be like saying that a driver is partly responsible for any burns he or she receives if their car goes up in a ball of flames after a collision, because they didn't wear a flame retardant suit.
It's utterly ridiculous.
Where does it end.
The only time blame can be apportioned, is if it could be proven that the rider contributed to the collision.
