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

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...............

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 

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.

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

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. 

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.

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?

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.