RiderSite.com - Motorcycle Forums

I've just spent an hour or two helping the police with their enquiries.

Last October I called the police over a near miss I had on the way home. I nearly lost the front end on the approach to a local round about and then even knowing it was slippery , had the rear start to come round on me as I pulled out onto it.

When I got home I called in to try to get the police to take preventative action over it. Turns out they had a look but that evening there were several incidents involving both cars and bikes. The worst of which has a motorcylist now with lots of steel plates in his arms.

The police have identified that it was animal fat spilling from an improperly secured load. The haulier has been identified but their insurance company is not accepting liability for the accidents.

Slimy bstds.

Hopefully they will now have to.

Ps. The police officer seemed a nice young man. God I'm getting old.

The haulier is responsible for the insecure load me thinks
And they should be held liable

so the insurance company is stating they are not going to cough up as the haulier did not secure the load safely... so the haulier is liable....

Aladinsaneuk wrote:so the insurance company is stating they are not going to cough up as the haulier did not secure the load safely... so the haulier is liable....

..... and just try to get a business to comply with their legal obligations .......

As ever the insurance company are responsible for as little as they can possibly get away with .... which wouldn't be quite so bad if they were doing it in the interest of low premiums.

Aladinsaneuk wrote:so the insurance company is stating they are not going to cough up as the haulier did not secure the load safely... so the haulier is liable....

Pete you of all people should know this with the line of work you are in...
We has employed individuals have a legal obligation to make sure that things are right.
Insurance is there to cover the mistakes that are unforseeable..
Crashes and such forth.
I work for tarmac has you are aware, i have to do a pre start check on my ford transit EVERY morning before it even turns a wheel.
If i don't do my pre start checks then my manager has a legal obligation to make sure i fullfill my duties, ie the checks risk assesments permit to work etc.
If i do not abide by the rules then tarmac will take steps to make sure i do. usually with a quiet word and then a warning
An insecure load is not really some thing that should be missed in my opinion, and if mr plod was to pull the lorry over for inspection then the driver would be fined, points etc.
People now a days should make sure that every thing is right before setting off has i would not to like to have to claim for a lost loved one off an insurance company because a load has not been checked correctly ...
So my rule of thought is hit those responsible.
Just one last thing a couple of years ago a farmer left a field and a mounting on his cab broke and dropped severing a diesel pipe. You could see where he had stopped with the amount on the floor, did the tractor recovered? No he carried on
I rang the police and the council had to come and sort out the mess so.
I decided to follow the trail which was in dribs and drabs in places and at times was hard to follow.
I managed to find the farm and the tractor FIVE miles from the origional spill.
The farmer came out has his yard light came on and asked me what i was doing there and i explained.
His attitude was that he wanted to get the tractor back before it ran out of fuel. WTF
I explained about diesel spills and motorbikes and he didn't give a shit.
Then i pointed out the police had been notified, all of a sudden his attitude changed... Fear was the look on his face.
When i went home the council had the gritter out to try and soak up gallons of spilt fuel.
Now who covers the loss of my bike, leathers or even the loss of my life if i come off.
Insurance companys... Why?
The farmer should have to pay has i think so should the haulier from our first topic.
Then maybe people will check and do things right..
People don't have to die, vehicles don't have to be damaged. Insurances won't have to pay out and put my insurance costs up
Thats why my origional quote came to light. Hit those responsible

The problem is that if the insurance company won't pay because the insured person was negligent, the only recourse for the injured party - who could be someone whose life has been changed - is to sue the guilty party (which is the company the driver was working for as they employ him) - but a small company would probably not have the resources to pay the kind of damages needed if the injured person was paralised, for instance.

I would have thought that the company's public liability insurance would cover it if their vehicle insurance wouldn't.

Hi,

I think it's the haulier's insurance that's trying to avoid paying on the basis that not every one who drives over slimy stuff crashes. I'm not sure though.

HisNibbs wrote:Hi,

I think it's the haulier's insurance that's trying to avoid paying on the basis that not every one who drives over slimy stuff crashes. I'm not sure though.

Which, one would hope, is not as strong an argument as "some people do"

I don't think the councils get away with pot hole damage claims on the grounds that most people don't suffer them.

If the haulier is being prosecuted for an insecure load that should help - and if he's not, he should be!