hi viz versus insurance cover

I don't know about that, the lass wasn't even on a horse at the time of the accident. However it is a very interesting article, thanks for posting. Tbh I think wearing headphones and being totally oblivious of your surroundings is more of a problem, and that doesn't seem to have figured at all.
 
Crazy that the insurer's are trying to appeal. I could understand them trying to appeal if she was walking on the road but she was on the verge!
 
It's the connection Churchill has made between her being a horse rider and a walker - perhaps Churchill already have hi viz for riders in their policies ?

When I get time, I'll have a mooch.
 
I would have been more worried about the headphones. It'll get chucked out, the Daily Fail are just scaremongering again.
In the article her mother states that she only rides in a field so would not necessarily have any hivis at all.
 
"You must take proper care and keep in good condition all property covered by your policy and take all
reasonable precautions to prevent accidents, injury, illness, loss, theft and damage."


Found this under Petplan, who seem to underwrite Churchill insurance. I would say they could easily argue the case for hi-viz.

And it ain't just the Daily Fail who are following this ;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...al-against-teenager-hit-by-claimants-car.html
 
Last edited:
That's a company that will never get a penny of my money.
If they win on appeal every person on every high street in every town will have to wear hi viz when shopping to avoid the risk of it being there fault if hit by a car.
Awful company avoid them.
 
I have noticed that dog walkers around our way wear hi viz and carry torches which certainly didn't happen a few years ago. There does seem to be more awareness about being seen in poor visibility, thank goodness.

I just wish that kids walking to school in winter were made to wear the stuff, or at least reflective strips, particularly as the teenagers seem to be unable to stay on the pavements.

In this case, the girl was only 16, not visible and was wearing head phones which put her at risk. The motorist had to pull over to pass another car, but had he been going slower, he might have seen the girl sooner, although, I'm not sure he would have, although her injuries could have been less serious.

Bottom line is, she was young and didn't appreciate the risks. If there was legislation about wearing hi viz, the outcome might have been very different.
 
It's where you draw the line though - Horse riders have a responsibility to their horse as well as to themselves, and this could affect your policy.

But where on earth do you draw the line with walkers (and cyclists)...they can't imagine all walkers from now on have to wear hi vis ? But then, are walkers insured just for walking ?

Oh and on the headphones front - I know several riders who ride out with headphones on, no hi viz, two abreast and on a main A road. Why should my policy cost more because of these idiots ?
 
Shysmum said:
"You must take proper care and keep in good condition all property covered by your policy and take all
reasonable precautions to prevent accidents, injury, illness, loss, theft and damage."


Found this under Petplan, who seem to underwrite Churchill insurance. I would say they could easily argue the case for hi-viz.

And it ain't just the Daily Fail who are following this ;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...al-against-teenager-hit-by-claimants-car.html
Click to expand...

Very similar case last year involving a motorist and a cyclist who had no Hi Viz on. Of course it got thrown out, motorists are required to drive to the conditions the road dictates, at a sensible speed in order to avoid injuring other people. A reasonable person would not have been driving fast enough to drive into a pedestrian on the grass verge.

I feel the emphasis insurance companies put on Hi Viz is not completely balanced across the field, and if someone is doing 20 above the speed limit and driving in a way that allows them to hit a pedestrian on the verge, what protection would Hi Viz offer?
 
RunToEarth said:
I feel the emphasis insurance companies put on Hi Viz is not completely balanced across the field, and if someone is doing 20 above the speed limit and driving in a way that allows them to hit a pedestrian on the verge, what protection would Hi Viz offer?
Click to expand...

I think it's more that you take every precaution to protect yourself and ensure you try your best to be seen in less than ideal conditions... You're right that it probably wouldn't have made any difference but the point is that we don't know for sure. No one coud say she would still have been hit if she'd been wearing hi vis or had lights on. Sad but true.

My policy has it written into the T&CS so I would not be covered if I wasn't wearing anything and got hit by a car. IMO it shoud be a legal requirement for all road users to wear hi vis at all times.
 
You are right RTE, however, in my mind I just think we all should walk about like Bertie Bassett "just in case" because you'll never beat the Great HSE Monster!!

Never mind horse-riders... I am still shocked how many cyclists don't wear hi-viz... I mean, it's not like there isn't a multi-million pound industry promoting flippin' fantastic hi-viz spandex and shoes and hi-tech sweats etc etc... http://www.wiggle.co.uk/clothing/

I was just thinking the other day about designing my own brand of Hi-Viz fashion... thought I might ask Gok Wan to help me take it to market?? what d'you guys think? :D:D
 
Last edited:
OMG that is totally disgusting. Shame on Churchill! The poor girl is permanently damaged because some guy drove onto a grass verge at 50mphand they are trying to say she is partly to blame. WTF is this world coming to?

Disgrace
 
The thing that concerned me in the article was the mother justifying not wearing Hi Viz because "she mainly rides in fields". It has taken me a long time to come around to the benefits of Hi Viz on the road, but when I lived with my parents I would have never left the farm without it if I was going through fields/up on to the moors, if I ever fell off Hi Viz would be the only way I could have been found.

What I find worrying about this case is that Churchill seem to be hankering on the fact that she is equine therefore should have known better - if she were a none equine pedesrtian would they have paid out £5m no questions asked?

I think Hi Viz has its place and is an extremely useful piece of kit, however I don't like the idea that riders think they are invincible because they are wearing Hi Viz though.
 
horserider said:
In this case, the girl was only 16, not visible and was wearing head phones which put her at risk. The motorist had to pull over to pass another car, but had he been going slower, he might have seen the girl sooner, although, I'm not sure he would have, although her injuries could have been less serious.
Click to expand...

There have been two accidents that I know of in my locality in the past. The first was a similar scenario, it was dark, the girl was walking down the edge of a narrow but busy country road frequented by big vehicles to a vegetable factory in the fens, and a lad in a car coming from behind her moved over whilst still moving to allow a lorry to take priority. He hit and killed the walker, he didn't see her in dark clothing whilst concentrating on the oncoming headlights of the lorry.
Secondly a teenage girl wearing headphones got off a bus in a lay by on a busy 'A' road across the road from our house, coming home from college, she walked around the front of the bus and out into the road and was immediately hit by an articulated lorry doing 43 mph, and was carried quite some distance up the road by the back wheels of the lorry and ended up pretty much outside the front of her house. My brother was the attending police officer.
 
Leg_end said:
I think it's more that you take every precaution to protect yourself and ensure you try your best to be seen in less than ideal conditions... You're right that it probably wouldn't have made any difference but the point is that we don't know for sure. No one coud say she would still have been hit if she'd been wearing hi vis or had lights on. Sad but true.

My policy has it written into the T&CS so I would not be covered if I wasn't wearing anything and got hit by a car. IMO it shoud be a legal requirement for all road users to wear hi vis at all times.
Click to expand...

Do you really think that ever time someone say pops out of the office to buy a sandwich and crosses the road to greggs they have to don the HIviz.
 
PandorasJar said:
I thought lots had it as part of the policy anyway.

I always check on what viz and what tack is necessary to comply. (ie headcollar/saddle)
Click to expand...

Sorry skimmed at work and didn't take in actual facts.

That's a ridiculous claim and can't believe Churchill are actually using it. Who cares what her personal life entails - that has absolutely nothing to do with the accident.

Yes, it was stupid walking a dark, winding, narrow lane with headphones in. No I don't agree with people saying that a car shouldn't be on a verge - we have no way of knowing what the verge is. Around our lanes you drive on the 'verge' around all corners and most lanes, so wouldn't comment without actually seeing it.

50mph was too fast for the level of darkness - so it was dark enough for it to make a difference and someone was walking back with headphones in and not with hi-viz, can see why they'd push that.

However to claim that as a horsewoman she should be wearing hi-viz is absolutely ridiculous.

I actually agree that they should be paying out. Regardless of dark, headphones etc the car was going too fast to see her or stop in time. The headphones out may have got her out of the way or it may not have done as with hi-viz alerting him earlier. The fact remains he did hit her and her life has been changed for it. That is why we have insurance.

Again that being said the highway code says that
Help other road users to see you. Wear or carry something light-coloured, bright or fluorescent in poor daylight conditions. When it is dark, use reflective materials (e.g. armbands, sashes, waistcoats, jackets, footwear), which can be seen by drivers using headlights up to three times as far away as non-reflective materials.
Click to expand...
So again they are not dismissing the claim just that he was entirely to blame.

Yes they should pay out.
Yes it's a very murky area.
Yes this case (like the last one many years ago) will probably set a precedent which may or may not have an effect on insurance (I doubt it will)

I am very glad I'm not in the situation though as can see both sides and would not like to be in either's shoes. A split second in time has changed a lot of lives :(
 
Goldenstar said:
Do you really think that ever time someone say pops out of the office to buy a sandwich and crosses the road to greggs they have to don the HIviz.
Click to expand...

No, the highway code states in poor conditions and dark/night. Which I do agree with.

I don't think you need to viz up on a pavement in a town/lit area necessarily. But if you aren't going to I don't expect you to stick in headphones and cross a road blindly. I also think that if you've got kids out at night it's smart to stick light clothes/viz on them.

But walking down a country road, with no lighting or proper pavement in poor conditions is (whether the blame lands at your feet or not) not the smartest thing to do, and whether you win your compensation or not, I know I'd rather not have been mown down in the first place.
 
Having once swerved to avoid 2 twits in very dark clothing jumping out from behind a parked car on a lit, main road....... maybe we should all be wearing light colours / hivis.

Of course if we all did it then maybe it would just all be the same and no one would notice, we would just develop a blind spot for hivis?
 
Goldenstar said:
Do you really think that ever time someone say pops out of the office to buy a sandwich and crosses the road to greggs they have to don the HIviz.
Click to expand...

No, and I don't think you shoud need to wear it if you are walking on the pavement or during the day. However if it is dusk or dark and you aren't on a pavement or a well lit road then yes I do.
 
I also find it hard to believe Churchill are trying to get out of paying. I know the girl made some poor decisions about not waiting for a lift home, not borrowing a torch or wearing bright clothing, keeping her headphones on, BUT as everyone else has said, she was on the verge and the car was going too fast. At the end of the day she was only 13, most likely with a head full of ponies, boys, homework, boy-bands, horses, boys, food, boys, GCSE options, friends, boyfriends, ponies...of course she's going to find it hard to make sensible, practical, grown-up decisions, and as for Hi-vis, most 13 yr olds would not want to wear it unless a condition of hacking out their pony (it's hard to get children to wear "unfashionable" bike helmets for cycling too).
My heart goes out to her and her family having all this dragged up again, but hope common sense (of the courts) prevails.
 
I really wish that people would wear hi vis around here. Most of our roads are unlit and have a 90 km speed limit on them. The other night I almost ran over A runner who was dressed entirely in black and the only way I could determine him from the road was that the reflective tabs on the back of his shoes were bobbing up and down. Apart from the tabs he wore nothing reflective and nothing hi vis at all. Considering it was pitch black and on an unlit road it was really quite scary, as I really didn't see him until I was about 10 feet away from him.
 
A livery said to me recently that as a cyclist she always wears hi viz, but as a horse rider she doesn't - because the horse can move out of the way. :confused:
 
Hard to comment on the case as I don't know the area or lane involved, but there is a lane round here in the middle of which is a rural train station. I cringe whenever I see people walking on it. Adults in suits, on their way to or from work. There are no pavements and very little in the way of verges, either. I learnt to look out for one idiot who always wore black and walked along the lane when I was coming home from work. In those instances, I think they should be wearing reflectives. Even a leg band is better than nothing.

On the positive flip side, a little further along the lane is where the school bus stops and the last year or so I've noticed that the kids wear a hi-viz vest to walk to the stop and take it off when they get there. I want to shake the hands of their parents!
 
Churchill are not trying to get out of paying - they are asking for contributory negligance on the part of the girl to be taken into account. The percentage of negligance would then determine how much Churchill would have to pay. ie. was it 50% her fault that she got hit? Then Churchil would pay out 50% of the settlement (my husband deals with court cases of this type)

I drive on single track, unlit country lanes to get to my horse and it is unbelievable how many dog walkers/joggers etc do not wear reflective clothing although this has improved recently. If I hit someone who was doing absolutely nothing to make sure I could see them, then I would not expect to be held 100% responsible for the accident.

In this case, most of the issue is that she was only 13 years old when the accident happened. Can we expect children to make the correct decisions where their own safety is involved?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top