What strict liability is not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=h8FKHfh1L7Q

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=h8FKHfh1L7Q


lol, very good

Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=h8FKHfh1L7Q


lol, very good

I could see some of the psycholists on here behaving just as shown.

"Mentalguy2k8" wrote in message ...


"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=h8FKHfh1L7Q


lol, very good

Yes, but had either the Dutch or British Governments been stupid enough to
pass that law, there are several psycholists on this (and the other) NG who
would behave EXACTLY as shown.

On 13/06/2013 11:25, Partac wrote:


"Mentalguy2k8" wrote in message ...


"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=h8FKHfh1L7Q


lol, very good

Yes, but had either the Dutch or British Governments been stupid enough
to pass that law, there are several psycholists on this (and the other)
NG who would behave EXACTLY as shown.


Yes I agree. But the issue is still under debate in the UK. Hopefully
when we do introduce such a law we will follow the Dutch example.

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2...e-netherlands/

Nick wrote:

[...] the issue is still under debate in the UK. Hopefully
when we do introduce such a law we will follow the Dutch example.

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2...e-netherlands/

A most enlightening link which well explains how desirable such a law
would be, especially for vulnerable road users, in the UK:

"All in all it is safe to say that ‘Strict Liability’ does in a way
protect cyclists and pedestrians, but it tries to be a fair answer to
the inequity in the consequences of a crash. The driver must
compensate the heavier burden a more vulnerable road user suffers,
because of that driver’s decision to take part in traffic in a
dangerous vehicle. But the law does consider the boundaries of
reasonability for both driver and cyclist/pedestrian."

--
Alexis

Pristine Bruise wrote:
Nick wrote:

[...] the issue is still under debate in the UK. Hopefully
when we do introduce such a law we will follow the Dutch example.

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2...e-netherlands/

A most enlightening link which well explains how desirable such a law
would be, especially for vulnerable road users, in the UK:

"All in all it is safe to say that 'Strict Liability' does in a way
protect cyclists and pedestrians, but it tries to be a fair answer to
the inequity in the consequences of a crash. The driver must
compensate the heavier burden a more vulnerable road user suffers,
because of that driver's decision to take part in traffic in a
dangerous vehicle. But the law does consider the boundaries of
reasonability for both driver and cyclist/pedestrian."

it should open the floodgates for claims against cyclists by pedestrians.
It will also mean that driver's are less likely to stop after a crash with a
cyclist, no matter whose fault it was.

On 13/06/2013 12:35, Nick wrote:
On 13/06/2013 11:25, Partac wrote:


"Mentalguy2k8" wrote in message ...


"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=h8FKHfh1L7Q


lol, very good

Yes, but had either the Dutch or British Governments been stupid enough
to pass that law, there are several psycholists on this (and the other)
NG who would behave EXACTLY as shown.


Yes I agree. But the issue is still under debate in the UK. Hopefully
when we do introduce such a law we will follow the Dutch example.

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2...e-netherlands/

We already have one strict liability law. If a car drives into the back
of another, it is deemed the fault of the driver who crashed into the
rear of the other car.

Mrcheerful wrote:

Pristine Bruise wrote:
Nick wrote:

[...] the issue is still under debate in the UK. Hopefully
when we do introduce such a law we will follow the Dutch example.

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2...e-netherlands/

A most enlightening link which well explains how desirable such a law
would be, especially for vulnerable road users, in the UK:

"All in all it is safe to say that 'Strict Liability' does in a way
protect cyclists and pedestrians, but it tries to be a fair answer to
the inequity in the consequences of a crash. The driver must
compensate the heavier burden a more vulnerable road user suffers,
because of that driver's decision to take part in traffic in a
dangerous vehicle. But the law does consider the boundaries of
reasonability for both driver and cyclist/pedestrian."

it should open the floodgates for claims against cyclists by pedestrians.

But not directly through an introduced law, similar to "article 185",
which would solely apply to "a traffic incident on the public road,
involving a (driving) motor vehicle and a road user who is not using a
motor vehicle."

It will also mean that driver's are less likely to stop after a crash with a
cyclist, no matter whose fault it was.

What? Motorists act like psycholists? Surely not?

--
Alexis

On 13/06/2013 13:44, Pristine Bruise wrote:

it should open the floodgates for claims against cyclists by pedestrians.

But not directly through an introduced law, similar to "article 185",
which would solely apply to "a traffic incident on the public road,
involving a (driving) motor vehicle and a road user who is not using a
motor vehicle."


Don't expect them to actually read or understand stuff. ;o)

Cool name btw.