DaveR

DJKQ, the point I was making is that there is a substantial difference between making a contractual claim (on your own insurance policy) and a tort claim (the negligence of another driver, paid for by his/her insurance), and insurance companies know that. In the latter case you are in a much stronger position, and should push hard for the full replacement cost and any expenses that you can evidence.

Just to be clear - if you are the victim of the negligence of another driver, that driver is liable for the loss that he/she causes. Compulsory third party liability insurance means that the insurers of that other driver pick up the tab. If that is the basis on which you are compensated, the particular terms of your own insurance policy are irrelevant. The damages payable if the car is a write-off should be the replacement cost, like-for-like. Have a look at auto trader, find a car that is as similar to yours as possible (make, model, age, mileage, spec), and the cost of buying that car is the figure you should be asking for.

If the other driver is insured, and it is accepted by his insurance co. that he was at fault (sounds likely) his insurance will pay under his third party liability cover. The extent of your claim against them is not dependent on the terms of your own insurance cover, so, for example, whether your policy includes a courtesy car or not shouldn't matter - it is a 'cost' to you of the other driver's negligence and you are entitled to recover it. Can I argue that I need enough compensation to buy a similar car, rather than accepting the 'list price'? Yes - that is the 'cost' to you. And do they take any account of the distress and inconvenience in the assessment?? No, but on the facts as you describe I would expect them to be quite keen to settle liability quickly, which might give you some room to haggle. Right now you need to inform your insurance company, giving them as much detail as possible. Get the details of the other car and driver and tell your insurers. I would expect the other driver's insurers to contact you soon.

"re murders i agree that the numbers are likely to be very low (thankfully) but in this extreme example i guess i'd be surprised if unaccompanied 5 and 8 year olds were not more at risk than those that are with adults" Me too - but I also wouldn't be surprised if the difference was between 0.000001% and 0.000002%, and if both those numbers were far smaller than the statistical risk associated with all sorts of things that parents let their kids do every day without thinking about it. I mentioned horse-riding before in part because of the notorious "ecstasy safer than horseriding' story that ultimately led to the resignation of half of the government's drugs advisors, which was a classic case of (statistical) reality vs perception. I think this thread, as it has developed, is about quite a few things, but fundamentally, surely, it's about at what point a parent's decision about how they raise their child is challenged by the state, and on what basis.

pk, I'm not going to trawl all the way back and post every example - here's one: Growlybear Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I can only > follow my own standards and conscience...but we live in a very different world today, > If these statistics are to be believed we actually live in a safer world: traffic deaths are lower than they ever have been (National Statistics, 15th April 2009) and child murders at the hand of strangers remain consistently low (National Statistics, 11th June 2009). So is it more dangerous, or has our perception of risk changed?" If the point you are making is where are the stats specifically for accompanied vs unaccompanied, fair enough, but that wasn't the point I was making. And in any event, when the occurrence you are talking about is exceptionally rare, e.g. child murders at the hands of strangers, the difference in likelihood between accompanied and unaccompanied kids is likely to be wafer thin in statistical terms.

Everywhere else is lifeless

"but where are there relevant stats here? - i haven't seen any that suggest that riding a bike to school at 5 accompanied by an 8 year old has any positive impact on anything (or that riding a bike at 5 accompanied by an adult has a negative impact) - so surely both 'sides' of the 'argument' are relying on their own 'common sense'?" there are lots of relevant stats/research, and quite a few references to them on this thread. They include the statistical risk of child abduction, absolute and relative risk of road trafic accidents (including comparing the idyllic 70s when most of us walked or cycled to school unaccompanied with the present), and research regarding the positive benefits of exercise and exposure to risk for children. The parents' statement suggests that they have considered the true risk as opposed to the perceived risk. I suspect that letting these kids ride to school like this for a year is no more risky than them going horse-riding once a week for a year. That doesn't mean that any individual decision to let kids ride horses it right or wrong, but is it relevant? If the 'common sense' answer is that riding is safe or safer, is it rational to ignore the stats?

Dionne Warwick

One interesting thing that has come out of this thread is that quite a number of people have said "don't give me statistics/research, I'll trust my own common sense". I must admit I generally read that as "don't give me facts, I'll trust my own prejudices/imagination/whatever", which I find a bit odd. I'm not for one minute saying that people should always defer to stats, but wouldn't you want to think about it, at least? It's hard to genuinely critically examine your own position on an issue (and even harder to conclude that it is completely irrational) but its worth a go, surely.

"And am I right in thinking Dave, you are a buy-to-let investor? I might be wrong but if I recall rightly that you are then of course you are never going to accept any kind of regulation on the return from your investment. It stands to reason. " No, you're wrong. I'm just a regular guy who likes to look at evidence before coming to conclusions. And tries to avoid ad hominem arguments wherever possible.

DJKQ, mean household income in Liverpool in 2008 was ?28,991. See here I'm not sure that your cousin is typical. The plural of anecdote is not 'data'. I'd be grateful if you could post those links again, because I must have missed them last time.

"The average private sector rent in all areas of the country is too high for 33% of those working" Still no reference for that stat, I notice. Have you read 'Bad Science'? I'd recommend it. On another thread (here) I posted a link to some real stats about the affordability of rented property, which you (DJKQ) rubbished on the basis that the authors had (quite properly) put in caveats about the difficulties of obtaining accurate and timely data. But at least they had some data. At the moment all you have is polemic. Are you surprised that some sensible people don't buy it?

Good to see you back, MD. Do you want to contribute to the debate? What are the benefits of having more power over the running of schools centralised in local authorities? What (in your professional, rather than political view) makes that set up more likely to provide a high quality of education?

"I do not think the couple should have exposed their family to this degree of media attention where both sides of the argument can be distorted to make a good story" I don't think it was the parents who called in the press, nor are they the ones distorting the argument. An 8 year old cycling 5 - 10 minutes to school on the pavement should be relatively uncontroversial; it is the accompanying 5 year old that causes concern. This is not because the scenario is substantially less safe for a 5 year old, but (as has already been said) because of the burden of responsibility it puts on the older child. That makes me uneasy. PS "it takes a village to raise a child" is more usually interpreted as "we all look out for all our children" rather than "I feel entitled to tell other parents that they've got it wrong".

Call Cliff, washing machine repair man much recommended on this forum. A quick search should turn up his number.

Everybody is entitled to post whatever they want - I was just making the point that if you are an advocate for a particular point of view, and you have an interest in the outcome, you should say so. The NUT is likely to see it's influence significantly diminished if a large number of schools become academies, and that gives MD an interest. It's also fair to say that the principals behind the anti-academy alliance are less than open about their affiliations, on the particular website referred to at least.

Michael Davern, you wouldn't be secretary of the Southwark branch of the NUT, by any chance? I know this is only a local forum, but don't you think it would be best for you to declare your interest?

"Ozil was actually born in Brazil" I think he was born in Germany, to Turkish parents.

Michael Davern, your post doesn't seem to follow logically from Penguin's, and also doesn't seem to make much sense. True privatisation involves selling an asset held by the state to private buyers. When a school becomes an academy, my understanding is that the 'property' e.g. land and buildings are owned by a charitable trust, but management is devolved to the governing body. There is no prospect of a transfer into private hands. I've looked at the anti-academies website - it's not terribly persuasive. It doesn't address the core issue i.e. who runs schools better, LEAs or the schools themselves. A bit of googling also seems to indicate that all of the officers of the 'Anti-Academy Alliance' are both members of the more left leaning teacher's unions and associated with SWP, WRP etc., which makes me suspect that this is an ideological crusade with a bit of self-interest thrown in rather than a campaign with parents and pupils' interests at its heart. Local authorities haven't exactly covered themselves in glory over the last 20 years or so when it comes to running schools, so I'd like to see them making a strong positive case why they should retain control. If they can.

Plus, lenders are now pricing risk a bit more sensibly than before, which can only be a good thing for the economy as a whole, even if in practice it means more expensive credit for most people.

It's a tough choice, and no right or wrong answers. It's also not a choice you can make in a vacuum - I'm sure you're doing this already, but you need to go and look at the schools themselves, talk to teachers and if possible parents about their experiences of strengths/weaknesses of single sex vs mixed. And, as has already been observed, be very wary of relying on stats to draw simple conclusions about causation. One of the best chapters in Freakonomics was about Chicago schools; stats revealed that when parents signed up for a scheme that placed kids from deprived areas in schools in wealthier areas, their kids got better results whether they got a place at one of those schools or not.

Man not allowed to sit next to child I note that BA's policy is still in place, and that they did not admit that it is discriminatory. If only they could extend it so when I fly I don't have to sit next to any children, accompanied or not. Including my own.

So, likely to be Germany in the last 16, then Argentina if we win that one. Compared to Ghana or Serbia, followed by Uruguay or South Korea, had we been top of our group. If we do get through, we'll have done it the hard way.

"Listen everyone, half the posh folk around here wont be happy until ED has it's own fox hunt chasing through the streets! Most of them are from home counties stock anyhow!" - Louisa, 12.14am "I am never one to knowingly turn something into a class issue!" - Louisa, 11.30am All that noise from yobbos has obviously left you in a confused state - time for a lie down?

I'm with Sandperson on that one - motorcycles in bus lanes is a completely different issue from motorcycles in cycle lanes/boxes, and you do yourself no favours by treating them as one and the same.