On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 21:24:43 +0000, Hills wrote:

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?


Because he doesn't know what he's talking about - he's a ****wit.


--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment