Comments on: Group Riding, the Compensation Culture and PLI cover

By: Stuart

Stuart — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 19:19:31 +0000

I discovered recently that the motorcycle insurers have no current plans to recover any costs from the Ride Out Orgnanisers. This is good news for event organisers and PLI premiums, but it may lead to increased insurance premiums for GoldWing owners in due course, because the costs of this accident are sure to be high.

By: William Squires

William Squires — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:46:13 +0000

I was involved in the incident on the rideout, I certainly have no problems with either the photo or the comments passed,as far as I am aware from my insurers blame has been apportioned and my claim through my solicitor is proceeding.

By: Stuart

Stuart — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:12 +0000

GWOCGB may have provided their Insurer’s details since the initial refusal - and they would be compromising their cover if they did otherwise. It is inconceivable that their insurer, having been informed of any potential claim, would want to bury its head in the sand, even if GWOCGB did. However the point of this article wasn’t to expose what might be yet another skeleton in GWOCGB’s National Committee’s cupboard, rather to highlight the need for a preventative approach to the safety of group riding, including taking out appropriate PLI cover - and of course then complying properly with the insurer’s requirements so you don’t compromise it. As I understand it the rules of Sub Judice apply mainly to the criminal law and it has been stated by the Police that they have no intention of prosecuting in this case. And as you have pointed out I have carefully avoided expressing any view about who among the riders is blameworthy or whether GWOCGB was negligent in the way the ride was organised. All I have really done is state that there was a serious accident which involved a sequence of collisions and led to serious injuries - and, although I haven’t checked, similar information probably appeared in the local newspapers in South Yorkshire after this accident. And of course in GWOCGB’s own public statement. Mr Anonymous might like to compare the information I published with GWOCGB’s own internet statement and the discussion on Steve Saunders Forum, both of which gave more information, including names. It has also been mentioned on the AppyWanderers website. He does not seem to have complained about these.

By: Ian D

Ian D — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 00:37:50 +0000

From my own contact with some of the individuals involved, I can see nothing published which is either inaccurate or one-sided as Mr Anonymous suggests. There are no claims as to whom the author has spoken, neither is there any inference as to the cause or appropriation of blame for the accident. Whether or not a photograph, taken at a reasonably long distance and showing little detail, could be thought to compromise any further court proceedings may be debatable, but I would imagine would be of little consequence without detailed markings, measurements, etc.I am somewhat concerned as to the apparent delay in providing insurance information by GWOCGB (as confirmed by a reliable source) – why should this be? Surely, their priority is to assist in resolving the situation as speedily as possible in order to minimise the effects on their members?

By: Joe Traynor......AKA...Papajoe

Joe Traynor......AKA...Papajoe — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 22:51:59 +0000

Yep…….Come on Tonto take off the mask……..!!!!!

By: Mr Anonymous

Mr Anonymous — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 20:10:16 +0000

I have read your item regarding the incident at the Treffen this year, I feel that this is highly inappropriate on several counts.
I do not believe any photographs should be displayed and any that are should be removed.
You write as if you have spoken individually to all parties involved but this is not true.
You put details regarding the welfare of the individuals invovled that are inacurate.
You give partial details of the accident which is not necessary for the purpose of your artical, also the details that you do give appear extremely one sided.
You mention yourself that this incident may end up in court so surely the photograph and ALL details should be removed until the whole process has been completed. After all, this is an ongoing investigation within the legal system and should not be for public consumption/scrutiny.
I do believe that you will not allow this posting on your blog however with all the accident details removed the comments that you make throughout the remainder is quite interesting and informative.

Blogmaster: I respect your right to have an opinion and you have expressed it courteously, so I will publish it, even though you have taken elaborate steps to hide your identity, even from me – why? But I don’t agree with you. I think the limited information I have given is accurate and is an appropriate introduction to this subject. I have avoided being in any way judgemental. You are welcome to comment with more accurate information if you believe you have it but please identify yourself or at least declare your own interest.

By: Roy & Sue Jaggar ( France )

Roy & Sue Jaggar ( France ) — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 14:58:56 +0000

We enjoyed reading the information about PLI and compensation culture. FUKGWC sounds good to us as ex L & L members who became disenchanted with “those at the top”, NOT L&L. Good luck to the new independent club .