Just seen a patient this morning, roadie who got T-boned by a car whilst going around a roundabout last weekend (cyclist on roundabout, in lane 1, car failed to stop, hit him in the L leg, bounced off front of the car, landed on his back in lane 2). Lucky to not break any bones but very stiff, unable to work, likely to need physio, not to mention carbon bike in pieces…
Car driver admitted straight away he hadn’t seen him, (it’s a fast dual carriageway where drivers will often barely slow down to go round the roundabout) and even if he hadn’t it can’t be anything other than driver error.
Anyway, the cyclist tells me that the driver was advised to deny responsibility by his insurers.
Is advising customers to lie about their actions in order to reduce the cost of a claim acceptable?

All most insurance companies care about is reducing their liability.

That’s it.

And yes, it is wrong.

no its not really.
But its probably not illegal.

Anyway, the cyclist tells me that the driver was advised to deny responsibility by his insurers.
Is advising customers to lie about their actions in order to reduce the cost of a claim acceptable?

Maybe Chinese whispers between the insurers, the driver, the cyclist and you, every policy I’ve had for cars, motorbikes or boats has wording to the effect “do not accept responsibility if you do we might not pay out”. Presumably because if you admit fault then they would have to pay out to the 3rd party, even if it wasn’t actually your fault.

Not a lie, just not admitting fault.

So the drivers version of events would be “I drove onto the roundabout and into the cyclist” not “OMG It’s my fault”, just facts rather than opinion.

I’ve always been told that you should never admit (but don’t necessarily deny) liability at the roadside – let the insurance companies sort it out.

They recommended not saying you’re responsible because if you weren’t and admitted you were then they have a fight on their hands. They not saying lie just don’t admit to anything.

So this is why we need presumed liability then.

So this is why we need presumed liability then.

Different again. Liability =\= fault. The car would have been liable for the damage, but wouldn’t necessarily have been at fault, so the onous is on them to prove the cyclist would have been at fault in order to transfer that liability.

Sorry don’t understand TINAS
Car driver is at fault. But may not admit it on advice of coporate rats insurers.
With presumed liability that doesn’t matter as the driver’s insurers are liable for the damage anyway.
Thus enabling honest drivers like the one in question to actually say “really sorry, didn’t see you, totally my fault” instead of “There appears to be a cyclist on the front of my car I will ask my insurers what to do about it”
😕

Edit: are you saying that in countries with presumed liability the car drivers may still try to prove that it was the cyclist was at fault? I guess you are and of cause that makes sense. I wonder though whether they would bother in a situation so (seemingly) cut and dried as this.

Docrobster, how different is it in your field of employment?

What are the guidelines to you regarding telling a patient you have made a mistake?

Have you ever made a mistake and omitted to tell the patient?

Have you ever been aware that a colleague has failed to tell a patient that they have made a mistake, and what did you do?

How confident are you that your colleagues would always admit to a patient when they have made a mistake?

I think all polices have a “do not accept liability” clause in them. You pay the insurers to deal with the consequences of any accidents you’re in, so it’s not up to you to decide who’s right/wrong (even if you’re trying to ‘do the right thing’ by taking the blame).

It doesn’t mean you’re blaming the other person, just that the people you’ve employed to sort it out are the ones who will/won’t work out who did what wrong.*

*In theory, most of the time they all just seem to collude with each other to settle 50/50 to save actually putting any effort in, unless you give thema kick up the arse!

It’s been the case for many years. In the mid 1980s I was leaving a site where I’d been working: backed off the wide kerb and as the front wheel dropped on to the road that extra momentum meant I hit a car (legally) parked on the other side of the road. My fault entirely but the insurance company told me not to admit liability.

Standard advice with insurance – nothing to do with a cyclist being involved, if you admit fault, then theres not much your insurer can do but pay out, you could potentialy be mistaken and not be at fault.

It allows the insurers to argue on evidence on an equal playing field.

Denying liability has nothing to do with lying. It’s about saying “No comment”

Irrelevant in clear cut cases, but can cause problems if you accept guilt at the scene when you shouldn’t have done.

The advice is usually in the insurance documents that we have all obviously read and checked…. 😉

What others have said, it’s not ‘deny liability’ it’s ‘don’t accept liability’ you don’t know at the time if it really is your fault in the heat of the moment (not in this case obvs) and you don’t know if the other party is pissed up, or on the phone or whatever.

Cop to it to your insurance company and let them sort it out, they’re not trying to not pay legitimate claims, just reduce the amount they pay to chancers and con artists.

Sorry don’t understand TINAS
Car driver is at fault. But may not admit it on advice of insurers.

Correct, you can tell the truth, discuss what happened, just don’t use the words “sorry it was my fault”. You never know, the cyclist may have been dressed as a ninja at 1am, drunk and riding the wrong way round the roundabout.

With presumed liability that doesn’t matter as the driver’s insurers are liable for the damage anyway.
Thus enabling honest drivers like the one in question to actually say “really sorry, didn’t see you, totally my fault” instead of “There appears to be a cyclist on the front of my car I will ask my insurers what to do about it”

It’s still only presumed, not an absolute.

Edit: are you saying that in countries with presumed liability the car drivers may still try to prove that it was the cyclist was at fault? I guess you are and of cause that makes sense. I wonder though whether they would bother in a situation so (seemingly) cut and dried as this.

Yes and yes/no. As above, it’s presumed, not an absolute, the driver/insurer could still challenge it if the cyclist was at fault.

If the driver was at fault (distinct from just being liable for the damage) then that still has to be proven in a court if you want them punished for dangerous driving etc. Hence fault and liability are not synonymous, presumed liability makes you liable even if your not at fault (but you can try and prove you weren’t at fault to transfer that liability).

IANAL, I just read up on it last time presumed liability was argued about.

Liablity, fault arguments can get really complex in some cases.

Year back my dads car got hit by an oncoming car which suddenly swerved across the road. Dad was positioned slightly over the centre line on a wide single carriageway road as he was pulling back in after overtaking a bike so technically on the wrong side of the road.

The road was really quite wide and had previously been two lanes in each direction but without a centre divide. This meant if the car that hit dad had maintained its normal position there would have been no issue.

The reason the car swerved was because the young lady driving lost control while arguing with her boyfriend sat next to her rather than concentrating on her driving.

The reason she lost control was because her boyfriend yanked on the handbrake . It was estimated she was travelling at about 80mph in a 60mph zone.

So who is liable, at fault, to blame responsible?

Dad – driving normally but slightly over the white line?
Girl driving – speeding and distracted by the argument!?
Boyfriend – passenger but pulled the handbrake on?

Dad and the girl were both insured drivers, the boy was just a 17 year old kid without a driving licence. Dad had broken ribs and sternum, girl in coma for three month, boy broke his nose

STW COURT IN SESSION -judgement please

The boyfriend. I hope.

He willfully carried out an action which caused the driver to lose control. Everything else is noise.

Without him pulling on the handbrake – no crash.

The boyfriend should be locked up for that!
Not sure how it would work insurance wise, but it’s certainly a police issue, were the police involved?

Is it entirely the boys fault?

Inexperienced / non-driver passenger sees apparent hazard from oncoming vehicle, combined with excessive speed and inattention from the driver of the vehicle he is in, snap judgement to apply the only means of braking available?

Girl is most liable, excess speed, inattention to driving and failure to observe and anticipate the actions of oncoming vehicles…

I disagree entirely, inattention from the girl is entirely speculation, pulling someone’s handbrake on at speed is wreckless endangerment, and can only result in the car losing control at that speed.

If anyone pulled a stunt like that whilst I was driving, and i was still able to move afterwards, I’d stop the car, drag them out and beat seven shades of hell out of them!

Anyway, the cyclist tells me that the driver was advised to deny responsibility by his insurers.

Standard practice. If you have a crash admit nothing.

inattention from the girl is entirely speculation,

Ahem…

The reason the car swerved was because the young lady driving lost control while arguing with her boyfriend sat next to her rather than concentrating on her driving.

I’d say the interpretation of the handbrake yanking as “reckless endangerment” is more open to challenge yes it’s a dick move, but are you certain of his motivation for doing it?…

At the end of the day the responsibility for controlling the vehicle lies with the person in the RH seat, presumably licenced and named on the insurance documents to be driving.

WCA will probably now tell us his Dad got the blame no doubt…

So the application of the handbrake at that speed would improve the situation? Come on now…

At that speed the only thing it would accomplish is to throw the car off balance, I would hope to you are wise enough to realise a handbrake can’t even come close to stopping a car at the alleged speed.

One should never interfere with a drivers controls, if you are on a plane and experience some turbulence or some banking, you have to trust the pilots ability to deal with the situation, as they are qualified and you have no idea what the consequences could be. You don’t walk walk into the cockpit of a plane and start pressing buttons and yanking the throttle control around.. It’s a ridiculous defence for a moronic action.

I don’t see how that different for a car.

I am not defending his actions but simply acknowledging the blame probably doesn’t sit entirely with him.

A good chunk of the blame has to sit with his girlfriend, the situation probably wouldn’t have arisen had she been obeying the limit, in full control of her vehicle and setting aside the distraction of arguing to concentrate on driving safely…

Having thought more about it I am almost certain WCA will tell us the rozzers blamed his dad now as he made a point of mentioning his road position, and I can see that helping a dozy copper set the bickering, speeding couple’s driving to on side and simply say “over the white lines? your fault it is then fella…”

Because it’s actually a much easier argument to pitch (even if it is wrong) than defining which of the other vehicles occupants was primarily at fault (plus one was out cold)…

Boyfriend eventually got done for it by the police. He finally admitted guilt when the girlfriend came out of the coma. Apparently he was advised to say nothing until it was clear she would live.

Neither insurance company accepted liability as it was agreed that neither Dad or the girl were to blame for the accident but each paid out to their respective customer and (I think) tried to recover the money from the boyfriend.

It was about 6 months before anyone saw any money to repair / replace the cars