|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |