Tory MP in 4x4 fined for 'momentary lapse of concentration'

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 01:35:10 -0800 (PST), Squashme
wrote:

So it goes.

http://tinyurl.com/bm9ydc

Why wasn't the victim wearing body armour, you may ask?


Many thanks for posting that.

It does of course remind us all that cycling can be very dangerous.

Cycling is not dangerous.

What can be sometimes dangerous is the actions of the person riding it or as
is usually the case people around them.

This is without disputing that there are some accidents that are the fault
of cyclists - just like some pedestrian accidents are the fault of
pedestrians. Generally speaking many courts are of the opinion that a
motorist who hits a pedestrian is at majority fault even if the pedestrian
is not looking - yet the same is not always the case with a cyclist involved
with a motorist.

Dave

On 2009-02-04, Squashme wrote:
So it goes.

Road users need to get it into their heads to take extreme care when
pulling out of a junction or turning into side roads.
Last year, I had two friends killed (separate
incidents) by someone failing to observe properly, and pulling out of a
junction. Both times on straight roads, with perfect visibility, and no
one was speeding (both friends were on motorcycles rather than
bicycles). I have been knocked off my bicycle this way too - on a clear
day, good visibility and a straight road - fortunately, when I highsided
the bike trying to avoid the collision, I flew over the top of the car
instead of hitting it and escaped with just road rash.

Perhaps drivers need to review the "Think Bike" advertisment (you know
the one, where the man pulls out into the motorcyclist's path) and think
how they will feel if they kill someone that way by their pure
negligence.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

wrote:

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 01:35:10 -0800 (PST), Squashme
wrote:

So it goes.

http://tinyurl.com/bm9ydc

Why wasn't the victim wearing body armour, you may ask?


Many thanks for posting that.

It does of course remind us all that cycling can be very dangerous.

It also reminds us that dumb**** drivers pulling out without looking
are definitely, and potentially lethally, dangerous.

--
Paul - xxx ... somewhere else.

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi 'Big and Butch'
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp "When I feel fit enough'

On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 12:33:38 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 04:05:22 -0800 (PST) someone who may be TerryJ
wrote this:-

But I cannot understand why a cyclist without a helmet is more liable
for his injuries than a pedestrian or anyone else.

It is blatant discrimination. The ideas of in and out groups
expounded in research explains this discrimination.

The motorist in
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/6206402.stm
was not blamed for not wearing a helmet.

I just wonder if the reason is that mile for mile you are in much
greater danger as a cyclist than you are as a car driver?





judith

--

"A helmet doesn't weigh much, doesn't interfere with your enjoyment of
your ride, and is not seen as a big deal by most younger riders
especially." Guy Chapman

wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 01:35:10 -0800 (PST), Squashme
wrote:

So it goes.

http://tinyurl.com/bm9ydc

Why wasn't the victim wearing body armour, you may ask?


Many thanks for posting that.

It does of course remind us all that cycling can be very dangerous.

I think you'll find it's being hit by a car
that's dangerous.

BugBear

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 04:05:22 -0800 (PST), TerryJ
wrote:

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/articl...s-major-implic...

http://info.beachcroft.co.uk/ve/ZZ7230J72Cj62Bw73n

I can understand why the lawyer that wrote this thinks it a welcome
development.He looks forward to the day when some damaged people will
get less compensation and he gets more work seeing to that.
.
But I cannot understand why a cyclist without a helmet is more liable
for his injuries than a pedestrian or anyone else.


I think it is that there is much more likely hood of the average
cyclists being involved in an accident than there is of the average
pedestrian.

Indeed - all of the DfT stats support this view.


I think that this judgment will become very significant in the move
towards compulsory wearing of cycle helmets.


What has wearing a helmet got to do with it? You must surely be aware that
compusory wearing of helmets has no effect on head injury rates.

I think you'll find it's being hit by a car
that's dangerous.


http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/answer1.htm

bugbear wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 01:35:10 -0800 (PST), Squashme
wrote:

So it goes.

http://tinyurl.com/bm9ydc

Why wasn't the victim wearing body armour, you may ask?


Many thanks for posting that.

It does of course remind us all that cycling can be very dangerous.

I think you'll find it's being hit by a car
that's dangerous.

Being hit by an SUV is a lot more dangerous than being hit by an average
car. I wonder why the MP considers it acceptable to drive a Land Rover
through an area where lots of pedestrians congregate.
Surely if you have a collision such his one, and you are driving an SUV,
this should be taken into account and you should be held even more
liable than if you had been driving a small car.

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 14:54:09 -0000, "OG"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 04:05:22 -0800 (PST), TerryJ
wrote:

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/articl...s-major-implic...

http://info.beachcroft.co.uk/ve/ZZ7230J72Cj62Bw73n

I can understand why the lawyer that wrote this thinks it a welcome
development.He looks forward to the day when some damaged people will
get less compensation and he gets more work seeing to that.
.
But I cannot understand why a cyclist without a helmet is more liable
for his injuries than a pedestrian or anyone else.


I think it is that there is much more likely hood of the average
cyclists being involved in an accident than there is of the average
pedestrian.

Indeed - all of the DfT stats support this view.


I think that this judgment will become very significant in the move
towards compulsory wearing of cycle helmets.


What has wearing a helmet got to do with it? You must surely be aware that
compusory wearing of helmets has no effect on head injury rates.


I meant that as a result of this finding it is likely that insurance
companies will make it a proviso of policies that the cyclist wears a
helmet.

This will lead to a greater number of helmeted cyclists.

Once a certain threshold of helmet wearing cyclists is reached,
compulsory wearing will be introduced.

You may not like it - but it will happen.

judith

--

Many of the facts below in an article seem, on the face of it, to
suggest that helmets are not worthwhile. This could not be further
from the truth; helmets are an excellent idea. Children in particular
should wear them every time they get on a bike. The point is, although
there is no guarantee that a helmet will save your life if you come
off, it's 100% certain that your helmet won't save your life if you're
not wearing it. - Guy Chapman

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 14:07:39 -0000, "Dave"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 01:35:10 -0800 (PST), Squashme
wrote:

So it goes.

http://tinyurl.com/bm9ydc

Why wasn't the victim wearing body armour, you may ask?


Many thanks for posting that.

It does of course remind us all that cycling can be very dangerous.

Cycling is not dangerous.

What can be sometimes dangerous is the actions of the person riding it or as
is usually the case people around them.

This is without disputing that there are some accidents that are the fault
of cyclists - just like some pedestrian accidents are the fault of
pedestrians. Generally speaking many courts are of the opinion that a
motorist who hits a pedestrian is at majority fault even if the pedestrian
is not looking - yet the same is not always the case with a cyclist involved
with a motorist.

Dave


I disagree - cycling on road is dangerous - as the cyclist is so
dependant on the actions of others - irrespective as to how careful
the cyclist is being.

In the same way that pedestrians are vulnerable to cyclists on
pavements - irrespective as to how careful the pedestrian is being.