Government over reaction again, this time attack dog owners

[Dolph]

I don't think that's a very good way to use statistics.

According to this, 61 people per 100,000 are involved in road accidents.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=6062

Thats ~0.00061. Do you think that's a serious problem?

Road accidents? No, neither does the government, because if they were, road laws and road safety would be designed to reduce them, not ignore their causes in favour of popular misconceptions and revenue raising

As I said before, it will help achieve the objective of compensating those attacked. If deterrence is not a primary objective that it does not render a policy useless.

Compensation should come from those involved, not from those who are innocent. I support the idea of compensation, the approach to raising the cash is utterly indefensible in my eyes.

 

[Nitefly]

Road accidents? No, neither does the government, because if they were, road laws and road safety would be designed to reduce them, not ignore their causes in favour of popular misconceptions and revenue raising

That's not really answering the question. There obviously is a problem (with road accidents and dog attacks), but you can falsely make it look insignificant if you use statistics in the way that you just did.

Compensation should come from those involved, not from those who are innocent. I support the idea of compensation, the approach to raising the cash is utterly indefensible in my eyes.

You do realise in tort that if a claimant wins against a party with no money, there is no compensation whatsoever? And if we take the steps of saying that those 'who do not respect the laws' (as you allege) are likely to be thug types with no / little savings, do you advocate a 'tough luck' approach towards the innocent victims?

 

[mmj_uk]

Wouldn't it be easier and safer for everyone to bring in a law stating that all dogs must be muzzled when in public?

And the Winners are..... The Insurance companies.. Mmmm.. I wonder who is pushing for this.

Exactly, I'm sure Labour just secured some more campaign funding from them.

 

[Delvis]

Why? It's a lot of people's take on it. Why should they pay insurance when it'll cost them a small amount if they are stopped.

That's my point

The penalty should be worse, you are clearly breaking the law, it is advertised enough that you NEED car insurance to DRIVE a car.

It's their own fault, and its not due to stupidity

 

[InvaderGIR]

That's my point

The penalty should be worse, you are clearly breaking the law, it is advertised enough that you NEED car insurance to DRIVE a car.

It's their own fault, and its not due to stupidity

I thought you meant his comment, not the fines etc.

 

[Dolph]

That's not really answering the question. There obviously is a problem (with road accidents and dog attacks), but you can falsely make it look insignificant if you use statistics in the way that you just did.

It is answering the question. Clearly the government does not believe road accident reduction is necessary at the moment, because they are not following all their research that shows what they need to do in order to do it.

The key point in all this is that you cannot eliminate risk, and we should not be trying. I would not consider a 0.06% rate of issue a problem worthy of legislation, because legislation is not going to reduce it to 0%, and the legislation proposed is only going to put undue burden on those who aren't causing the problem. If they really feel it necessary to create a compensation fund, they should be honest and do it in the form of a ring fenced tax that's labelled as such. I'd suggest 'Tax to pay for the irresponsible' as the name

You do realise in tort that if a claimant wins against a party with no money, there is no compensation whatsoever? And if we take the steps of saying that those 'who do not respect the laws' (as you allege) are likely to be thug types with no / little savings, do you advocate a 'tough luck' approach towards the innocent victims?

As I said, the compensation aspect can be addressed seperately, but needs to be done honestly (this proposal is essentially a tax on dog owners, so should be marketed honestly as such). The issue I have with the law at the moment is that, as you say, there is frequently no compensation, but there is also no other form of enforced responsibility either, which means that the thugs effectively get away completely scott free to carry on their behaviour.

 

[Delvis]

Wouldn't it be easier and safer for everyone to bring in a law stating that all dogs must be muzzled when in public?

No, because thats borderline cruelty

I take my GF's dog out sometimes and if he were on a muzzle it'd just be cruel.

'Hey want to go for a walkie???'
With that thing on my mouth again? Nuh-uh

 

[Delvis]

You do realise in tort that if a claimant wins against a party with no money, there is no compensation whatsoever?

Exactly, this is the only time I can see this being 'useful'.

There should be a way to make the compensation from the other people, I bet half of them have houses or flats that they live in and no doubt get off the government anyway.

 

[Nitefly]

It is answering the question. Clearly the government does not believe road accident reduction is necessary at the moment, because they are not following all their research that shows what they need to do in order to do it.

The key point in all this is that you cannot eliminate risk, and we should not be trying. I would not consider a 0.06% rate of issue a problem worthy of legislation, because legislation is not going to reduce it to 0%, and the legislation proposed is only going to put undue burden on those who aren't causing the problem. If they really feel it necessary to create a compensation fund, they should be honest and do it in the form of a ring fenced tax that's labelled as such. I'd suggest 'Tax to pay for the irresponsible' as the name

The fact that you cannot eliminate risk is exactly why the compulsory insurance of cars exists. What I am interested in here is not road safety mechanisms, but car insurance. Surely you are not opposed to car insurance...? They really are very similar.

As I said, the compensation aspect can be addressed seperately, but needs to be done honestly (this proposal is essentially a tax on dog owners, so should be marketed honestly as such). The issue I have with the law at the moment is that, as you say, there is frequently no compensation, but there is also no other form of enforced responsibility either, which means that the thugs effectively get away completely scott free to carry on their behaviour.

Well, there would be a civil responsibility in that you would owe a duty of care to ensure than your pet does not harm another. What other form of 'enforced responsibility' would you propose?

 

[Delvis]

I thought you meant his comment, not the fines etc.

Tis cool

 

[Badboy2k3]

I support that law

 

[Dolph]

The fact that you cannot eliminate risk is exactly why the compulsory insurance of cars exists. What I am interested in here is not road safety mechanisms, but car insurance. Surely you are not opposed to car insurance...? They really are very similar.

That depends, under our current, weak system of enforcing responsibility for consequences, compulsory car insurance is a good idea, although of course it isn't enforced strictly enough to ensure we don't have people driving around uninsured.

The contributions to the MIB are somewhat more of a grey area, I would much rather they were levied on road or fuel tax than a contribution from insurance companies, because they are a tax and should be treated as such.

In the long term, reforming our weak enforcement of responsibility would be a better solution than trying to pass small bits of legislation for every failure of our current setup.

Well, there would be a civil responsibility in that you would owe a duty of care to ensure than your pet does not harm another. What other form of 'enforced responsibility' would you propose?

Paying the appropriate compensation, either directly or through a work program where the majority of your earnings go to pay off your debt perhaps? Removing the unnecessary and inappropriate use of means testing when determining damages for civil liability would be another important aspect. Would it cause hardship? Yes, that's the point, to create a system where you can't shirk responsibility for the consequences of your actions.

 

[Rich_L]

Well at least you're being honest now regarding indentured service for debtors

Also you may not know this, but the MIB are wholly entitled to recover any money they pay out from the Uninsured Driver - by agreeing to be compensated by the MIB the Claimant assigns its rights of action against the Defendant to the MIB.

Practically of course, they realise that throwing good money after bad is a rather pointless economic exercise and so don't do it - but that option has always been available.

From an MIB agreement:

1. The Claimant will accept a payment to be agreed or ordered (after deduction of the excess of £300 applicable to claims for damage to property). Save as provided in paragraph 5 hereof this payment will be made and accepted in full and final satisfaction of all claims whatsoever which the Claimant may have or acquire against MIB in respect of the damage to property and/or bodily injury caused by or arising out of the accident and any obligation to satisfy any judgment obtained in respect thereof.

Insofar as the payment received is an interim payment on account, this assignment shall only operate as fully effective either once the full and final settlement/award is agreed/ordered or the claim is not pursued further such that the interim payment stands as the final award.

ASSIGNMENT

2.1 Subject to receipt of the aforementioned payment in full and final settlement, this assignment ceases to be conditional and becomes fully effective such that the Claimant assigns to the MIB absolutely, all rights of action (other than in contract) of the Claimant against the Defendant, or any other person who may be discovered to have a liability, in respect of the damage to property and/or bodily injury caused by or arising out of the accident.

2.2 Accordingly the MIB shall be free, but not obliged to make claims and take legal proceedings in its own name against the Defendant or other persons referred to in 2.1 above. The costs of such claims or legal proceedings shall be borne by the MIB.

 

[Nitefly]

That depends, under our current, weak system of enforcing responsibility for consequences, compulsory car insurance is a good idea, although of course it isn't enforced strictly enough to ensure we don't have people driving around uninsured.

The contributions to the MIB are somewhat more of a grey area, I would much rather they were levied on road or fuel tax than a contribution from insurance companies, because they are a tax and should be treated as such.

We are heading a bit off topic here, but surely it's good to have it through companies with shares rather than burdening insurance payouts on the state?

Paying the appropriate compensation, either directly or through a work program where the majority of your earnings go to pay off your debt perhaps? Removing the unnecessary and inappropriate use of means testing when determining damages for civil liability would be another important aspect. Would it cause hardship? Yes, that's the point, to create a system where you can't shirk responsibility for the consequences of your actions.

I'm sorry but that's very wacky and unrealistic. That will never happen.

Also you may not know this, but the MIB are wholly entitled to recover any money they pay out from the Uninsured Driver - by agreeing to be compensated by the MIB the Claimant assigns its rights of action against the Defendant to the MIB.

They are, but an employer is also entitled to sue to employee for losses caused by vicarious liability... they are very unlikely to do so.

 

[Dolph]

Well at least you're being honest now regarding indentured service for debtors

Are you advocating that people should not be responsible for the consequences of their actions unless they are wealthy? Seems very unfair and unequal to me.

Also you may not know this, but the MIB are wholly entitled to recover any money they pay out from the Uninsured Driver - by agreeing to be compensated by the MIB the Claimant assigns its rights of action against the Defendant to the MIB.

Practically of course, they realise that throwing good money after bad is a rather pointless economic exercise and so don't do it - but that option has always been available.

From an MIB agreement:

But that could be much improved through reforming the toothless courts, as could many other areas of law.

 

[Dolph]

We are heading a bit off topic here, but surely it's good to have it through companies with shares rather than burdening insurance payouts on the state?

I'm talking about the collection, rather than the administration. Any govermnent mandated additional payment is a tax, and so should be termed as such, irrespective of who manages it.

I'm sorry but that's very wacky and unrealistic. That will never happen.

What would be your suggestion for reform to ensure equal responsibility for actions irrespective of wealth and adequate compensation for the victim? I'm not too keen on the idea of indebted servitude if there is another alternative, so suggest away.

 

[Nitefly]

What would be your suggestion for reform to ensure equal responsibility for actions irrespective of wealth and adequate compensation for the victim? I'm not too keen on the idea of indebted servitude if there is another alternative, so suggest away.

Fortunately, this isn't a problem for me because I do not share your fundamental disagreements with how the law operates

 

[Yamahahahahaha]

I do not support this. It doesn't go far enough.
From my own very recent experience, this new law wouldn't have helped one jot.

I was with a friend and her Jack Russell in a park last week.
A mastiff came out from the bushes and started running for the dog. I went to get between the two but the mastiff certainly wasn't playing.
It got the Jack Russell and shook it furiously before chucking it away.

The two lovely* gentlemen walking the dog simply said "It's not our dog", but proceeded to walk off with it. There was nothing to be done, the police were useless ****s as always.
Another dog walker took my friend and the pup to the vets. She had a punctured lung, and was bleeding profusely. She's still not out.


Now, at what point would insurance have stopped any of these events?

Licenses for 'big dogs', anything over say a spaniel / sheepdog (not old english), mandatory dog training lessons and muzzling at all times in public places for large dogs.
Fair enough if you want to own a big dog, but appreciate it is a ****ing dangerous animal.

It could so very easily have been a child.



* or ****ing **** scumbag ****s

 

[Cosimo]

I support that law

Aren’t you barking up the wrong tree?

 

[Dolph]

Fortunately, this isn't a problem for me because I do not share your fundamental disagreements with how the law operates

Does that mean you think that it is right that only the wealthy can currently be held responsible for the actions in a meaningful way at a civil level?