Insurance issues buckle bicycle scheme

[dublin32]

Now the Greens are annoying what with Eamon Ryan threatening international chaose if Ireland votes no and John Gormley bleating that it would set back the climate change agenda, only a year after a consistent Eurosceptic view and two months their party agreed to sit on the fence on Lisbon.

However, it has emerged that the plan to purchase bicylcles for staff in Eamon Ryan's Department has had a low take up because of ... insurance issues. While the state wastes millions on mileage and some people earn hefty top ups of mileage through their work, insurance is the curse of yet another worthy scheme.

If it is not sports development or community days it seems insurance is wielding its its baton to stop kids running in school yards and keep workers sedentary. It's not a no vote that will set back the green agenda but insurance. It is depressing! I have been at so many meeting where people are brought around the table and insurance becomes the reason why not to do things.
http://<br /> <a href="http://www.ga...dpress.com</a>

[CookieMonster]

Nonsense. Insurance doesn't stop children running in school yards. School Principals and Boards of Management stop children running in schoolyards for fear of parents claiming against their insurance should little Oisin or Sorcha fall on their face or graze their knee.

[L'Chaim]

Now the Greens are annoying what with Eamon Ryan threatening international chaose if Ireland votes no and John Gormley bleating that it would set back the climate change agenda, only a year after a consistent Eurosceptic view and two months their party agreed to sit on the fence on Lisbon.

However, it has emerged that the plan to purchase bicylcles for staff in Eamon Ryan's Department has had a low take up because of ... insurance issues. While the state wastes millions on mileage and some people earn hefty top ups of mileage through their work, insurance is the curse of yet another worthy scheme.

If it is not sports development or community days it seems insurance is wielding its its baton to stop kids running in school yards and keep workers sedentary. It's not a no vote that will set back the green agenda but insurance. It is depressing! I have been at so many meeting where people are brought around the table and insurance becomes the reason why not to do things.
http://www.garrettmullan.wordpress.com

Well that's what happens when people, at the sniff of an injury, will claim and get a payout. If a child falls in a playground or is injured playing sports, the chances are their opportunistic parents are going to sue somebody. When there's so many people thinking "claim" at the first sign of an injury, minor or imagined, then of course insurance costs are going to become an issue right across the board

[dublin32]

I can't see what insurance grounds an individual would have for sueing their employer if they fall off the bike bought by the employer. Insurance is not a requirement for cycling, so once the employee accepts the bike, they have responsibilty. I put this post further to an article in today's Sunday Mail.

http://www.garrettmullan.wordpress.com

[alonso]

take their fcking free parking off them and we'll see these "issues" disappear.

[rockyracoon]

The insurance industry is growing in Ireland and providing many job opportunities. The insurance industry needs the claims to come in order to justify its existence and continued growth. You could say the claimers and insurers are in a symbotic relationship. Legistlation has plenty to do with the structures as well. Once legistation restricted the Euro amount of certain claims that could be sought and an extra layer of evaluation put between the courts and claimants, the insurers were more readily able to predict the their risk and potential costs per claim while pricing their politicies at profitable levels. Of course the legal profession isn't doing to bad out of the deal either.

Anyone who has any property or position of responsibility will be paying some sort of insurance in the future. Not because the amount of claims against a single incident will be exhorbitant in the vast majority of cases but because the potential threat exists. Unsurprisingly the legal nicities of any given case are often vague and open to interpretation. If my neighbor's child falls into my garden off an adjoining wall and breaks their arm, who's responsible? I'd better get property insurance just in case. Blaming insurers or claimants doesn't solve the problem. A bit of common sense would go a long way to rectifying the situation but wouldn't be nearly as profitable.

[TheBear]

<Mod>Moved to the Dublin forum.</Mod>

[CookieMonster]

I can't see what insurance grounds an individual would have for sueing their employer if they fall off the bike bought by the employer.

Employers' Liability.

[CookieMonster]

The insurance industry is growing in Ireland and providing many job opportunities. The insurance industry needs the claims to come in order to justify its existence and continued growth.

Actually the insurance industry needs policy saled to justify its existence and continued growth. Claims are secondary to that. A single public liability claim against a business which does not have public liability insurance could bankrupt the business.

You could say the claimers and insurers are in a symbotic relationship.

Not so much, claimants will exist with or without insurers.

Legistlation has plenty to do with the structures as well. Once legistation restricted the Euro amount of certain claims that could be sought and an extra layer of evaluation put between the courts and claimants, the insurers were more readily able to predict the their risk and potential costs per claim while pricing their politicies at profitable levels. Of course the legal profession isn't doing to bad out of the deal either.

I'm not sure what you're talking about there.

Anyone who has any property or position of responsibility will be paying some sort of insurance in the future. Not because the amount of claims against a single incident will be exhorbitant in the vast majority of cases but because the potential threat exists.

Most SMEs would be put out of business by one mildly serious incident involving the public or one of their employees. They buy insurance in an effort to mitigate costs and manage risk when (not if) an incident happens.

Unsurprisingly the legal nicities of any given case are often vague and open to interpretation.

That's nonsense. First off the the contra proferentem doctrine would be applied by the courts, should it get that far. But even before that, where a question arises over the interpretation of policy wording (and it is impossible to cover every eventuality) policy will always be interpretat in favour of the insured.

If my neighbor's child falls into my garden off an adjoining wall and breaks their arm, who's responsible? I'd better get property insurance just in case. Blaming insurers or claimants doesn't solve the problem. A bit of common sense would go a long way to rectifying the situation but wouldn't be nearly as profitable.

Unless it was somehow shown that you were legally negligent or that you had acted in some way as to invite injury upon anybody who fell into your garden (take for instance the practice of putting broken glass on the tops of walls) then you could not in any way be found liable for the neighbor's child's injury. That's not to say that it won't stop the neighbor attempting to make a claim againt you.