it is strange, one rule for car drivers, another for cyclists

If a car driver damages street furniture he is expected to pay for it, the
letters keep coming till it is paid, usually a driver's insurance picks up
the tab. So how come the council have backed down on this one? is it simply
because it is an injured cyclist? Why should the rate payers have to pay
for damage caused by someone crashing? Cyclists need to be insured against
third party damage.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-12923044

On Apr 1, 8:19*am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
If a car driver damages street furniture he is expected to pay for it, the
letters keep coming till it is paid, usually a driver's insurance picks up
the tab. *So how come the council have backed down on this one? is it simply
because it is an injured cyclist? *Why should the rate payers have to pay
for damage caused by someone crashing? *Cyclists need to be insured against
third party damage.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-12923044

As all cyclists are of a higher intelligence and earn above the
average, they would all be insured through their house insurance or
because they belong to a club.

On Apr 1, 8:19*am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
If a car driver damages street furniture he is expected to pay for it, the
letters keep coming till it is paid, usually a driver's insurance picks up
the tab. *So how come the council have backed down on this one? is it simply
because it is an injured cyclist? *Why should the rate payers have to pay
for damage caused by someone crashing? *Cyclists need to be insured against
third party damage.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-12923044

Just so you all know what a callous git our Cheerless is, the link
says:

'A council has apologised for demanding damages from a cyclist left
paralysed when he hit some iron railings and fell 15ft (4.5m) on to
his head.'
'Devon County Council has apologised, saying the letter was a
mistake.
"This letter should not have been sent," a council spokesman said. "We
will not be asking the family to pay for the damage. "We apologise to
them for the concern and distress that this may have caused them.'

You are really very unpleasant, Cheerless.

On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 01:06:29 -0700 (PDT), PhilO wrote:

On Apr 1, 8:19*am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
If a car driver damages street furniture he is expected to pay for it, the
letters keep coming till it is paid, usually a driver's insurance picks up
the tab. *So how come the council have backed down on this one? is it simply
because it is an injured cyclist? *Why should the rate payers have to pay
for damage caused by someone crashing? *Cyclists need to be insured against
third party damage.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-12923044

Just so you all know what a callous git our Cheerless is, the link
says:

'A council has apologised for demanding damages from a cyclist left
paralysed when he hit some iron railings and fell 15ft (4.5m) on to
his head.'
'Devon County Council has apologised, saying the letter was a
mistake.
"This letter should not have been sent," a council spokesman said. "We
will not be asking the family to pay for the damage. "We apologise to
them for the concern and distress that this may have caused them.'

You are really very unpleasant, Cheerless.


So if a car driver had run through some railings and damaged them - and also he had finished up in
hospital - do you think the council would have let off his insurance company and made the local
ratepayers pay the bill when the accident was the car driver's fault?

You really are very stupid, PhilattiO
--
2009 per billion passenger kilometres:

Cyclists Killed or seriously injured : 567
Pedestrians Killed or seriously injured : 415

Which is the safer form of transport?

Judith wrote:
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 01:06:29 -0700 (PDT), PhilO
wrote:

On Apr 1, 8:19 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
If a car driver damages street furniture he is expected to pay for
it, the letters keep coming till it is paid, usually a driver's
insurance picks up the tab. So how come the council have backed
down on this one? is it simply because it is an injured cyclist?
Why should the rate payers have to pay for damage caused by someone
crashing? Cyclists need to be insured against third party damage.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-12923044

Just so you all know what a callous git our Cheerless is, the link
says:

'A council has apologised for demanding damages from a cyclist left
paralysed when he hit some iron railings and fell 15ft (4.5m) on to
his head.'
'Devon County Council has apologised, saying the letter was a
mistake.
"This letter should not have been sent," a council spokesman said.
"We will not be asking the family to pay for the damage. "We
apologise to them for the concern and distress that this may have
caused them.'

You are really very unpleasant, Cheerless.


So if a car driver had run through some railings and damaged them -
and also he had finished up in hospital - do you think the council
would have let off his insurance company and made the local
ratepayers pay the bill when the accident was the car driver's fault?

You really are very stupid, PhilattiO

if people want to use the roads they can pay for damage they do when they
ride at dangerously high speeds that they can't handle. I don't think the
council should back down in this case, why should the rate payers pick up
the tab, it is bad enough they are paying out for the NHS care he is
getting. Why the parents don't just put the bill to their house insurance
is just meanness.

On 1 apr, 13:43, Judith wrote:
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 01:06:29 -0700 (PDT), PhilO wrote:
On Apr 1, 8:19*am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
If a car driver damages street furniture he is expected to pay for it, the
letters keep coming till it is paid, usually a driver's insurance picks up
the tab. *So how come the council have backed down on this one? is it simply
because it is an injured cyclist? *Why should the rate payers have to pay
for damage caused by someone crashing? *Cyclists need to be insured against
third party damage.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-12923044

Just so you all know what a callous git our Cheerless is, the link
says:

'A council has apologised for demanding damages from a cyclist left
paralysed when he hit some iron railings and fell 15ft (4.5m) on to
his head.'
'Devon County Council has apologised, saying the letter was a
mistake.
"This letter should not have been sent," a council spokesman said. "We
will not be asking the family to pay for the damage. "We apologise to
them for the concern and distress that this may have caused them.'

You are really very unpleasant, Cheerless.

So if a car driver had run through some railings and damaged them - and also he had finished up in
hospital - do you think the council would have let off his insurance company and made the local
ratepayers pay the bill when the accident was the car driver's fault?

Your example is as flawed as your embitterment is obvious. There is
nothing in the article which suggests the cyclist was as fault
(rendering your example as irrelevant as you are morally redundant).
In fact there is a posting suggesting that the council's negligence
was a contributor factor in this event.

On Apr 1, 8:19*am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
If a car driver damages street furniture he is expected to pay for it, the
letters keep coming till it is paid, usually a driver's insurance picks up
the tab. *So how come the council have backed down on this one? is it simply
because it is an injured cyclist? *Why should the rate payers have to pay
for damage caused by someone crashing? *Cyclists need to be insured against
third party damage.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-12923044

Where is the evidence that he damaged the railings?

Doug.

Doug wrote:
On Apr 1, 8:19 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
If a car driver damages street furniture he is expected to pay for
it, the letters keep coming till it is paid, usually a driver's
insurance picks up the tab. So how come the council have backed down
on this one? is it simply because it is an injured cyclist? Why
should the rate payers have to pay for damage caused by someone
crashing? Cyclists need to be insured against third party damage.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-12923044

Where is the evidence that he damaged the railings?

Doug.

in the first paragraph, the line about hitting them .
Dangerous things these cycles, they often seem to go too fast for the rider
to control.

On 01/04/2011 13:18, Mrcheerful wrote:

if people want to use the roads they can pay for damage they do when they
ride at dangerously high speeds that they can't handle. I don't think the
council should back down in this case, why should the rate payers pick up
the tab, it is bad enough they are paying out for the NHS care he is
getting. Why the parents don't just put the bill to their house insurance
is just meanness.



The council may have a bigger concern in that the boy may seek damages
for the injuries caused by the dangerous railings. That cost would then
fall on the taxpayer. When you balance things between the cost of repair
to the railings and the cost of legal action against them, I would think
the council should be keen to publicly apologise and hope that the
matter goes away, because as soon as the boy realises that there could
be a very large compo claim on a no-win no-fee basis, things are going
to be looking very different.

Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 01/04/2011 13:18, Mrcheerful wrote:

if people want to use the roads they can pay for damage they do when
they ride at dangerously high speeds that they can't handle. I
don't think the council should back down in this case, why should
the rate payers pick up the tab, it is bad enough they are paying
out for the NHS care he is getting. Why the parents don't just put
the bill to their house insurance is just meanness.



The council may have a bigger concern in that the boy may seek damages
for the injuries caused by the dangerous railings. That cost would
then fall on the taxpayer. When you balance things between the cost
of repair to the railings and the cost of legal action against them,
I would think the council should be keen to publicly apologise and
hope that the matter goes away, because as soon as the boy realises
that there could be a very large compo claim on a no-win no-fee
basis, things are going to be looking very different.

I suppose the council forced him to ride his bike into the railings.