judith wrote:
On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 20:40:59 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

John wrote:

Strict liability would also be a huge plus.
What is that?
There's a good description on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability

It's the system they have in the Netherlands whereby there is liability
regardless of negligence.

Guy


ah yes - the well known authoritative source "Wikipedia" - this means
that Chapman doesn't really know.

It means that if a cyclist, whilst riding on a pavement, hit a
pedestrian then the pedestrian would automatically be able to claim
damages off the cyclist without having to prove who was negligent.


why would Guy want to encourage that?