Churchill Insurance – victim blaming

Home Forum Chat Forum Churchill Insurance – victim blaming

Viewing 45 posts - 46 through 90 (of 94 total)
  • Churchill Insurance – victim blaming
  • Premier Icon Cougar
    Subscriber

    You still seem to be missing the point that we’re allocating blame for something which happened rather than suggesting sensible safety precautions, mr moderator.

    We seem to be having two parallel discussions, actually.

    (I’m not sure how my status as a moderator has any bearing on anything, I’m still a forum user and speaking in that capacity.)

    Because running red lights is against the law? What are your thoughts on raping someone who is stabbing a person at the time? Jesus wept. 🙄

    Junkyard
    Member

    Should folk be forced to wear hi viz to walk along a road in the dark?

    Of course not only every other thing on the road should take some sort of reasonable precuation to make themselves visible and seen but you should dress like a stealth ninja because you

    have a fundamental right not be be hit by a car.

    and nothing you do will mitigate the likelyhood of this happening
    FACT

    Premier Icon Cougar
    Subscriber

    Because running red lights is against the law?

    And why would that be, do you think? Seems like a pointless law in light of this Divine Right Of Cyclists we’ve just established.

    What are your thoughts on raping someone who is stabbing a person at the time?

    My initial thoughts are “what a bloody bizarre and nonsensical question”, could you expand a little perhaps?

    bwaarp
    Member

    1) i highly doubt a high viz jacket would have helped in this instance, she was clipped whilst walking on the verge on a narrow winding country lane. The kind where the bends in the road hardly give you any time to react.

    2) She’s a minor, so unless people want to apply the same responsibilities to minors as they do adults…I can’t see the justification in denying her the money that she will need to lead a decent quality of life. That’s what insurance is there for.

    If everyone wears hi-viz don’t drivers become immured to noticing it?

    It’s against the law for the safety of the people who might get hurt, and for traffic flow reasons – probably. What does that have to do with “Divine Rights of Cyclists”? Even when a cyclist is running a red light, nobody has a right to hit them with a car. Car driver might have no option but to hit them, but if it was proven that the driver took no evasive action when there way the opportunity to do so, the would be prosecuted.

    As for the raping someone who is stabbing someone – it doesn’t matter what the stabber is doing at the time – rape is still rape.

    Junkyard
    Member

    My kids need to use lights on their bikes at night – no distinction for them being young

    {quote]Even when a cyclist is running a red light, nobodyour be has a right to hit them with a car.[/quopte]

    Has anyone argued this?
    The point is your behaviour will affect the risks and dangers when on a shared use road

    Its not even a contentious issue its is blindingly obvious that this is the case

    is it her fault NO
    Could she have done somethign to mitigate it/reduce the risk – YES
    Could the driver – YES
    Who is to blame – the driver

    bwaarp
    Member

    My kids need to use lights on their bikes at night – no distinction for them being young

    I don’t believe there is a law stating you need to wear a high viz jacket at night on roads.

    Bicycles are kind of classed as vehicles I believe and need to have lights.

    Premier Icon Cougar
    Subscriber

    1) i highly doubt a high viz jacket would have helped in this instance, she was clipped whilst walking on the verge on a narrow winding country lane. The kind where the bends in the road hardly give you any time to react.

    Speculation? Unless you’ve looked into the accident spot.

    2) She’s a minor, so unless people want to apply the same responsibilities to minors as they do adults…I can’t see the justification in denying her the money that she will need to lead a decent quality of life. That’s what insurance is there for.

    Agreed 100%.

    Premier Icon Cougar
    Subscriber

    I don’t believe there is a law stating you need to wear a high viz jacket at night on roads.

    Do you only do things when the law tells you to? There’s no law on helmets either.

    bwaarp
    Member

    Do you only do things when the law tells you to? There’s no law on helmets either.

    Besides the point, if there’s no law requiring high viz jacket use then how is she liable? If she wasn’t breaking any laws whilst the driver was then legally none of you have a leg to stand on I’m guessing.

    Speculation? Unless you’ve looked into the accident spot.

    Oh I’m sorry, I’d failed to notice that most of those putting blame on the girl in this thread were speculating as well.

    Junkyard
    Member

    I don’t believe there is a law stating you need to wear a high viz jacket at night on roads.

    She’s a minor, so unless people want to apply the same responsibilities to minors as they do adults

    Was it not obvious which part of your two parter i was answering

    My kids need to use lights on their bikes at night – no distinction for them being young

    The law does not always make a distinction based on age was the [ rather obvious IMHO] point i was making

    mogrim
    Member

    I don’t believe there is a law stating you need to wear a high viz jacket at night on roads.

    General guidance suggests that reflective clothing and walking facing the traffic is a good idea.

    (Though I fully agree that as a minor she’s not legally responsible, and the insurance should pay up in full without complaint.)

    Premier Icon Cougar
    Subscriber

    It’s against the law for the safety of the people who might get hurt, and for traffic flow reasons – probably. What does that have to do with “Divine Rights of Cyclists”? Even when a cyclist is running a red light, nobody has a right to hit them with a car.

    Nobody is exercising a right to hit someone with a car. (Well, for the purposes of this discussion, anyway; I’m sure there’s a psycho or two out there, but that’s not we’re talking about.)

    As for the raping someone who is stabbing someone – it doesn’t matter what the stabber is doing at the time – rape is still rape.

    I’m still not following what you’re getting at here, sorry. Unless you’re trying to melodramatically agree with me.

    Premier Icon psling
    Subscriber

    Almost no one goes slow enough to stop within their clear line of vision, in a motor vehicle or on a bike. Who can genuinely say that they never go above 40mph (or whatever it is) in a car on a country lane at night? Who always leaves the correct stopping distance from the car in front? Who never goes above 10mph going down a nice dry twisty bridlepath in case there is a walker round the next hedge hidden bend?

    Well, I can (these days). It really p155es most people off. And therein lies the problem in today’s car-is-an-inalienable-right-above-all-else and time-is-of-the-essence society.

    Having said that, I (and my offspring) always think to not wear dark clothes out at night on our local (dark rural) roads. I’m well hard but 1 1/2 tonne of metal car is well-harder still…

    bwaarp
    Member

    I think some of you are heartless bastards and I sincerely hope that by contesting this, Churchill will lose customers.

    General guidance suggests that reflective clothing and walking facing the traffic is a good idea.

    Agreed but it’s still not law like the use of bicycle lights are, I won’t get stopped and fined like I would by the police for cycling through Oxford with no lights.

    So given that I think it’s pretty insane that Churchill are pursuing this given the bad publicity it’s going to get them.

    Nobody is exercising a right to hit someone with a car.

    There seems to be a quasi right to hit someone with a car given the lenient sentences that car drivers receive. If higher standards of driving were enforced there would be no issue with people not wearing hi viz clothing.

    xiphon
    Member

    Some responsibility lies with the victim in this story.

    A bit of common sense would have prevented her from being injured.

    In the same way a female celebrity (can’t remember her name) recently said there would be less rape victims, if the girls didn’t put themselves in that situation to start with (on their own, late a night, drunk as a skunk, walking across a park with no lighting – duuuuuurrr!!).

    But it’s all too easy to pass the blame onto someone else…

    (FWIW my wife refuses to be alone in the house with workmen like gas inspectors, decorators, etc – I always have to be home – who knows what history they might have? Sad times… )

    bwaarp
    Member

    The law does not always make a distinction based on age was the [ rather obvious IMHO] point i was making

    Also, if your children ran some old granny over on their bicycles whilst riding with no lights….I don’t think they would be held to the same degree of responsibility as an adult in a youth court.

    Also, I think it’s utterly reprehensible that 10 year olds can be tried (except in extreme cases) can be tried in youth courts to begin with.

    In the same way a female celebrity (can’t remember her name) recently said there would be less rape victims, if the girls didn’t put themselves in that situation to start with (on their own, late a night, drunk as a skunk, walking across a park with no lighting – duuuuuurrr!!).

    Oh so it’s a woman’s fault a man raped her because she looked appealing. Go back to the cave you came from.

    Premier Icon Cougar
    Subscriber

    If she wasn’t breaking any laws whilst the driver was then legally none of you have a leg to stand on I’m guessing.

    What law was the driver breaking?

    I think some of you are heartless bastards and I sincerely hope that by contesting this, Churchill will lose customers.

    Just so we’re clear (again); I’m not suggesting that the insurance shouldn’t be paying out. We can’t expect a minor to make the same critical decisions that we’d expect from an adult.

    I’m talking about general road safety on shared use roads. What I’m getting at is that I don’t believe blame should automatically be weighted towards one type of road user solely because they’re bigger than another. Perhaps the use of the word ‘victim’ in relation to collisions between disparate vehicles is emotionally loaded and misleading? It’s the responsibility of everyone who uses the roads to try and minimise risk. That’s all.

    A friend of mine committed suicide a few years ago(*). He walked in front of a truck on the M66. Who’s fault was it? Moreover, who was the victim?

    (* – this is true, incidentally; not the kind of thing I’d make up.)

    bwaarp
    Member

    A friend of mine committed suicide a few years ago(*). He walked in front of a truck on the M66. Who’s fault was it? Moreover, who was the victim?

    There’s a big difference here which I’m surprised you can’t see….your mate knowingly walked in front of a lorry…

    At the end of the day insurance pays out if you crash a million pound Mclaren F1 into a tree – despite the accident being your fault. What’s the problem here again?

    It’s the responsibility of everyone who uses the roads to try and minimise risk. That’s all.

    And why should we punish a girl further for her part in this by denying her insurance money, when she’s already paid a high enough lesson by being permanently brain damaged?

    xiphon
    Member

    Tomas wrote:

    Oh so it’s a woman’s fault a man raped her because she looked appealing. Go back to the cave you came from.

    No, but knowing such monsters exist in this world, why put yourself in that situation?

    Is it a good idea, being a young female, smashed off my face on booze, to walk across this empty city park with no street lighting and nobody around to hear me scream if I get attacked (however unlikely it might be) at 3am on a Saturday night?”

    “Perhaps sharing a cab with a friend, even if it cost a few pounds, would have been a sensible choice.”

    Hmmmm… let me think about that for a second.

    bwaarp
    Member

    No, but knowing such monsters exist in this world, why put yourself in that situation?

    “Is it a good idea, being a young female, smashed off my face on booze, to walk across this empty city park with no street lighting and nobody around to hear me scream if I get attacked (however unlikely it might be) at 3am on a Saturday night?”

    Hmmmm… let me think about that for a second.

    But at the end of the day it’s men that are the problem and rapists should be held fully accountable for their actions and sentenced for being the dogs they are.

    xiphon
    Member

    But at the end of the day it’s men that are the problem and rapists should be held fully accountable for their actions and sentenced for being the dogs they are.

    Maybe so, but a little common sense will go a long way to reducing the victim count (and reducing the victim count to zero is the idea).

    bwaarp
    Member

    Maybe so, but a little common sense will go a long way to reducing the victim count (and reducing the victim count to zero is the idea).

    I agree with that but the actions of the girl make the rapist criminally… no less responsible.

    Premier Icon Cougar
    Subscriber

    There’s a big difference here which I’m surprised you can’t see….your mate knowingly walked in front of a lorry…

    Yes, that’s my point; so, what happened to his right not to be hit?

    And why should we punish a girl further for her part in this by denying her insurance money, when she’s already paid a high enough lesson by being permanently brain damaged?

    It’s generally a good idea to read all of a post before you reply to it.

    bwaarp
    Member

    Yes, that’s my point; so, what happened to his right not to be hit?

    Intent

    phil.w
    Member

    A bit of common sense would have prevented her from being injured.

    No, a bit of common sense would have reduced her risk of being injured. There is no way of knowing that it would have prevented the accident.

    xiphon
    Member

    Phil wrote:

    No, a bit of common sense would have reduced her risk of being injured. There is no way of knowing that it would have prevented the accident.

    Agreed – reduced, not prevented

    Premier Icon Cougar
    Subscriber

    a little common sense will go a long way to reducing the victim count

    A woman has a right not to be raped. In a (clear cut) case of rape, the rapist is to blame. Always. They’ve committed a rather nasty, violent crime, and the victim cannot, should not be blamed for this. This is a right.

    However, in the real world, bad men commit crimes. Therefore, it would be sensible for people to try and reduce risks. If I can switch to a less emotive example; I have a right not to be robbed, but I wouldn’t leave my phone on a table while I went to the bar, or walk through rough neighbourhoods at night with a laptop on display. Critically, *this is not about blame*. If someone did rob me, it’s not my fault, I didn’t deserve it, I am a victim of crime. The attacker couldn’t legitimately argue that it was my own fault for having expensive items on display. I could, however, perhaps have mitigated some of the risk.

    Compare and contrast with a road accident. People involved aren’t (generally) victims of crime, even if someone not in a big metal box typically comes off considerably worse. There may well be blame, there may or may not be law breaking (driving without due care, running a red light, whatever), but you can’t just blanket assume the largest vehicle is at fault in the same way that you can in the case of personal crime. They’re different situations and not directly comparable.

    xiphon
    Member

    Cougar speaks the truth….

    The “phone on a pub table” example is good.

    Premier Icon psling
    Subscriber

    The “phone on a pub table” example is good.

    Yeah, but if the phone was switched off and therefore not illuminated it would be less likely to be seen and subsequently nicked…

    IGMC 😕

    Premier Icon Cougar
    Subscriber

    But more likely to be knocked off the table.

    Premier Icon psling
    Subscriber
    bwaarp
    Member

    Compare and contrast with a road accident. People involved aren’t (generally) victims of crime, even if someone not in a big metal box typically comes off considerably worse. There may well be blame, there may or may not be law breaking (driving without due care, running a red light, whatever), but you can’t just blanket assume the largest vehicle is at fault in the same way that you can in the case of personal crime. They’re different situations and not directly comparable.

    That isn’t what’s going on here though, the courts do not blanket assume that the driver is at fault. As has already been stated and I’m sure has been done to death in the courts, wearing a high visibility jacket would have not mitigated the risk entirely and therefore cannot be a reason for denying her the insurance payout. The degree to which a high viz jacket would have mitigated her risk is at best a guess – guesses and court aren’t the best of friends. Even walking into traffic can in many circumstances fail to negate a lot of the risk of walking on the road, if you have very little time to react once you’ve seen an oncoming car.

    You made a very long statement saying nothing of any real value about the issue at hand. The equivalent analogy to your phone example would be playing chicken with articulated lorries on the M1.

    Premier Icon psling
    Subscriber

    None of the analogies in this thread are relevant to the case referred to. The court has already ruled on blame. What is happening now is that the Insurers are seeking to reduce the amount they pay out and to delay that payout for as long as they can.
    The girl is disabled and in need of 24/7 care, the driver is probably finding it difficult to live with the consequences of that night. Meanwhile, the insurance company are going to drag it out for as long as they can…

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    you can’t just blanket assume the largest vehicle is at fault

    When the largest vehicle runs into the other party you can. I don’t believe there is any suggestion that the girl in this case walked into the car.

    The court has already ruled on blame.

    Yes, but the insurers have taken it to appeal (hence the current judgement isn’t necessarily valid) and are busy trying to argue the same as some people on this thread, that the girl could have helped to prevent the incident by not walking across the empty city park late at night wearing hi-viz.

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    But at the end of the day it’s men cars that are the problem and rapists drivers should be held fully accountable for their actions

    the actions of the girl make the rapist driver… no less responsible.

    Premier Icon Cougar
    Subscriber

    But at the end of the day it’s men cars people that are the problem and rapists drivers adults should be held fully accountable for their actions

    Fun game.

    the insurers have taken it to appeal (hence the current judgement isn’t necessarily valid) and are busy trying to argue the same as some people on this thread, that the girl could have helped to prevent the incident

    She almost certainly could have helped prevent the incident. Are you suggesting she couldn’t? If she’d been able to hear the vehicle or be more clearly seen, the accident might well have been avoided. Without knowing more detail, it’s hard to say for sure.

    However, as I’ve said several times now, that doesn’t mean she’s in any way to blame for the accident.

    I’m going to bow out here I think. A few folk are either still misunderstanding me or aren’t reading what’s being discussed, and there’s only so many times I can rephrase the same thing.

    I have only a little sympathy for the driver. But clearly the driver did not anticipate anyone being there; probably driven down that road in that manner hundreds of times without incident. Not evil, just human nature.

    My friend did something similar, colliding with someone changing a wheel in the bottom of a hidden dip; nothing indicates mate was speeding, just did not anticipate a car and a man stationary in the road at that point. The man lost a foot 🙁 Mate took the brunt of the blame (fair enough) but the stupidity of the victim was taken into account (I forget how it was years ago)

    xiphon
    Member

    Being “blamed for the accident” is being confused with “could have taken steps to avoid the accident in the first place”

    bwaarp
    Member

    he almost certainly could have helped prevent the incident. Are you suggesting she couldn’t? If she’d been able to hear the vehicle or be more clearly seen, the accident might well have been avoided.

    When deciding on whether to give needed compensation to a crippled girl, you can’t really be dealing in guesstimates when deciding whether to give her the money or not. There’s a chance that she might have been able to prevent the crash, then again theres a chance she could not have….you have to side with the latter.

    Being “blamed for the accident” is being confused with “could have taken steps to avoid the accident in the first place”

    Why is “could have taken steps to avoid the accident in the first place” even being discussed then. Surely she’s been punished enough by being crippled.

    xiphon
    Member

    If the girl was deaf, as opposed to wearing headphones listening to music, it would be an entirely different matter.

    But then again, knowing she was deaf, she probably would have taken steps to compensate for the lack of aural awareness….. like wearing a hi-vis jacket perhaps?

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    Being “blamed for the accident” is being confused with “could have taken steps to avoid the accident in the first place”

    Indeed – and with whether her actions amount to contributory negligence, which is the only thing that’s actually worth discussing. I don’t think anybody disagrees that the most sensible thing to do is to make yourself as visible as possible, so any discussion on here other than whether she should be held partially legally responsible is just confusing the issue and results in “A few folk are either still misunderstanding me or aren’t reading what’s being discussed, and there’s only so many times I can rephrase the same thing.”

Viewing 45 posts - 46 through 90 (of 94 total)

The topic ‘Churchill Insurance – victim blaming’ is closed to new replies.