|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Letters: We drivers need to accept the consequences of introducingour lethal machines on to the road
QUOTE:
YOU report that police will assiduously enforce the law against drivers who overtake cyclists too close, and that every week in Scotland at least three cyclists suffer serious, life-changing injuries, usually from a collision with a vehicle (“Drivers warned: Give space to cyclists or risk criminal conviction”, The Herald, July 7). Yet no politician, government agency, or local authority while hailing the recent huge increase in cycling (and walking) has yet acceded to the demands of safety campaigners to replace the current fault-based compensation system with strict liability. Many drivers claim that they always do drive with due consideration for vulnerable road users and are outraged by the suggestion that they should be automatically liable for the consequences of any lapses. Such assertions of innocence are less convincing when one thinks of the young mother doing the school run before racing off for a nine o'clock start at her workplace, or the middle-aged businessman late for a meeting at which he hopes to conclude a profitable contract. And how many “careful” drivers comply with the 20mph speed limit which is specifically intended to protect vulnerable road users? (NOT MANY - SM) Under strict liability the legal wrangling (and lawyers and extra insurance staff) can be dispensed with as fault is established automatically at the point of impact. With that done the lawyers and medics can then be called in to assess the value of the injury suffered by the victim. That may take some time, but even under the present fault-based system instalments can be paid out by the insurance companies as soon as liability is established. When we drivers exercise the privilege of introducing a couple of tons of potentially death-dealing metal on to public roads we should in fairness accept that we are automatically liable for the consequences regardless of fault. And we should remember that every day we ourselves and our families are likely to be vulnerable road users even if we do no more than step out of our cars to cross the street. William Neilson, Edinburgh EH16. https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...omments-anchor |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Letters: We drivers need to accept the consequences ofintroducing our lethal machines on to the road
On 09/07/2020 18:30, Simon Mason wrote:
QUOTE: YOU report that police will assiduously enforce the law against drivers who overtake cyclists too close, and that every week in Scotland at least three cyclists suffer serious, life-changing injuries, usually from a collision with a vehicle (“Drivers warned: Give space to cyclists or risk criminal conviction”, The Herald, July 7). Yet no politician, government agency, or local authority while hailing the recent huge increase in cycling (and walking) has yet acceded to the demands of safety campaigners to replace the current fault-based compensation system with strict liability. Many drivers claim that they always do drive with due consideration for vulnerable road users and are outraged by the suggestion that they should be automatically liable for the consequences of any lapses. Such assertions of innocence are less convincing when one thinks of the young mother doing the school run before racing off for a nine o'clock start at her workplace, or the middle-aged businessman late for a meeting at which he hopes to conclude a profitable contract. And how many “careful” drivers comply with the 20mph speed limit which is specifically intended to protect vulnerable road users? (NOT MANY - SM) Under strict liability the legal wrangling (and lawyers and extra insurance staff) can be dispensed with as fault is established automatically at the point of impact. With that done the lawyers and medics can then be called in to assess the value of the injury suffered by the victim. That may take some time, but even under the present fault-based system instalments can be paid out by the insurance companies as soon as liability is established. When we drivers exercise the privilege of introducing a couple of tons of potentially death-dealing metal on to public roads we should in fairness accept that we are automatically liable for the consequences regardless of fault. And we should remember that every day we ourselves and our families are likely to be vulnerable road users even if we do no more than step out of our cars to cross the street. William Neilson, Edinburgh EH16. https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...omments-anchor Don't be so effin' stupid and anti-social. How can it be right to hold anyone responsible for anything for which they are not responsible? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Letters: We drivers need to accept the consequences ofintroducing our lethal machines on to the road
On Saturday, 11 July 2020 00:30:37 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 09/07/2020 18:30, Simon Mason wrote: QUOTE: YOU report that police will assiduously enforce the law against drivers who overtake cyclists too close, and that every week in Scotland at least three cyclists suffer serious, life-changing injuries, usually from a collision with a vehicle (“Drivers warned: Give space to cyclists or risk criminal conviction”, The Herald, July 7). Yet no politician, government agency, or local authority while hailing the recent huge increase in cycling (and walking) has yet acceded to the demands of safety campaigners to replace the current fault-based compensation system with strict liability. Many drivers claim that they always do drive with due consideration for vulnerable road users and are outraged by the suggestion that they should be automatically liable for the consequences of any lapses. Such assertions of innocence are less convincing when one thinks of the young mother doing the school run before racing off for a nine o'clock start at her workplace, or the middle-aged businessman late for a meeting at which he hopes to conclude a profitable contract. And how many “careful” drivers comply with the 20mph speed limit which is specifically intended to protect vulnerable road users? (NOT MANY - SM) Under strict liability the legal wrangling (and lawyers and extra insurance staff) can be dispensed with as fault is established automatically at the point of impact. With that done the lawyers and medics can then be called in to assess the value of the injury suffered by the victim. That may take some time, but even under the present fault-based system instalments can be paid out by the insurance companies as soon as liability is established. When we drivers exercise the privilege of introducing a couple of tons of potentially death-dealing metal on to public roads we should in fairness accept that we are automatically liable for the consequences regardless of fault. And we should remember that every day we ourselves and our families are likely to be vulnerable road users even if we do no more than step out of our cars to cross the street. William Neilson, Edinburgh EH16. https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...omments-anchor Don't be so effin' stupid I know, the idea that Motorists will one day take responsibility for their actions is moronic. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Letters: We drivers need to accept the consequences ofintroducing our lethal machines on to the road
On 11/07/2020 04:15, Mike Collins wrote:
On Saturday, 11 July 2020 00:30:37 UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 09/07/2020 18:30, Simon Mason wrote: QUOTE: YOU report that police will assiduously enforce the law against drivers who overtake cyclists too close, and that every week in Scotland at least three cyclists suffer serious, life-changing injuries, usually from a collision with a vehicle (“Drivers warned: Give space to cyclists or risk criminal conviction”, The Herald, July 7). Yet no politician, government agency, or local authority while hailing the recent huge increase in cycling (and walking) has yet acceded to the demands of safety campaigners to replace the current fault-based compensation system with strict liability. Many drivers claim that they always do drive with due consideration for vulnerable road users and are outraged by the suggestion that they should be automatically liable for the consequences of any lapses. Such assertions of innocence are less convincing when one thinks of the young mother doing the school run before racing off for a nine o'clock start at her workplace, or the middle-aged businessman late for a meeting at which he hopes to conclude a profitable contract. And how many “careful” drivers comply with the 20mph speed limit which is specifically intended to protect vulnerable road users? (NOT MANY - SM) Under strict liability the legal wrangling (and lawyers and extra insurance staff) can be dispensed with as fault is established automatically at the point of impact. With that done the lawyers and medics can then be called in to assess the value of the injury suffered by the victim. That may take some time, but even under the present fault-based system instalments can be paid out by the insurance companies as soon as liability is established. When we drivers exercise the privilege of introducing a couple of tons of potentially death-dealing metal on to public roads we should in fairness accept that we are automatically liable for the consequences regardless of fault. And we should remember that every day we ourselves and our families are likely to be vulnerable road users even if we do no more than step out of our cars to cross the street. William Neilson, Edinburgh EH16. https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...omments-anchor Don't be so effin' stupid I know, the idea that Motorists will one day take responsibility for their actions is moronic. You can't read and comprehend, can you? The article quoted above is not an argument for making individuals take responsibility for their own actions (a principle few would challenge). It is an "argument" for placing the responsibility for the actions of one person onto another person, without that second person having been in any way at fault. When you get into senior school, try reading it again. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Letters: We drivers need to accept the consequences ofintroducing our lethal machines on to the road
On Saturday, 11 July 2020 14:17:25 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 11/07/2020 04:15, Mike Collins wrote: On Saturday, 11 July 2020 00:30:37 UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 09/07/2020 18:30, Simon Mason wrote: QUOTE: YOU report that police will assiduously enforce the law against drivers who overtake cyclists too close, and that every week in Scotland at least three cyclists suffer serious, life-changing injuries, usually from a collision with a vehicle (“Drivers warned: Give space to cyclists or risk criminal conviction”, The Herald, July 7). Yet no politician, government agency, or local authority while hailing the recent huge increase in cycling (and walking) has yet acceded to the demands of safety campaigners to replace the current fault-based compensation system with strict liability. Many drivers claim that they always do drive with due consideration for vulnerable road users and are outraged by the suggestion that they should be automatically liable for the consequences of any lapses. Such assertions of innocence are less convincing when one thinks of the young mother doing the school run before racing off for a nine o'clock start at her workplace, or the middle-aged businessman late for a meeting at which he hopes to conclude a profitable contract. And how many “careful” drivers comply with the 20mph speed limit which is specifically intended to protect vulnerable road users? (NOT MANY - SM) Under strict liability the legal wrangling (and lawyers and extra insurance staff) can be dispensed with as fault is established automatically at the point of impact. With that done the lawyers and medics can then be called in to assess the value of the injury suffered by the victim. That may take some time, but even under the present fault-based system instalments can be paid out by the insurance companies as soon as liability is established. When we drivers exercise the privilege of introducing a couple of tons of potentially death-dealing metal on to public roads we should in fairness accept that we are automatically liable for the consequences regardless of fault. And we should remember that every day we ourselves and our families are likely to be vulnerable road users even if we do no more than step out of our cars to cross the street. William Neilson, Edinburgh EH16. https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...omments-anchor Don't be so effin' stupid I know, the idea that Motorists will one day take responsibility for their actions is moronic. You can't read and comprehend, can you? Childish. The article quoted above is not an argument for making individuals take responsibility for their own actions (a principle few would challenge). It is an "argument" for placing the responsibility for the actions of one person onto another person, without that second person having been in any way at fault. The Motorvehiclist is bringing all the danger to the situation. When you get into senior school, try reading it again. More childishness. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Letters: We drivers need to accept the consequences of introducing our lethal machines on to the road
On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 03:46:11 GMT, Mike Collins
wrote: On Saturday, 11 July 2020 14:17:25 UTC+1, JNugent wrote: [time for a snip] It is an "argument" for placing the responsibility for the actions of one person onto another person, without that second person having been in any way at fault. The Motorvehiclist is bringing all the danger to the situation. [] This I believe to be the Law on the Continent. It makes it much safer for vulnerable road users. We need it here too. Look up 'Presumed Liability' Though this guy doesn't find it means less danger: https://departmentfortransport.wordp...the-liability- myth/ Here's a mini-quiz: Did you read the article before replying? [Yes/No] -- Bah, and indeed, Humbug. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Letters: We drivers need to accept the consequences ofintroducing our lethal machines on to the road
On 12/07/2020 04:46, Mike Collins wrote:
On Saturday, 11 July 2020 14:17:25 UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 11/07/2020 04:15, Mike Collins wrote: On Saturday, 11 July 2020 00:30:37 UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 09/07/2020 18:30, Simon Mason wrote: QUOTE: YOU report that police will assiduously enforce the law against drivers who overtake cyclists too close, and that every week in Scotland at least three cyclists suffer serious, life-changing injuries, usually from a collision with a vehicle (“Drivers warned: Give space to cyclists or risk criminal conviction”, The Herald, July 7). Yet no politician, government agency, or local authority while hailing the recent huge increase in cycling (and walking) has yet acceded to the demands of safety campaigners to replace the current fault-based compensation system with strict liability. Many drivers claim that they always do drive with due consideration for vulnerable road users and are outraged by the suggestion that they should be automatically liable for the consequences of any lapses. Such assertions of innocence are less convincing when one thinks of the young mother doing the school run before racing off for a nine o'clock start at her workplace, or the middle-aged businessman late for a meeting at which he hopes to conclude a profitable contract. And how many “careful” drivers comply with the 20mph speed limit which is specifically intended to protect vulnerable road users? (NOT MANY - SM) Under strict liability the legal wrangling (and lawyers and extra insurance staff) can be dispensed with as fault is established automatically at the point of impact. With that done the lawyers and medics can then be called in to assess the value of the injury suffered by the victim. That may take some time, but even under the present fault-based system instalments can be paid out by the insurance companies as soon as liability is established. When we drivers exercise the privilege of introducing a couple of tons of potentially death-dealing metal on to public roads we should in fairness accept that we are automatically liable for the consequences regardless of fault. And we should remember that every day we ourselves and our families are likely to be vulnerable road users even if we do no more than step out of our cars to cross the street. William Neilson, Edinburgh EH16. https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...omments-anchor Don't be so effin' stupid I know, the idea that Motorists will one day take responsibility for their actions is moronic. You can't read and comprehend, can you? Childish. Yes, that's how one should describe your eccentric reaction, but as you know, I try to be more polite than ost (and certainly a lot more polite than you). But you have hit the nail on the head - a feat of self-perception for a change. The article quoted above is not an argument for making individuals take responsibility for their own actions (a principle few would challenge). It is an "argument" for placing the responsibility for the actions of one person onto another person, without that second person having been in any way at fault. The Motorvehiclist is bringing all the danger to the situation. The old ones are the best, eh? A cyc;list rides stright through a red traffic light and the driver passing lawfully at green is the one "bringing all the danger to the situation"? Yeah, right. You aren't only childish (because most children would be well above your sort of idiocy). When you get into senior school, try reading it again. More childishness. Exactly. When are you going to grow up? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Letters: We drivers need to accept the consequences ofintroducing our lethal machines on to the road
On Saturday, July 11, 2020 at 4:15:02 AM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
I know, the idea that Motorists will one day take responsibility for their actions is moronic. That's why we have the courts and jail. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Spanish road safety film teaches drivers how to share the road | Simon Mason | UK | 0 | January 17th 12 03:22 PM |
"Lethal" chicanes highlight flaws in TfL's Road Safety Audit regime | Simon Mason | UK | 11 | December 10th 11 03:53 AM |
Good news for the non-lethal road users | Squashme | UK | 65 | June 23rd 10 07:33 AM |
Chapman Would *So* Accept an Offer to be Moderator | Terry Jones | UK | 17 | June 10th 09 08:43 PM |
ACCEPT MY APOLOGY | [email protected] | Recumbent Biking | 3 | February 8th 05 08:26 PM |