|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
it is strange, one rule for car drivers, another for cyclists
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
it is strange, one rule for car drivers, another for cyclists
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
it is strange, one rule for car drivers, another for cyclists
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? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
it is strange, one rule for car drivers, another for cyclists
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
it is strange, one rule for car drivers, another for cyclists
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
it is strange, one rule for car drivers, another for cyclists
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
it is strange, one rule for car drivers, another for cyclists
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
it is strange, one rule for car drivers, another for cyclists
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
it is strange, one rule for car drivers, another for cyclists
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why is it OK to ram cyclists but not other drivers? | Doug[_3_] | UK | 346 | November 5th 08 09:18 AM |
Why is it OK to ram cyclists but not other drivers? | BrianW[_2_] | UK | 0 | October 3rd 08 08:49 PM |
Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists | Terryc[_3_] | Australia | 5 | October 11th 07 08:08 AM |
Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists | Michael Grillparzer | General | 13 | May 30th 07 04:32 PM |
Strange photos of cyclists | SuzieB | Australia | 3 | January 18th 06 11:42 PM |