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

So it goes.

http://tinyurl.com/bm9ydc

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

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 01:35:10 -0800 (PST) someone who may be Squashme
wrote this:-

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

They didn't even mention the h-word.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 01:35:10 -0800 (PST) someone who may be Squashme
wrote this:-

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

They didn't even mention the h-word.



Speaking of which...

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/articl...cyclists-20250

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

Squashme wrote:
So it goes.

http://tinyurl.com/bm9ydc

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

Indeed. Definite contributory negligence.

BugBear

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.
Perhaps the judge wears a helmet at all times, or believes that the
heaving masses outside his courtroom do.
''What is a 'lager' ?''

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 11:30:15 -0000 someone who may be "wafflycat"
wrote this:-

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

Thanks. I have recommended that the author considers the
"contributory negligence" of the pedestrians in
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7730944.stm and also
why it is considered acceptable to blame cyclists for wearing "the
wrong clothes" when it is no longer considered acceptable to blame
rape victims for wearing "the wrong clothes", before directing them
to http://www.cyclehelmets.org.

I hope others have done something similar, or will do so.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

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.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
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.





It also fails to mention whether he was wearing a seat belt, or had air bags
fitted etc.

You can bet your life that if it was a cyclist they would have mentioned
either way whether he had a helmet on.

Dave

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.

There was in fact an 8% increase in 2007 to 461 cyclists either
fatally or seriously injured in London.







judith

--


Compulsory helmet wearing is a 'safety measure' whose costs fall
entirely on the cyclist; no government is spending required. It is an
attractive quick fix. Guy Chapman

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.


judith

--


Compulsory helmet wearing is a 'safety measure' whose costs fall
entirely on the cyclist; no government is spending required. It is an
attractive quick fix. Guy Chapman