OT how do they sleep at night?

[paulfitzs]

A nine year old boy, Darren Coombes, was cycling in a bus layby and was hit by a car. He suffered severe brain damage and his parents are seeking compensation from the driver. The driver's insurance company are apparently countersuing Darren's parents for negligence. They claim the parents were negligent allowing him to a)cycle, b) not wear a helmet, what an outrage.

See case at http://www.ctc.org.uk/ and add your comments.

If you are about to renew car insurance you might like to know who these scoundrels are so you can avoid them.

If you agree with the insurers just remember, if a car mounts the pavement and hits you they would claim it was down to your negligence not standing further from the edge. Presumably they would also claim the parents at Dunblane should have supplied bullet proof vests.

[Mebe]

I know this sounds really bad but I think counter claims are standard legal practice, if they dont counter claim then it makes their defence harder.

The web site talks about moral responsibility on behalf of the insurers but omits to discuss the fact that the insurers have a moral responsibility to their client (the driver) and to their shareholders and employees to mount the strongest defence possible.

Also, there *are* possible grounds for negligence... 8 years old could be viewed as quite young to be riding a bike on the road (depending on time of day, location and behaviour etc).

At the end of the day, if the police don't reckon there is a case to answer then what grounds have the parents to sue for negligence (negligence is equivalent to driving without due care and attention)

Shame about the kid though :(

[Mebe]

Oh, and the bit about helmets... I have to wear one on my motorbike. I'd also have to wear one on a 30mph moped which aint much different to the speed a bike can achieve downhill.

Maybe cyclists *should* have to wear helmets?

[Luke Warmwater]

My little one was never allowed on the roads at age 8, and even now (age 10) is not allowed out of the street on her own (its a quiet cul-de-sac).

If we do go out on the bikes, its helmets for everyone. They may look stupid, but rather look stupid and live, and than look cool and die.
:)

The actions of the insurance company do look sick and harsh from a subjective point of view, but its an emotive issue. The insurance company must fight for its client, in the same way that a child rapist / murderer has the right to a legal defence, who must fight their case for them. Without the details of the case, there is of course the possibility that the driver may be blameless...


[Edited by Luke Warmwater on 07-02-2001 at 09:04 AM]

[ReKKa]

We don't know all the details.
How old was he?

Maybe he should of been wearing a helmet.

[paulfitzs]

I wear a helmet cycling to work so am not anti helmet. The point is I have a right not to wear one, if I see fit, which the law currently supports. Legally I have not contributed to an accident by exercising that right. I do not wear a helmet leisure cycling in the countryside at the weekend. I defy anyone to do 140 miles in one day in August wearing a helmet. The statistics show cyclists (including children) are among the safest of road users, to blame in only about 30% of cases. Enforcing helmets detracts attention from the root cause of cycling accidents. Practicable cycling helmets are of much more limited effectiveness than motor cycle helmets so will never give anywhere near the same protection.

I have seen many 9 year old cyclists who are much safer road users than a lot of adult drivers. For example how many drunk 9 year old cyclists or speed violaters are there?

I expect the insurance company to fight their corner to the best of their ability but in this case feel they went too far. Quite rightly it is no longer admissable for the defence in a rape case to claim "She was asking for it dressed like that, so is partly to blame". I think this is a fair analogy.

It is ironic that in 20 years time these same legal advisors will claim parents of 29 year old heart disease sufferers were negligent by driving them everywhere, NOT letting them cycle and causing therefore causing the heart disease.

Safe cycling chaps, thanks for indulging me on this one and taking the trouble to look into the case and respond.

[Pol]

Dodgy one!
I do think that the insurance company's action seems a bit questionable.
I can however, see their point. Basically, the parents are making a claim against the driver because they didn't make their child wear a helmet. It seems the child was riding in a bus layby which is supposedly a "safe haven" for cyclists. Personally I don't believe that any place which is frequented by buses can be considered a safe haven. The Police did not press charges which I assume to mean that the driver was not considered to be at fault.
I would have to seriously question a parent who lets an eight year old child cycle on a road.
I would also seriously question a parent who lets an eight year old on a bike without a helmet.

The question here is one of fault.
If the driver caused the accident then she(or her insurance company) should pay compensation.
If the driver was not at fault then the responsibility must lie with those who were responsible for the child ie parents or carers.

Its a very emotive issue. Unfortuantely in cases like this the facts are often obscured by moral outrage whether it is justifiable or not. I believe the CTC is wrong to mobilise public opinion in a case like this as adverse public opinion can often force a result which satisfies the outraged general public but is not actually just or fair. We have a sytem of justice in this country: we should let it work. Trial in the media is disgusting because the media's motive is not public service.

Personally, I wear a helmet and I make my son wear a helmet.
I can't think of a good reason not to wear one.
I wear a seatbelt when I drive and I wear a lifejacket when I sail so wearing a helmet when I cycle seems like a good idea.

[Sgt H0MER]

***UPDATE***Good news:)

Outraged cyclists led by CTC, the national cyclists’ organisations, have forced Provident Insurance plc to drop its threat to sue the parents and childminder of young cyclist and crash victim Darren Coombs. The company said the parents and Mrs Cole were negligent because Darren, then nine, was unsupervised and was not wearing a cycle helmet.

CTC Director Kevin Mayne said: "This is a important victory for cyclists and it is right that we have forced this insurance company to back down. Had Provident succeeded the precedent set by the case could have had implications not just for parents, teachers and childminders, but also for trainers, organisers and group leaders responsible for other cyclists."

http://www.ctc.org.uk/editorial_display.asp?edname=2593.htm&cont_id=17 for details.