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

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 - 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?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_Bq1vxCUvo

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 22:19:16 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:

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.

You said that in order for there to be a strict liability law,
cyclists would also have to be insured. You were wrong. W know you
were wrong because Netherlands has strict liability and does not
require cyclists to be insured; cyclists typically cause a lot less
damage to pedestrians than cars do and the idea of such laws is to
protect vulnerable road users, which includes but cyclists *and*
pedestrians from the disproportionate danger brought by motor traffic.

It's not a big deal, your conclusion is simply contradicted by the
evidence of places that have tried it.

Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.

On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 07:40:00 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 22:19:16 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:

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.

You said that in order for there to be a strict liability law,
cyclists would also have to be insured. You were wrong.

For there to be a comprehensive strict liability law which also
covered injuries caused by cyclists to pedestrians there would need to
be compulsory insurance. No one has justified why cyclists should be
excluded from such a law.

We know you
were wrong because Netherlands has strict liability

Only in a limited sense, it does not cover all cyclists - only those
on electric bikes who are required to have compulsory insurance.

cyclists typically cause a lot less
damage to pedestrians than cars do and the idea of such laws is to
protect vulnerable road users, which includes but cyclists *and*
pedestrians from the disproportionate danger brought by motor traffic.

If it is to protect the vulnerable why should it not also cover
pedestrians from the actions of cyclists?

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 21:59:19 -0800 (PST), Justin
wrote:

On 28 nov, 23:29, Judith wrote:


snip


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


So on seeing the statement :

Als bij een verkeerslicht vaak fietsers door rood rijden, moet een
auto zijn rijgedrag hieraan aanpassen.

You thought that you would offer the translation provided by Google or
similar, when all along you speak fluent Dutch?


If by a traffic light cyclists often ride through red, a car must
adjust its behaviour accordingly.


You talk ****e and I do not believe that you are fluent in Dutch.

Of course if you *are* fluent in Dutch - you will be able to translate a
paragraph if I present it to you. Up for that - I mean, it will be a simple
task for you?

On Nov 29, 5:59*am, Justin wrote:
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.

Ik spreek Nederlands zeer goed omdat Ik ga na Nederland elke jaar voor
onze vacancies.
Lekker hoor :-)

--
Simon Mason

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 22:11:46 -0800 (PST), Justin
wrote:

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 - 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?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_Bq1vxCUvo


********

So you are saying that if you are going through a junction in a car and some
knob-head on a push-bike goes through their red-light and you hit them then it
is your fault.

The video says: "Who is at fault in bike vs car smashes - in the Netherlands it
is always the car "

I repeat : Absolute ********

I do not believe you.

I had forgotten how stupid you are.

Fluent in Dutch - my arse.

On Nov 29, 6:11*am, Justin wrote:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_Bq1vxCUvo- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks for posting that link - it was very interesting.
Apart from the advert that is.

--
Simon Mason

On 29/11/2011 11:35, Peter Parry wrote:
cyclists typically cause a lot less
damage to pedestrians than cars do and the idea of such laws is to
protect vulnerable road users, which includes but cyclists *and*
pedestrians from the disproportionate danger brought by motor traffic.

If it is to protect the vulnerable why should it not also cover
pedestrians from the actions of cyclists?

and does it cover 3rd party damage caused by a cyclist being the cause
of an accident with motor vehicles?
I have had a near miss by swerving to avoid a cyclist shooting out from
a pavement and onto the street (not a child, this was an adult).
A matter of a few seconds later and there could have been a head-on.

Andy

On 29 nov, 13:30, Simon Mason wrote:
On Nov 29, 5:59*am, Justin wrote:

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.

Ik spreek Nederlands zeer goed omdat Ik ga na Nederland elke jaar voor
onze vacancies.
Lekker hoor :-)

--
Simon Mason

Hi Simon:
not a bad attempt; Think about word order

Ik spreek Nederlands omdat ik elk jaar op vakantie naar Nederland ga.

"Simon Mason" wrote in message
...
On Nov 29, 5:59 am, Justin wrote:
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.

Ik spreek Nederlands zeer goed omdat Ik ga na Nederland elke jaar voor
onze vacancies.
Lekker hoor :-)

Yes, Google translate is a wonderful tool isn't it? It can even make
****wits look semi-intelligent (to stupid people).