Irresponsible cyclists free to get drivers to clear up after them

Peter Parry wrote, On 21/09/2009 10:43:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 22:06:48 +0100, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:

Anyone know how it works in Germany and Holland (quoted as already having
legislation along these lines).

It puts the cost of insurance up a lot. A colleague has had two
claims made against him in Holland in three years despite never having
had an accident with a cyclist, never mind being to blame for one.

Apparently when you need a new bike or the Lycra needs a wash you
stand on the side of the road and make a note of time, a car number
(any car will do) , description of the driver and the car. Go home
and submit a claim for a non-existent accident and get a payout from
the drivers insurer.

"Accident? What accident?" apparently is not considered to be an
adequate defence.


And there's a bloke works down the chip shop swears he's Elvis.

LN

--

Never knowingly understood

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 02:12:21 -0700 (PDT), BrianW
wrote:



It would help if you understood the difference between criminal law
and civil law, Mr Bollen. Mind you, it would help if you understood
the difference between arse and elbow ...

No wonder he has a lousy shoe-shine.

I told him to use plenty of "Elbow grease".

Derek

Derek Geldard wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 02:12:21 -0700 (PDT), BrianW
wrote:



It would help if you understood the difference between criminal law
and civil law, Mr Bollen. Mind you, it would help if you understood
the difference between arse and elbow ...

No wonder he has a lousy shoe-shine.

I told him to use plenty of "Elbow grease".

Tescos don't stock it.

"Col Colt" wrote:

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On 21 Sep, 00:00, Judith M Smith wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 20:24:00 +0100, "Graculus"

Long overdue but unlikely to become law. Don't forget that the
lawmakers themselves are virtually all drivers too and that is why
vulnerable road victims are so often blamed for their own deaths and
injuries, i.e. for getting in the way of fast moving vehicles on
public roads.

Strange how this law won't apply to pedestrians hit by cyclists. In that
encounter the pedestrian is the vulnerable road user but the sick
psychopathic **** of a cyclist can always walk away without any punishment.
But then you don't give a **** about pedestrians, do you Duggie?

The only thing Dugh cares about is not having a car. Other people having
cars makes him feel bad so he spends his entire life bitching at them.

On 21 Sep, 12:58, Huge wrote:
On 2009-09-21, Paul Luton wrote:

In a different place I saw a comment to the effect " you have to drive
carefully in Amsterdam - there are cyclists all over the place and you
don't want to hit a cyclist". Many drivers do watch out for vulnerable
road users but a significant minority will only do so if threatened with
a large kick in the wallet. Many people claim to be afraid to cycle on
UK streets; fewer aggressive drivers can only help to change that
perception.

Quite so, but surely even you think that discarding the fundamental
precepts of British justice is a little OTT? It is obvious to anyone
with a few functioning neurons that the system will be heavily gamed
to the advantage of cyclists.

Even as a cyclist who got knocked off his bike earlier in the year and
is currently going through the rigmarole of suing the driver, I have
to agree with you. The provisions of the English law of negligence
are (I hope) adequate for dealing with the case of motorists
negligently colliding with cyclists.

Paul Luton wrote:
BrianW wrote:
On 20 Sep, 22:50, JNugent wrote:
Adam Lea wrote:
Graculus wrote:
It seems that our Doug has friends in the government, considering
that some are thinking along the lines that any cyclist or pedestrian
involved in any kind of incident with a car is completely absolved of
all blame, and the driver (with his compulsory insurance) can pick up
the tab.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6841326.ece
It isn't like that at all, the principle is that the driver of the more
powerful vehicle would have to prove that they weren't at fault in an
accident
...reversing the burden of proof, which has traditionally been that an
accused person is innocent *unless* proven guilty (of an offence) or
at fault
(in the case of a civil wrong).

So far as I can gather, it is only proposed to apply to civil law
claims. I don't think it is a fair proposal, however, and I certainly
can't see how it would encourage more people to cycle.

In a different place I saw a comment to the effect " you have to drive
carefully in Amsterdam - there are cyclists all over the place and you
don't want to hit a cyclist". Many drivers do watch out for vulnerable
road users but a significant minority will only do so if threatened with
a large kick in the wallet. Many people claim to be afraid to cycle on
UK streets; fewer aggressive drivers can only help to change that
perception.

Having followed this issue for some time (and I've a 1968? book called
'Road Accidents: Prevent or Punish, and a similarly dated book about
Traffic Law), the big issue is that it makes drivers more careful..

Astute readers may be aware that I was hit from behind by a Taxi. The
driver said in statement to Police (slightly paraphrased) " I hooted and
he didn't get out of my way so I hit him".

The police refused to take action as I wasn't in the cycle lane (which
was closed the following day..)

Remember it is 'presumed' liability, so those cases of idiot cyclists
who cause crashes, all you need is an independant witness, and the
motorist can claim from cyclist.

In the majority of cases where drivers ignore HC and come into contact
with a cyclist (who is in Law allowed his wobble space) the cyclist can
claim from the motor vehicle driver.

Of course, currently, for a civil claim, be it against a motorist, or a
cyclist, what you need is 'on balance of probability' rather than
'beyond resonable doubt' required for a police prosecution.
There have even been cases where a driver was convicted in the court,
but subsequently won a claim for damages from the other party... (In 1950s)

Jim Chisholm

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:00:59 +0100, "Jeremy Parker"
wrote:


"Graculus" wrote in message
...
It seems that our Doug has friends in the government, considering
that some are thinking along the lines that any cyclist or
pedestrian involved in any kind of incident with a car is
completely absolved of all blame, and the driver (with his
compulsory insurance) can pick up the tab.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6841326.ece

Mind you, this is nothing new for this government,

Indeed it isn't new. It has been the law since 1933 for much of the
medical expenses.

In 1933 there was no National Health Service, and when the NHS first
came in it tended to be lax about getting people to pay for anything.
With more concern about budgets that has changed, and now you might
find your hospital and the NHS pursuing you and your insurance
company even for an accident in which you were completely
non-blameworthy.

Charging for treatment following road traffic-related injuries is by
no means a recent practice. My father got a bill from the local
hospital when he was knocked off his bike by a truck c. 1960. I
remember it well, he was not pleased (less pleased by the bill than by
getting knocked off IIRC). I think the truck driver's insurance
coughed up eventually though.

--

Pete

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:07:02 +0100, lardyninja
wrote:

And there's a bloke works down the chip shop swears he's Elvis.

It's the one in the pub who thinks that.

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 22:06:48 +0100, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:

Anyone know how it works in Germany and Holland (quoted as already having
legislation along these lines).

It puts the cost of insurance up a lot. A colleague has had two
claims made against him in Holland in three years despite never having
had an accident with a cyclist, never mind being to blame for one.

Apparently when you need a new bike or the Lycra needs a wash you
stand on the side of the road and make a note of time, a car number
(any car will do) , description of the driver and the car. Go home
and submit a claim for a non-existent accident and get a payout from
the drivers insurer.

"Accident? What accident?" apparently is not considered to be an
adequate defence.

I think it would only be fair to make sure it was some cock in an Audi or
4x4 (on their mobile) who almost ran you off the road, but you assisted them
to achieve that, writing of the bike the faded lycra and suffering
pseudo-injury in the process...

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2009-09-21, Paul Luton wrote:

Quite so, but surely even you think that discarding the fundamental
precepts of British justice is a little OTT? It is obvious to anyone
with a few functioning neurons that the system will be heavily gamed
to the advantage of cyclists.

Ahh, bliss...