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

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

In article ,
says...

It is here.

http://ukcyclerules.com/2010/11/16/s...-for-cyclists/

--
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.

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

"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?

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.

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,

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 *

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.

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.