uk.rec.cycling, uk.rec.driving, uk.legal

On Sat, 3 Dec 2011 05:10:24 -0800 (PST), Justin
wrote:

On 3 dec, 13:54, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 29/11/2011 11:35, Peter Parry wrote:



For there to be a comprehensive strict liability law which also
covered injuries caused by cyclists to pedestrians there would need to
be compulsory insurance.

* Yes, but not in the sense you are probably thinking. The Dutch law that
the owner or keeper must pay even for damage caused by someone for whom
they are not liable is legal speak for compulsory third party insurance
must cover all users of the vehicle. The UK alternative is to have the MIB
cover claims against uninsured drivers, with a levy on the insurance
companies based on their risks.

That is absolutely correct. One is, as the holder, given the chance of
proving that the accident was a result of an Act of God or by someone
for whom the holder distinctively is not responsible: you will then
not be held liable.

Additional what you say, in the Netherlands, these sort of
administrative things are very well overseen by the government: if a
car is registerd to you and you do not renew its insurance you will be
approached by the government and eventually fined. The same system is
applied to our equivalent of the MOT: I have a classic car which was
dismantled last year for a while. Although it was not on a public road
I still was fined when I failed to renew the MOT. Apparently I should
have informed the government it was to removed temporarilly from the
register. Oh well, you live and sometimes learn.


The law here has been similar for Motor tax for some while, and for
insurance since last April.

It doesn't yet apply to MOT - but an MOT is not necessary for the
first three years of a vehicle's existence anyhow.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Meets quality standards: compiles without errors.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 19:30:38 +0000, Nick Finnigan
wrote:

On 03/12/2011 16:43, Peter Parry wrote:

How do you do that if you were alone in the car at the time?

By having witnesses from other vehicles.

How many other vehicles can you identify and trace which passed you
today?

By having traffic camera coverage of the area.

Traffic cameras well known for being all over rural A roads.

By showing that the damage was not consistent with
the claimed accident.

The cyclist claims he was struck by the wing mirror and as a result
went down a bank, fractured a wheel and lost his bike in the canal
(which also destroyed the best suit he was wearing). How are you
going to disprove that?

By being a much more convincing witness.

Driving down a road, on your own - which "convincing witness" are you
going to be? "I saw nothing", the SMIDSY defence, isn't going to win
you any points.

Even if that was not possible in this case, in principle one could do so, without
needing to prove fault.

And that is exactly what you would have to do when faced with a similar
scam in the UK.

Nope, in the UK the onus is upon the claimant to prove the person they
are claiming from was negligent. In the absence of any witnesses for
the claimant and any damage to the car that is a significantly harder
test than the Dutch one which simply requires a claim that an accident
occurred.

On 03/12/2011 23:19, Peter Parry wrote:
On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 19:30:38 +0000, Nick
wrote:


The cyclist claims he was struck by the wing mirror and as a result
went down a bank, fractured a wheel and lost his bike in the canal
(which also destroyed the best suit he was wearing). How are you
going to disprove that?

By being a much more convincing witness.

Driving down a road, on your own - which "convincing witness" are you
going to be? "I saw nothing", the SMIDSY defence, isn't going to win
you any points.

It depends who is the more convincing witness. An upstanding pillar of
the community, or a drunk with a string of convictions for fraud.

Even if that was not possible in this case, in principle one could do so, without
needing to prove fault.

And that is exactly what you would have to do when faced with a similar
scam in the UK.

Nope, in the UK the onus is upon the claimant to prove the person they
are claiming from was negligent.

The cyclist is claiming the driver /keeper /owner of the vehicle was
negligent. If he is believed (on the balance of probabilities), the driver
/keeper /owner /insurer of the vehicle has to pay up. Even in the UK.

In the absence of any witnesses for
the claimant and any damage to the car that is a significantly harder
test than the Dutch one which simply requires a claim that an accident
occurred.

The Dutch law does not simply require a claim that an accident occurred.

On 04/12/2011 22:48, Nick Finnigan wrote:

Peter Parry wrote:
Nick wrote:

The cyclist claims he was struck by the wing mirror and as a result
went down a bank, fractured a wheel and lost his bike in the canal
(which also destroyed the best suit he was wearing). How are you
going to disprove that?

By being a much more convincing witness.

Driving down a road, on your own - which "convincing witness" are you
going to be? "I saw nothing", the SMIDSY defence, isn't going to win
you any points.

It depends who is the more convincing witness. An upstanding pillar of the
community, or a drunk with a string of convictions for fraud.

Maybe it does, but it *shouldn't*.

Even a drunk with a string of convictions is entitled to a fair trial and to
be found not guilty (or not liable) if there isn't actually any evidence
against him, not even if the accuser is a fine upstanding citizen.

If it were otherwise, we'd have a situation where any old usual suspect would
do, even if he had to be dragged out of bed at 02:00.

Even if that was not possible in this case, in principle one could do so,
without needing to prove fault.

And that is exactly what you would have to do when faced with a similar
scam in the UK.

Nope, in the UK the onus is upon the claimant to prove the person they
are claiming from was negligent.

The cyclist is claiming the driver /keeper /owner of the vehicle was
negligent. If he is believed (on the balance of probabilities), the driver
/keeper /owner /insurer of the vehicle has to pay up. Even in the UK.

He'd have a hard job proving that you were negligent if the friend to whom
you'd lent your car were falsely accused of some infraction whilst driving it.

Is this some new sort of justice, where every word means the opposite of what
it has meant until now?

In the absence of any witnesses for
the claimant and any damage to the car that is a significantly harder
test than the Dutch one which simply requires a claim that an accident
occurred.

The Dutch law does not simply require a claim that an accident occurred.

Really?

On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 22:48:26 +0000, Nick Finnigan
wrote:

On 03/12/2011 23:19, Peter Parry wrote:

The cyclist claims he was struck by the wing mirror and as a result
went down a bank, fractured a wheel and lost his bike in the canal
(which also destroyed the best suit he was wearing). How are you
going to disprove that?

By being a much more convincing witness.

By saying "cyclist? What cyclist? I saw no cyclist". That's very
convincing.

Nope, in the UK the onus is upon the claimant to prove the person they
are claiming from was negligent.

The cyclist is claiming the driver /keeper /owner of the vehicle was
negligent.

No he isn't - you have completely missed the point about presumed
liability. The cyclist is simply saying (albeit falsely in this case)
that he was hit by a car. He does not have to show the driver was
negligent.

That is why the Germans call it "operating risk". The operator of the
vehicle is _automatically_ responsible for paying the costs of all
sides in any accident with a cyclist or pedestrian. They can, in
some cases, try to show the claimant was at fault to reduce their
liability but even then claims are rarely cut to nothing and in some
cases such as the disabled and young will not be reduced at all even
if the victim is wholly to blame.

If he is believed (on the balance of probabilities), the driver
/keeper /owner /insurer of the vehicle has to pay up.

It doesn't work on balance of probability but presumption of
responsibility.

The Dutch law does not simply require a claim that an accident occurred.

That is exactly what it requires and little else.
..

On 04/12/2011 23:33, Peter Parry wrote:
On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 22:48:26 +0000, Nick
wrote:

On 03/12/2011 23:19, Peter Parry wrote:

The cyclist claims he was struck by the wing mirror and as a result
went down a bank, fractured a wheel and lost his bike in the canal
(which also destroyed the best suit he was wearing). How are you
going to disprove that?

By being a much more convincing witness.

By saying "cyclist? What cyclist? I saw no cyclist". That's very
convincing.

No, by being a convincing witness.

Nope, in the UK the onus is upon the claimant to prove the person they
are claiming from was negligent.

The cyclist is claiming the driver /keeper /owner of the vehicle was
negligent.

No he isn't - you have completely missed the point about presumed
liability. The cyclist is simply saying (albeit falsely in this case)
that he was hit by a car. He does not have to show the driver was
negligent.

"He was hit by a car" (not he hit a car)
which was overtaking (without due care)
and did not stop
and the driver did not notice the collision
nor the cyclist.
Clearly claiming negligence (albeit falsely in this case).

If he is believed (on the balance of probabilities), the driver
/keeper /owner /insurer of the vehicle has to pay up.

It doesn't work on balance of probability but presumption of
responsibility.

You snipped "in the UK". Civil cases in the UK are bop.

The Dutch law does not simply require a claim that an accident occurred.

That is exactly what it requires and little else.

Oh, "little else".

On 04/12/2011 23:05, JNugent wrote:
On 04/12/2011 22:48, Nick Finnigan wrote:

Peter Parry wrote:
Nick wrote:

The cyclist claims he was struck by the wing mirror and as a result
went down a bank, fractured a wheel and lost his bike in the canal
(which also destroyed the best suit he was wearing). How are you
going to disprove that?

By being a much more convincing witness.

Driving down a road, on your own - which "convincing witness" are you
going to be? "I saw nothing", the SMIDSY defence, isn't going to win
you any points.

It depends who is the more convincing witness. An upstanding pillar of the
community, or a drunk with a string of convictions for fraud.

Maybe it does, but it *shouldn't*.

Even a drunk with a string of convictions is entitled to a fair trial and
to be found not guilty (or not liable) if there isn't actually any evidence
against him, not even if the accuser is a fine upstanding citizen.

If it were otherwise, we'd have a situation where any old usual suspect
would do, even if he had to be dragged out of bed at 02:00.

Even if that was not possible in this case, in principle one could do so,
without needing to prove fault.

And that is exactly what you would have to do when faced with a similar
scam in the UK.

Nope, in the UK the onus is upon the claimant to prove the person they
are claiming from was negligent.

The cyclist is claiming the driver /keeper /owner of the vehicle was
negligent. If he is believed (on the balance of probabilities), the driver
/keeper /owner /insurer of the vehicle has to pay up. Even in the UK.

He'd have a hard job proving that you were negligent if the friend to whom
you'd lent your car were falsely accused of some infraction whilst driving it.

He's should have a hard job even when you have no friends.

Is this some new sort of justice, where every word means the opposite of
what it has meant until now?

No.

The Dutch law does not simply require a claim that an accident occurred.

Really?

Yep.

On 5 dec, 00:33, Peter Parry wrote:
On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 22:48:26 +0000, Nick Finnigan
wrote:

On 03/12/2011 23:19, Peter Parry wrote:
The cyclist claims he was struck by the wing mirror and as a result
went down a bank, fractured a wheel and lost his bike in the canal
(which also destroyed the best suit he was wearing). *How are you
going to disprove that?

By being a much more convincing witness.

By saying "cyclist? *What cyclist? *I saw no cyclist". *That's very
convincing.

Nope, in the UK the onus is upon the claimant to prove the person they
are claiming from was negligent.

*The cyclist is claiming the driver /keeper /owner of the vehicle was
negligent.

No he isn't - you have completely missed the point about presumed
liability. *The cyclist is simply saying (albeit falsely in this case)
that he was hit by a car. *He does not have to show the driver was
negligent.

That is why the Germans call it "operating risk". *The operator of the
vehicle is _automatically_ *responsible for paying the costs of all
sides *in any accident with a cyclist or pedestrian. * *They can, in
some cases, try to show the claimant was at fault to reduce their
liability but even then claims are rarely cut to nothing and in some
cases such as the disabled and young will not be reduced at all even
if the victim is wholly to blame.

If he is believed (on the balance of probabilities), the driver
/keeper /owner /insurer of the vehicle has to pay up.

It doesn't work on balance of probability but presumption of
responsibility.

*The Dutch law does not simply require a claim that an accident occurred.

That is exactly what it requires and little else.
.

It requires that the claimant proves that the accident actually
occurred: you must make this reasonabe believable (that's my 5 second
translation). From that point on the system has a reversed burden of
proof regarding liability. This is also subject to pleas of
contributory negligence which can reduce the compensation to 50%, I
believe, except in the case of children under 14 for whom the law
does not recognise this plea.