Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Cyclists will suffer as a result of government whiplash crackdown says law firm

Insurers have “promised” to pass on savings to the nation’s drivers

Cyclists injured on the roads will find it harder to pursue compensation from drivers at fault as a result of proposals from the Ministry of Justice, according to solicitors at the Leigh Day law firm.

In last year’s autumn statement, then Chancellor George Osborne unveiled plans to raise the small claims for personal injury limit from £1,000 to £5,000.

The Government was last month reported to have dropped the proposals, with The All-Party Parliamentary Cycling Group welcoming the news. However, it seems that this was not the case with the proposed change appearing within a consultation document published earlier in the week.

Under the new proposals, injury claims of up to £5,000 would fall within the small claims process meaning solicitors would not be paid by the losing party for any work carried out on the claim.

The move is a bid to get tough on bogus whiplash claims, but Andrew Bradley, partner in Leigh Day’s personal injury team, pointed out that it would also have a negative impact on injured cyclists as many would be unlikely to obtain appropriate legal advice.

“Many cyclists will be aware of how painful a fractured clavicle can be, and the extent to which it can impact on their ability to enjoy cycling and many other aspects of day-to-day life. To suggest that someone with an injury of this nature should lose the entitlement to legal support because insurers feel that they are facing too many whiplash claims seems grossly unfair.”

The Ministry of Justice says the proposals will save motorists around £40 a year on insurance. Justice Secretary Elizabeth Truss said: “These reforms will crack down on minor, exaggerated and fraudulent claims. Insurers have promised to put the cash saved back in the pockets of the country’s drivers.”

But Bradley said that without legislation there were no guarantees.

“In reality, shareholders of the major insurance companies will be the real beneficiaries of this policy, whilst cyclists and many thousands of others injured through no fault of their own will lose hundreds or thousands of pounds.”

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

11 comments

Avatar
bendertherobot | 7 years ago
0 likes

It's a weird one. We need a bad guy in these stories for people to get on side. I'm not sure, in relation to the war on the motorists, who that is. On the face of it your average car driver will nod in agreement at his, frankly, insignificant saving with little or no appreciation of what he's nodding about. The spectrum of injuries up to £5k is very wide and many of them are extremely debilitating. Now, of course lawyers will lose out, that's a good bad guy to get behind but the sheer numbers of people who won't now proceed with or be awarded their damges in line with established tort law is worrying. 

I wonder if the judiciary will play with quantum awards...............

Avatar
antigee | 7 years ago
0 likes

was recently at the physio' with youngest antigee who suffered some minor whiplash when in a friends car that was shunted (think the pizza took the main impact)  - talking around the subject he mentioned that the worse cases of whiplash that he sees are cyclists that get  hit from the rear - anecdotal but have no reason to disbelieve the guy 

Avatar
rliu | 7 years ago
0 likes

Very few cyclists suffer whiplash, seeing as it is an injury that is mainly brought about by the wearing of seatbelts in cars, which causes the back and neck to hyperflex and hypertense beyond its normal range of movement within a second, due to the force of something like a rear end shunt. This causes surrounding soft tissue injuries. Unfortunately cyclist injuries, even in minor collisions, can be broken brones and cuts.

Avatar
Lbdn123 | 7 years ago
0 likes

A fracture to the clavicle tends to exceed 5k in damages so the example in the article is a little misleading.

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet | 7 years ago
0 likes

Sadly car insurance is a necesarry evil. My brother lives in NZ and you don't have to bother over there but the problem is those with nothing to lose aren't bothered about courts. Apparently if you get hit by the insured you can take them to a civil court...and win....but they'll get away with paying you $1 a week forever. 

Avatar
balmybaldwin | 7 years ago
1 like

This is rubbish... be very wary the lawyers are the ones who lose the most from the new proposals, they will say anything to get people on side . In fact there will be no difference for cyclists (as cyclists don't claim for whiplash and have provable injuries) and it doesn't change the liability of drivers.

In fact what it means is that now its easier for cyclist to claim up to £5K as they can do this in small claims court rather than having to go to a higher court.

Avatar
FatBoyW | 7 years ago
0 likes

Or we will see lots of vigorous claims for in excess of 5k as probably the low claims are made due to companies paying straight out (cheaper than contesting). 

The law of unintended consequences?

Avatar
WillRod | 7 years ago
2 likes

The real issue is with motor insurance being compulsory.

It gives the insurers a captive market, therefore they can push up prices and blame it on whiplash claims. Of course if insurance wasn't compulsory then it would be like a war zone out there!

Regulations seem the only way forward, but certainly not worded like this! Most insurers try to pay out less than £5k for even serious injuries, which would of course mean they would end up in the small claims court, then there would be less solicitors willing to help, meaning the insurers get away without paying out. It will save them a lot more than £40 per policy, but they wouldn't pass on the savings would they.

Typical dodgy finance people, out to make a quick buck for themselves and the shareholders without really providing the service one would assume they offer.

Avatar
Bikebikebike replied to WillRod | 7 years ago
0 likes

WillRod wrote:

The real issue is with motor insurance being compulsory.

It gives the insurers a captive market, therefore they can push up prices and blame it on whiplash claims. Of course if insurance wasn't compulsory then it would be like a war zone out there!

Regulations seem the only way forward, but certainly not worded like this! Most insurers try to pay out less than £5k for even serious injuries, which would of course mean they would end up in the small claims court, then there would be less solicitors willing to help, meaning the insurers get away without paying out. It will save them a lot more than £40 per policy, but they wouldn't pass on the savings would they.

Typical dodgy finance people, out to make a quick buck for themselves and the shareholders without really providing the service one would assume they offer.

Bollocks. Motor insurance is extremely price sensitive and the competition between insurers is fierce. But I suppose we are in the post-truth age so you might as well continue with your bizarre conspiracy theories about a cabal of motor insurers fleecing the public. 

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to Bikebikebike | 7 years ago
0 likes
Bikebikebike wrote:

WillRod wrote:

The real issue is with motor insurance being compulsory.

It gives the insurers a captive market, therefore they can push up prices and blame it on whiplash claims. Of course if insurance wasn't compulsory then it would be like a war zone out there!

Regulations seem the only way forward, but certainly not worded like this! Most insurers try to pay out less than £5k for even serious injuries, which would of course mean they would end up in the small claims court, then there would be less solicitors willing to help, meaning the insurers get away without paying out. It will save them a lot more than £40 per policy, but they wouldn't pass on the savings would they.

Typical dodgy finance people, out to make a quick buck for themselves and the shareholders without really providing the service one would assume they offer.

Bollocks. Motor insurance is extremely price sensitive and the competition between insurers is fierce. But I suppose we are in the post-truth age so you might as well continue with your bizarre conspiracy theories about a cabal of motor insurers fleecing the public. 

Agree compare car insurance at 1.5% of the purchase price of a car to cycle insurance which seems to run closer to 10%. Puzzling to me as I know audis often destroy houses but no cycle has yet been recorded doing so.

Avatar
musicalmarc replied to Bikebikebike | 7 years ago
0 likes

Bikebikebike wrote:

WillRod wrote:

The real issue is with motor insurance being compulsory.

It gives the insurers a captive market, therefore they can push up prices and blame it on whiplash claims. 

Bollocks. Motor insurance is extremely price sensitive and the competition between insurers is fierce. But I suppose we are in the post-truth age so you might as well continue with your bizarre conspiracy theories about a cabal of motor insurers fleecing the public. 

they might be competitive when it comes to providing quotes for new customers but they blatantly inflate the cost of claims to get kickbacks from repair firms, lawyers etc.  ultimately the inflated costs are passed on to the motorist.

Latest Comments