|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
uk.rec.cycling, uk.rec.driving, uk.legal
On Nov 26, 5:28 pm, S wrote:
On Nov 26, 2:49 pm, The Grey Man wrote: In article , says... Car insurance is a legal requirement of course, all motorists know this, unlike cycle insurance which is not I know I didn't imagine this - a EU directive (or similar) many years ago that said in the event of **any** collison between cyclist and motorist, the motorist would be deemed to be liable irrespective of circumstances. Could you quote this directive (or similar)? It is here. http://ukcyclerules.com/2010/11/16/s...-for-cyclists/ -- Simon Mason |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists 'urged to get insurance'
Sorry - the last post was a cock up.
"Simon Mason" wrote in message . uk... On Nov 26, 5:28 pm, S wrote: On Nov 26, 2:49 pm, The Grey Man wrote: In article , says... Car insurance is a legal requirement of course, all motorists know this, unlike cycle insurance which is not I know I didn't imagine this - a EU directive (or similar) many years ago that said in the event of **any** collison between cyclist and motorist, the motorist would be deemed to be liable irrespective of circumstances. Could you quote this directive (or similar)? It is here. http://ukcyclerules.com/2010/11/16/s...-for-cyclists/ -- Simon Mason |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists 'urged to get insurance'
On Nov 26, 5:46 pm, The Grey Man wrote:
In article , says... It is here. http://ukcyclerules.com/2010/11/16/s...-legal-protect... -- Simon Mason Thank you for posting that Simon, it's yet another nail in the coffin of the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" (and I say that as a weekday cyclist and a weekend motorist). If you want my 2 Euros worth, they're both as bad as one another and the concept that one is automatically presumed guilty in the event of an incident, irrespective of facts, is a joke. Agreed. If I cocked up on my bike and a car hit me through no fault of their own, I would hold my hand up and admit I was at fault. As a driver myself I would hate to have the blame pinned on me automatically and in reality I can't see that directive ever becoming taken up in the UK. Holland perhaps, but not here. -- Simon Mason |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists 'urged to get insurance'
"Simon Mason" wrote in message
. uk... On Nov 26, 5:46 pm, The Grey Man wrote: In article , says... It is here. http://ukcyclerules.com/2010/11/16/s...-legal-protect... -- Simon Mason Thank you for posting that Simon, it's yet another nail in the coffin of the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" (and I say that as a weekday cyclist and a weekend motorist). If you want my 2 Euros worth, they're both as bad as one another and the concept that one is automatically presumed guilty in the event of an incident, irrespective of facts, is a joke. Agreed. If I cocked up on my bike and a car hit me through no fault of their own, I would hold my hand up and admit I was at fault. As a driver myself I would hate to have the blame pinned on me automatically and in reality I can't see that directive ever becoming taken up in the UK. Holland perhaps, but not here. =========================================== Blimey, I agree with you! What is happening? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists 'urged to get insurance'
On 26 nov, 18:46, The Grey Man wrote:
In article , says... It is here. http://ukcyclerules.com/2010/11/16/s...-legal-protect... -- Simon Mason Thank you for posting that Simon, it's yet another nail in the coffin of the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" (and I say that as a weekday cyclist and a weekend motorist). If you want my 2 Euros worth, they're both as bad as one another and the concept that one is automatically presumed guilty in the event of an incident, irrespective of facts, is a joke. There is no presumption of guilt. This is about civil liability and not criminal guilt. You write that a presumption of guilt (or, in this case, civil liability) "irrespective of facts" is a joke. I quite agree. However, this proposal (in Holland it is already the law) merely reverses the burden of proof. If the motorists can adequately show facts which convince the police or court of a cyclist's contributory negligence the motorist will not need to pay civil compensation. In Holland this law is part of the protection afforded to vulnerable road users: if one reads the statistics one will see that this policy has partially contributed to a far greater percentage of urban journeys being made by bike here than in the UK. Vulnerability is seen in terms of both being physically more exposed than a car driver and in many cases (particularly children) economically weaker. The greater percentage of journeys made by bike has a fairly positive effect on the courtesy and understanding displayed by drivers. Their kids a cycling to school at the same moment that thay are in their cars driving to work. One cannot ignore the fact that the infrastructure here does favour separate facilities for cyclists. Shared facilities are not, in my humble opinion, the solution and create frustration for both cyclists and drivers. The majority of adult cyclists are also drivers. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists 'urged to get insurance'
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 08:58:34 -0800 (PST), Justin
wrote: snip hello, hello, hello - it's Justin ****wit Lewis - he must have thought we had forgotten all about him. What were the other names he used: Billsgate Sedentary IgnorantPopulist Frontmech Ricky Bikeblokey Did he use "JustinLewisIsA****wit"? - if not, then he really out to have, |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists 'urged to get insurance'
Simon Mason wrote:
If you want my 2 Euros worth, they're both as bad as one another and the concept that one is automatically presumed guilty in the event of an incident, irrespective of facts, is a joke. Agreed. If I cocked up on my bike and a car hit me through no fault of their own, I would hold my hand up and admit I was at fault. As a driver myself I would hate to have the blame pinned on me automatically and in reality I can't see that directive ever becoming taken up in the UK. Holland perhaps, but not here. That's a bit of a reasonable approach isn't it? I actually saw two cyclists in two seperate accidents on Friday. The first accident was the car drivers fault. The second was the cyclists fault and there were no ifs or buts as to who was to blame (although I am sure the solicitors would disagree). Both accidents were with 30m of each other and involved one of the countrys ****tiest cycle lanes. If you are going to install a cycle lane then at least do it properly so that it can be used safely. -- Adam * Sometimes I like to lay in my neighbours garden and pretend to be a carrot * |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists 'urged to get insurance'
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 08:58:34 -0800 (PST), Justin
wrote: There is no presumption of guilt. This is about civil liability and not criminal guilt. You write that a presumption of guilt (or, in this case, civil liability) "irrespective of facts" is a joke. I quite agree. However, this proposal (in Holland it is already the law) merely reverses the burden of proof. Fortunately the presumption of liability has not been incorporated in the 5th or 6th EU insurance directive and there seems to be no great interest in introducing it. One consequence of doing so would of course be the need for mandatory insurance of cyclists so that in pedestrian/cyclist accidents the pedestrian would have someone to claim against. If the motorists can adequately show facts which convince the police or court of a cyclist's contributory negligence the motorist will not need to pay civil compensation. A German friend of mine has had about one claim a year made against him by cyclists for some years. From what he says he isn't unusual. The number of accidents he has had are zero. Apparently when your bike gets nicked you sit by the side of the road and make a note of the first upmarket car with only a driver in it. Claim they ran you off the road and you get a nice shiny new bike, a bit of compo and their insurance premium goes up. In Holland this law is part of the protection afforded to vulnerable road users: if one reads the statistics one will see that this policy has partially contributed to a far greater percentage of urban journeys being made by bike here than in the UK. The fact the country is as flat as a pancake and they have a policy of segregating cycle and road traffic probably has a lot more to do with it. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists 'urged to get insurance'
On 27/11/2011 16:58, Justin wrote:
You write that a presumption of guilt (or, in this case, civil liability) "irrespective of facts" is a joke. I quite agree. However, this proposal (in Holland it is already the law) merely reverses the burden of proof. No, it does not. It removes it. It abolishes it. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pavement cycling to be made legal in Edinburgh. | Simon Mason[_4_] | UK | 11 | May 16th 11 11:36 AM |
Cycling wrong way up one way streets to be made legal | POHB | UK | 66 | June 15th 08 12:23 AM |
Is it legal? Wearing a MP3 player whilst cycling? | [email protected] | UK | 20 | May 12th 07 08:00 PM |
Legal standpoint of cycling and road use | MO | UK | 40 | April 28th 07 08:50 PM |
Drugs and prozac legal in cycling? | sockypup | Social Issues | 0 | December 9th 05 06:48 PM |