A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cycle Infrastructure Design



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old November 1st 08, 10:18 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,166
Default Cycle Infrastructure Design

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

John wrote:

They don't have "common law" there. I guess you are probably confusing
it with their (and much of the rest of Europe's) insurance convention of
providing cover for "no-fault liability", a system where motorists'
insurance companies are expected to part-compensate vulnerable road
users that might suffer loss in a collision involving their insured's
car, up to 100% if the vulnerable road user is a minor. There, like
here, criminal fault has to be proven, based on evidence.


Whatever the details, if a driver in .nl hits a cyclist or pedestrian
then he is liable. Yes, criminal liability is not included, I don't
think I implied it was or should be, it's about civil liability for
damage caused, reflecting the fact that pedestrian v. pedestrian
collisions rarely cause significant injury.

It would be good to have a system over here where if a non-motorised
road user, in a town especially, is hit by a driver, then there is no
need to spend three years playing the game of legal chicken which we
have, whereby successively less derisory offers are made until you get
to the point where the risk of having to pay the insurer's legal costs
outweighs the benefit of the additional difference between the current
offer and a reasonable sum. Been there, done that.

Guy
- --
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

** Please see http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Troll_code **

GPG sig #3FA3BCDE http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFJDMefHBDrsD+jvN4RAmDvAJ48vrQlqqFc0rd39Xobni vIu6qWvwCfSzAH
OrLrBCPlUWmczkzlb6rbtwg=
=MEti
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Ads
  #12  
Old November 1st 08, 10:20 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
judith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,961
Default Cycle Infrastructure Design

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 20:40:59 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

John wrote:

Strict liability would also be a huge plus.

What is that?


There's a good description on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability

It's the system they have in the Netherlands whereby there is liability
regardless of negligence.

Guy



ah yes - the well known authoritative source "Wikipedia" - this means
that Chapman doesn't really know.

It means that if a cyclist, whilst riding on a pavement, hit a
pedestrian then the pedestrian would automatically be able to claim
damages off the cyclist without having to prove who was negligent.


--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment

  #13  
Old November 1st 08, 10:24 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Hills
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Cycle Infrastructure Design

judith wrote:
On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 20:40:59 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

John wrote:

Strict liability would also be a huge plus.
What is that?

There's a good description on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability

It's the system they have in the Netherlands whereby there is liability
regardless of negligence.

Guy



ah yes - the well known authoritative source "Wikipedia" - this means
that Chapman doesn't really know.

It means that if a cyclist, whilst riding on a pavement, hit a
pedestrian then the pedestrian would automatically be able to claim
damages off the cyclist without having to prove who was negligent.



why would Guy want to encourage that?
  #14  
Old November 1st 08, 10:28 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
judith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,961
Default Cycle Infrastructure Design

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 21:18:23 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

John wrote:

They don't have "common law" there. I guess you are probably confusing
it with their (and much of the rest of Europe's) insurance convention of
providing cover for "no-fault liability", a system where motorists'
insurance companies are expected to part-compensate vulnerable road
users that might suffer loss in a collision involving their insured's
car, up to 100% if the vulnerable road user is a minor. There, like
here, criminal fault has to be proven, based on evidence.


Whatever the details, if a driver in .nl hits a cyclist or pedestrian
then he is liable. Yes, criminal liability is not included, I don't
think I implied it was or should be, it's about civil liability for
damage caused, reflecting the fact that pedestrian v. pedestrian
collisions rarely cause significant injury.


So lets ignore the fact that "criminal fault has to be proven, based
on evidence" and say "whatever the details....."

You are not a full shilling

Can you back your statement up with an authoritative reference?

--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment

  #15  
Old November 1st 08, 10:29 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
judith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,961
Default Cycle Infrastructure Design

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 21:24:43 +0000, Hills wrote:

judith wrote:
On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 20:40:59 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

John wrote:

Strict liability would also be a huge plus.
What is that?
There's a good description on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability

It's the system they have in the Netherlands whereby there is liability
regardless of negligence.

Guy



ah yes - the well known authoritative source "Wikipedia" - this means
that Chapman doesn't really know.

It means that if a cyclist, whilst riding on a pavement, hit a
pedestrian then the pedestrian would automatically be able to claim
damages off the cyclist without having to prove who was negligent.



why would Guy want to encourage that?



Because he doesn't know what he's talking about - he's a ****wit.


--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment

  #16  
Old November 2nd 08, 07:29 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
judith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,961
Default Cycle Infrastructure Design

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 20:40:59 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

John wrote:

Strict liability would also be a huge plus.

What is that?


There's a good description on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability

It's the system they have in the Netherlands whereby there is liability
regardless of negligence.

Guy



as usual - Chapman gets it wrong on legal matters.
I have posted a question in uk.legal re what is "strict liability -
the responses may be of interest.


--
I believe the driver is also responsible for the use of seat belts of
passengers. (Guy Chapman)


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures? damyth Techniques 61 September 22nd 07 04:10 AM
help me design a cycle facility Ian Smith UK 39 January 30th 07 11:02 PM
Design of cycle bridges Mike Causer UK 27 November 8th 06 09:24 PM
BNE: Infrastructure planning Duracell Bunny Australia 2 October 5th 06 11:01 AM
Cycle design / fashion - sloping top tubes, high seat-post etc 26" etc Hywel & Ros UK 37 October 28th 03 05:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.