Advocacy & Safety - American Express Demands Money From Innocent Danish Cyclist Crash Victim

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/03/amex-demands-money-danish-cyclist.html

How does AMEX even think that they have a claim against the victim???

How does AMEX even think that they have a claim against the victim???

They don't but they will give it a try.

When an insurance company has to pay out money as the result of an accident they try to pass the cost off onto someone or something they think they can collect from.

My supplemental health insurance was part of my retirement package out of the chemical plant I worked in for 30 years. The coverage is based on the USWA contract in force at the time of my retirement. Managed by Aetna for my old employer. Any time we needed medical attention as the result of an accident I would get a form to fill out asking for details of the accident. Using the details they would look for any chance to go after "the responsible party".

My wife has had two bicycle accidents in 6 years of riding. Each required an ER visit. Each ended up with forms from Aetna's subrogation section. They try to see if there is even a remote chance of passing the costs to another party.

The one where I was tucked in close to her back wheel and accidentally touched her back wheel was a riot to fill out. Since we are both covered under the same policy would they simply go after themselves?

The one where I was tucked in close to her back wheel and accidentally touched her back wheel was a riot to fill out. Since we are both covered under the same policy would they simply go after themselves?

Just be glad they didn't decide the claim was because of assault, fraud, business, uncovered behavior, or whatever else they are dreaming up this week.

Spesssshhh-ulll!

I tried to write AMEX a nastygram, but you have to be a member to even talk to them.

Nothing that is attached to AMEX in any way, shape, or form will get none of my business.

Occasionally bureaucracy doesn't catch up to real life right away. If AM-EX says that the case is closed, it probably is nominally, it just hasn't been closed practically. Likely nothing will come of it.

The letter shown is from a collection agency, so it may not be AmEx that is harassing her. It's pretty common for collection agencies to try to intimidate people into giving them money for "debts" that cannot be legally collected.

American woman wasn't used to watching for cyclists and, after the accident, couldn't understand that it was her fault

I find this particular phrase hilarious. She was in a foreign country and didn't realise she had to watch out for other road users.... priceless!

American Express, under their shiny corporate veneer, is a bunch of leg-breakers. I refuse to do business with them. They have no problems pursuing innocent people with hoardes of lawyers if they think it'll make them a penny in the end.

The driver of that car would have been wrong in the U.S. too. Left turners have to yield to pretty much everything else on the road.

Someone should tell her that the American thing to do is to go to a lawyer looking to do some high profile work and pursue some sort of case like harassment against Am Ex. You pick a ridiculous amount and threaten to make a big public deal out of it. Then, they offer you some tiny piddly amount of money and you settle.

</only half joking>

Someone should tell her that the American thing to do is to go to a lawyer looking to do some high profile work and pursue some sort of case like harassment against Am Ex. You pick a ridiculous amount and threaten to make a big public deal out of it. Then, they offer you some tiny piddly amount of money and you settle.

</only half joking> If only the rest of the world knew that doing things like quaffing Darkside Porters at Empyrean in Lincoln NE is what being American is really all about.

We should have a citizenship test that we give to those travelling OUT of our country to better ensure that our image is one that's respectable... (90% joking here)

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/03/amex-demands-money-danish-cyclist.html

There is no way, a cyclist could cause $3,000+ to a car in collision. It sounds like American Express is trying to scam her.

I find this particular phrase hilarious. She was in a foreign country and didn't realise she had to watch out for other road users.... priceless!

To play devils's advocate here.... let's make some assumptions: the light was green for the road the American and the bus were on, each going in opposite directions, no other traffic except for the bicycle. Now, let's say the bicycle was in a bike lane on the right side of the bus. The bus driver could see the bike in his mirror and rightfully stopped. If she could not see the bicycle on the other side of the bus, the Amercian driver could have reasonably interpreted the buses actions as follows:

1. The bus driver was being a "nice guy" and surrendering his right of way to allow her to make her left turn.
2. The bus driver was stopped to pick up or drop off passengers, so since the bus wasn't moving it was okay for her to complete her left hand turn.

So she goes to make a turn and suddenly there is a cyclist there. Since such a situaiton would be very rare in the U.S., she was taken completely by surprise. This does not excuse her behavior, but it can explain how a reasonable person could have done what she did. It's not so far-fetched a scenario to be "hilarious". That said, given local conditions, she was 100% at fault and for Amex to try to go to the cyclist for compensation is absurd. American business, especially insurance, does this kind of thing all the time though. Sometimes people pay the money they ask for and their bottom line benefits. But when questioned, they will back down.

There is no way, a cyclist could cause $3,000+ to a car in collision. It sounds like American Express is trying to scam her.

Are you kidding? A dented hood alone could be $3k when you consider repainting.

Bad publicity for AmEx.

From Copenhagenize:

However, she may have to pay for a lawyer to tackle American Express and get the case closed. If she doesn't she is worried that she may have problems travelling to the US in the future.
Wrong credit-card company I know, but...
"... keeping another dangerous, pot-smoking, weird-accented, Birkenstock-wearing, bike-riding socialist the heck outta the US?
Priceless."

There is no way, a cyclist could cause $3,000+ to a car in collision. It sounds like American Express is trying to scam her.

If you hit a modern car in the right place, you could EASILY cause $3000 in damage. In fact, there's a thread right here on bikeforums where a guy hit a parked car and cause $4300 in damage.

If you hit a modern car in the right place, you could EASILY cause $3000 in damage. In fact, there's a thread right here on bikeforums where a guy hit a parked car and cause $4300 in damage.Yes, but that's not a good example -- the damage done in that case is pretty minor and yet they say it was $4300 -- and then fixed it without even getting a second opinion.

But absolutely, if a cyclist smacked into the side of a car at 30 mph -- that could certainly cause $4300 damage, easily. Or the car could run into the cyclist, either way.

rental car companies probably make some money off of the crash repairs

"travelling to the US in the future."

There is a bad idea. The border is becoming an excuse to pin false charges based on poor records on people, etc... Ain't no safety there.

It's obviously possible that the driver had the right of way. Just because a cyclist got hit and some "witnesses" were available to press home the home country advantage (as the dane fears will happen when she travels), doesn't mean the cyclist was in the right. It is obviously bad to hit cyclists, but usually they are at fault (reasonable extrapolation from the fact they are more often than not kids, at least here).

Another possibility is that Danish home rules on bike/car interactions aren't consistent with international rules of the road. Like here in Canada it is really hard to get a car to take their right of way when a cyclist is also at the intersection. You can stand there in a track stand waiting for mr. right-of-way to bust a move, until finally you have to push on through. You can be fourth in line at a four-way and still get the royal treatment. But stuff like that is not in accordance with what domestic or international laws prescribe. Sometimes the nods etc... are pretty subtle, and can lead to calamities. For instance airlines have crashed due to lingo in post-merger cockpits suggesting that flaps should or should not be deployed.

Amex or their putative representatives, may wish to collect admin cost, and off they go!

"... keeping another dangerous, pot-smoking, weird-accented, Birkenstock-wearing, bike-riding socialist the heck outta the US?
Priceless."

Indeed,
Wouldn't want the Walmartian mouthbreathers to be exposed to any progressive ideas - they might start babbling about blue-helmets invading the homeland, and start shooting up the place.

Another possibility is that Danish home rules on bike/car interactions aren't consistent with international rules of the road.

I don't see how this is relevant. If I go to another country and want to drive a car, it's my responsibility to find out what the rules are. At the very least I'd find the equivalent of the US "what every driver must know" pamphlet that the DMV has here, which lays out relevant law. Even in the US they mention car/bike interaction, I can't believe that they don't do so in Denmark.

It's obviously possible that the driver had the right of way.
No, that is not "obviously possible" at all. It sounds as if no one, including the motorist, denies the basic facts: motorist was turning left. Cyclist was going straight through the intersection on a green light. There is no interpretation of these facts which could ever give the motorist the right of way, anywhere in the world. (Except of course that in Australia or Great Britain, all the left/right references would be reversed.)


It is obviously bad to hit cyclists, but usually they are at fault (reasonable extrapolation from the fact they are more often than not kids, at least here).Wait, what? Are you saying that you believe most cyclists in Denmark are kids? Or that because most cyclists in your part of Canada are kids, that has some bearing on a collision between an adult cyclist and an adult motorist in Denmark?

As an aside, I don't think you'll ever be able to point to a competent study that concludes that cyclists are "usually" at fault in car-bike collisions...but the rest of your argument is so absurd that this bit, which is simply incorrect, looks sane by comparison.

"travelling to the US in the future."

There is a bad idea. The border is becoming an excuse to pin false charges based on poor records on people, etc... Ain't no safety there.

It's obviously possible that the driver had the right of way. Just because a cyclist got hit and some "witnesses" were available to press home the home country advantage (as the dane fears will happen when she travels), doesn't mean the cyclist was in the right. It is obviously bad to hit cyclists, but usually they are at fault (reasonable extrapolation from the fact they are more often than not kids, at least here).

Another possibility is that Danish home rules on bike/car interactions aren't consistent with international rules of the road. Like here in Canada it is really hard to get a car to take their right of way when a cyclist is also at the intersection. You can stand there in a track stand waiting for mr. right-of-way to bust a move, until finally you have to push on through. You can be fourth in line at a four-way and still get the royal treatment. But stuff like that is not in accordance with what domestic or international laws prescribe. Sometimes the nods etc... are pretty subtle, and can lead to calamities. For instance airlines have crashed due to lingo in post-merger cockpits suggesting that flaps should or should not be deployed.

Amex or their putative representatives, may wish to collect admin cost, and off they go!

Isn't in most European countries that even IF the cyclist is at fault that unless the motorist can prove that the cyclist was 100% at fault that the motorist is assumed to be at fault?

This sounds a lot like another tactic that law firms in Europe are using now. They'll mail a form letter to a variety of people they've identified from sketchy harvesting of information from ISP's, and accuse them of stealing copyrighted material. Then they'll magnanimously offer to settle for a minor sum, say in the $1000 range. People are being warned that none of these cases ever go to court, even if the offer is declined. Seems the law firms are perfectly aware that their information will never stand as actual evidence. So it seems to me that AMEX is trying to do the same sort of thing, hoping to get some quick cash, but will back down if pushed.

You go to Copenhagen and rent a car?

Talk about being absurd. Ofc, I refer to the company. Their vehicle hits another road user, and it was their vehicle's fault, and yet THEY demand compensation? That women riding a bike should sue them and not settle for any compensation, but push it to the end. Because she will get more that way because she's right and they're wrong, and they know it.

As for the audacity that company showed by sending those letters, the proper response would be to say that their client caused the collision, and as such all of the expenses and claims are on their client who was driving the vehicle. They very conveniently forgot the fact that their client caused the collision. Not knowing the law or not being accustomed to bike on the road are not excuse. That is the responsibility of the driver to know the law and to drive responsibly as far as others are concerned. And that they said the women couldn't understand it was her fault - maybe they should take a check and test to see is that women fit to drive a vehicle, and can she comprehend road law? If not, she should not have the drivers license in the first place if she can't understand the rules. In that case she is dangerous to all other users of the road, and should be removed from the road as a driver.