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

On 28 nov, 10:56, Peter Parry wrote:
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 23:29:16 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"

wrote:
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 23:16:47 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:
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.

Which is why Dutch cyclists have to have insurance.

Oh, wait, they don't.

Actually, most do. *The Dutch are the most insured nation on the
planet and it is even illegal to live in The Netherlands without
health insurance.

Of course in the Netherlands the strict liability law does not extend
to pedestrians injured by cyclists (except electric bikes or mopeds
and for those insurance is compulsory). *Mostly this is historic but
if one were to bring in the concept of "operating risk" in the UK
today there would seem to be no reason at all why it should not be
comprehensive and apply as much to cyclist/pedestrian injuries as to
vehicle/cyclist or vehicle/pedestrian injuries.

Why should a cyclist hit by a moped rider be automatically able to
claim from the moped riders compulsory insurance but the pedestrian
hit by a cyclist have no such simple recourse to compensation?

The Dutch law makes a distinction between motorised and non-motorised
traffic. Neither cyclists or pedestrians are motorised: you would need
to come up with another distinction to addressa problem which we do
not have.

On 28 nov, 11:30, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 09:56:28 +0000

Peter Parry wrote:
Actually, most do. *The Dutch are the most insured nation on the
planet and it is even illegal to live in The Netherlands without
health insurance.

What happens if you can't afford it , debtors prison? Or deportation of
you're foreign? Sounds idiotic.

B2003

Everyone can afford the basic insurance: even people on benefits. The
reason it is obliged is one of solidarity: if it were not compulsorary
the low risk people would leave the scheme leaving only high risk
people (old and ill) in the system, substantially increasing the
premiums. One only need to look to tthe USA to see where that leads:
45 million people without access to helath care. That's idiotic.

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 05:00:08 -0800 (PST), Justin
wrote:

On 28 nov, 13:53, Judith wrote:
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 23:37:25 -0800 (PST), Justin
wrote:

snip

That means that if at certain traffic lights
cyclist often go through red, a motorist can be expected to anticipate
that and act accordingly.

What absolute ******** - unless the cyclist was on a filter - or had right of
way for some other reason.

I had forgotten what ****e your spoke.

You may have to give the blame to the Dutch AUTOMOBILE organisatio
whose words (from a document giving advice to motorists about
liabiliyty) are directly translated.

Als bij een verkeerslicht vaak fietsers door rood rijden, moet een
auto zijn rijgedrag hieraan aanpassen.
If by a traffic light cyclists often rid through red, a car must
adjust its behaviour accordingly. (Literal translation).



Hello it's the ****wit : Ricky Bikeblokey

ffs - it means (as it says) - that if some ****er jumps the lights then you
will have to allow for it if you are not to hit it.

No more - no less - it does not say that you will be held responsible if you
hit it.

On 28/11/2011 12:30, Justin wrote:

On 28 nov, 11:35, wrote:
On 28/11/2011 07:37, Justin wrote:
wrote:
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.

Ther are few grounds for your response.

You exaggerate. There is only *one* ground for it.

The general position in Dutch law is that the claimant must prove, on
the balance of probabilities, that damage has occured through the
fault of the defendant. However an exception has been created to this
burden of proof. This concerns "unequal" road users, the distinction
being between motorised and non-motorised road users.

Quite so.

There is no burden of proof. The accusation is itself the "proof". The
hearing (assuming that the victim is given the courtesy of a hearing, that
is) is a sham show trial.
It's what happens when you decide in advance what the outcome is going to be
and don't bother with little inconveniences like evidence.

That is not the case:

It is *exactly* the case.

Asserting that it is not when it is as plain as a pikestaff is an
unimpressive argument technique.

the article quite clearly states that the driver
of the motorised vehicle will not be held liable if he/she can prove
that the cyclists acted in such an unusual way that he/she could not
be reasonably expected to take it into account.

That's the same as saying that a passer-by picked at random (you, perhaps)
will not be convicted of (say) assaulting a police officer if they he/she can
prove that they did nothing of the sort.

It isn't the way that justice works. Everyone is innocent unless they can be
proven guilty. They are not guilty unless they can prove their innocence,
but, but that is the effect of the system you prefer.

There is no
predetermined outcome.

Since the accusation is the verdict under your system, the outcome certainly
is predetermined.

To whom do you refer as the victim?

That is obvious: the victim person accused of doing something wrong and who
is deemed guilty with no chance of presenting the usual defence ("Not
guiilty, and there is no evidence that I am guilty, therefore you cannot
adduce any"). The perps are those accusers and those collaborating with and
supporting such systemic injustice.

Do not forget that GB follows a policy of strict criminal liability in
many motoring related offences.

That's because the evidence is concrete and largely unarguable. It is factual
and not (usually) the result of opinion.

The police observe and note and the
outcome of the case is predetermined. West London Magistrates Court
had a 99% conviction rate for motoring offences in the eighties.

Red herring.

A bald tyre is a bald tyre. A faulty braking system is a faulty braking
system. Unserviceable windscreen wipers are unserviceable windscreen wipers
(not, of course, that many people would be so arrogant as to drive very far
with broken windscreen wipers). An acquittal will only follow a convincing
argument that the item was not, in fact, faulty within the terms of the law.

Other no-blame compensation schemes include New Zealand's system of
compensation for medical accidents: no attempt is made to look for
blame/fault or negligence.

What has that to do with traffic accidents in the UK?

Last, there have been no press reports of the Dutch sytem being
misused, nor any significant movement to have it repealed.

The whole system is a form of abuse. If it is "successful" just once, there
is a victim and his insurer who have been abused. Without evidence of
negligence causing loss or injury, there should be no case to answer and
no-one daring to waste good money on it.

Have you ever read about the Salem Trials?

As I said, beware any system of "justice" where an accusation is its own proof.

On 28 nov, 20:20, Judith wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 05:00:08 -0800 (PST), Justin
wrote:









On 28 nov, 13:53, Judith wrote:
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 23:37:25 -0800 (PST), Justin
wrote:

snip

That means that if at certain traffic lights
cyclist often go through red, a motorist can be expected to anticipate
that and act accordingly.

What absolute ******** - unless the cyclist was on a filter - or had right of
way for some other reason.

I had forgotten what ****e your spoke.

You may have to give the blame to the Dutch AUTOMOBILE organisatio
whose words (from a document giving advice to motorists about
liabiliyty) are directly translated.

Als bij een verkeerslicht vaak fietsers door rood rijden, moet een
auto zijn rijgedrag hieraan aanpassen.
If by a traffic light cyclists often rid through red, a car must
adjust its behaviour accordingly. (Literal translation).

Hello it's the ****wit : Ricky Bikeblokey

ffs - it means (as it says) - that if some ****er jumps the lights then you
will have to allow for it if you are not to hit it.

No more - no less - it does not say that you will be held responsible if you
hit it.

Are you fluent in Dutch and have you read the whole document?
The passage from which this excerpt is taken is devoted to the
question of a motorist's liability in the event of a collision with a
cyclist. Prior to the excerpt an example is given of a cyclist who
suddenly crosses in front of a car. Given the Dutch law, it states
that merely proving that the cyclist suddenly crossed in front of the
car will not rebut the motorist's liability. He will have to prove
that he is blameless by showing, for example, that his speed was
correct for the situation. The motorist will have to prove that the
cyclist's actions were so unusual that he could not reasonably be
expected to take them into account.

The sentence in question comes at the end of this passage and adds
that in places where cyclists often ride through red lights a motorist
would be expected to have taken that into account, otherwise he will
be liable.

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 17:09:06 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:


Compulsory insurance is an essential consequence of presumption of
liability and the Dutch have it

No they don't, not for cyclists, which was what you claimed.

I made no such claim. What I said was that for those groups for which
presumed liability applies insurance is compulsory. Were presumed
liability to be introduced in the UK there is no reason why cyclists
injuring pedestrians should be excluded from it and hence insurance by
cyclists would be need to be compulsory.

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 09:53:23 -0800 (PST), Justin
wrote:

On 28 nov, 10:56, Peter Parry wrote:


Why should a cyclist hit by a moped rider be automatically able to
claim from the moped riders compulsory insurance but the pedestrian
hit by a cyclist have no such simple recourse to compensation?

The Dutch law makes a distinction between motorised and non-motorised
traffic. Neither cyclists or pedestrians are motorised: you would need
to come up with another distinction to addressa problem which we do
not have.

Bikes are already classed as vehicles and have legislation which
applies to them so this distinction would be very simple. Cyclists,
often when they are riding on pavements or pedestrian areas, also
injure pedestrians. If strict liability were to be introduced there
seems to be no good reason why pedestrians injured by cyclists
travelling at greater speed and with greater mass should be excluded
from it.

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:59:00 -0800 (PST), Justin
wrote:


The sentence in question comes at the end of this passage and adds
that in places where cyclists often ride through red lights a motorist
would be expected to have taken that into account, otherwise he will
be liable.


I doubt if you are fluent in Dutch - and I certainly do not believe what you
claim.

If you can find what you claim written in English - perhaps in the advice to UK
motorists visiting Holland produced by the Dutch Government - then you may
persuade me.

Please explain how a motorist is expected to know that cyclists routinely
ignore a *particular* set of traffic lights. Are they labeled in some way?

On 28 nov, 23:29, Judith wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:59:00 -0800 (PST), Justin
wrote:

The sentence in question comes at the end of this passage and adds
that in places where cyclists often ride through red lights a motorist
would be expected to have taken that into account, otherwise he will
be liable.

I doubt if you are fluent in Dutch
This is as incorrect as your assumption about what the words mean.

That's the same as saying that a passer-by picked at random (you, perhaps)
will not be convicted of (say) assaulting a police officer if they he/she can
prove that they did nothing of the sort.
You must prove to the police/inurance company that the incident
occurred. The only way it differs from the law of negligence in GB and
New Zeland is that the burden of proof in terms of negligence is
reversed.

It isn't the way that justice works. Everyone is innocent unless they can be
proven guilty. They are not guilty unless they can prove their innocence,
but, but that is the effect of the system you prefer.
This is not about guilt.

Since the accusation is the verdict under your system, the outcome certainly
is predetermined.

There is no verdict in the majority of cases: there is very little
jursiprudence on this point..


Do not forget that GB follows a policy of strict criminal liability in
many motoring related offences.

That's because the evidence is concrete and largely unarguable. It is factual
and not (usually) the result of opinion.
Police opinion is not fact.
The police observe and note and the
outcome of the case is predetermined. West London Magistrates Court
had a 99% conviction rate for motoring offences in the eighties.
Illustation of the Magistrates' willingness to believe unsuppported
police opinions.



Other no-blame compensation schemes include New Zealand's system of
compensation for medical accidents: no attempt is made to look for
blame/fault or negligence.

What has that to do with traffic accidents in the UK?
Bothe are systems of common law using in both instances the tort of
negligence as the basis for decisions regarding compensation.
Precedent from NZ is considered persuasive.
Last, there have been no press reports of the Dutch sytem being
misused, nor any significant movement to have it repealed.

The whole system is a form of abuse. If it is "successful" just once, there
is a victim and his insurer who have been abused. Without evidence of
negligence causing loss or injury, there should be no case to answer and
no-one daring to waste good money on it.
You hit the nail on the head. It is more costly and time-consuming to
base your system upon the apportioning of blame than to take the
pragmatic European approach.


As I said, beware any system of "justice" where an accusation is its own proof.

I am. That is not the case in Europe.