mad_dogpompey
|
| posted on 14/11/09 at 11:03 AM |
|
|
what a total joke.
whats this about plans to make drivers of motor vehicles liable no matter whose fault it is, in an accident between a pedal cycle and a car!? what a
total load of crap!!!!!! how can you be liable for something thats not your fault! all the idiot cyclist on the internet come out with, well it works
in the netherlands! yeh great well their legal system is a total joke anyway!!!!! anyone think that we should be held liable for a cyclists injuries
if they cycle into us?! and then have to pay an excess asuming we ll also loose our no claims!!??
be a bit of a bad thing for those of you who live in places like cambridge london and oxford!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 14/11/09 at 11:12 AM |
|
|
well as a regular cyclist I would not object to any proposal that would mean car drivers are forced to be more considerate to cyclists.
I suggest you get your fat arse out of your car and onto a bike, then may be you'll begin to understand.
Unfortunately I doubt it will happen over here.
|
|
|
BenB
|
| posted on 14/11/09 at 11:14 AM |
|
|
Where did you hear this then???
Sounds a way bad idea. Cyclists are crazy mofos as it is, if they can claim a nice new bike by crashing in to you it will be chaos...
Personally I think cyclists should have licenses and insurance. I've seen too many people be injured by cyclists mowing people down on zebra
crossings after deciding they don't have to stop and in the absense of insurance there's nothing you can do apart from getting back off
the floor and (if they've hung around) give 'em a smack.
I'm all for cycling. I just don't understand why so many treat pedestrians as moving targets...
|
|
|
eznfrank
|
| posted on 14/11/09 at 11:19 AM |
|
|
Without an official law in place I believe cyclists are very rarely found to be at fault anyway. They may have a deduction made in their "award
for injuries if it can be proven that they were riding like a tit but generally the motorist bears the full brunt anyway.
When I worked in motor claims it was always seen as a bit of a non-starter trying to suggest the cyclist was at fault.
|
|
|
russbost
|
| posted on 14/11/09 at 11:19 AM |
|
|
Well, we're already regarded as guilty until proved innocent if we hit a pedestrian!
To me unless you hit a pedestrian on the pavement or a zebra crossing, or whilst speeding (fairly excessively) or whilst drunk or on drugs - how can
it possibly be yor fault??? By definition cars drive on the road & pedestrians walk on the pavement, hence if car connects with pedestrian on the
road it HAS to be the pedestrians fault, surely - he shouldn't have been there!
This is merely an extension of the same thing - as ever blame the motorist, don't let's worry about the real cause - bit like global
warming.
If they want to make a real impact on the death toll on the roads then separate cars & trucks, & make more separation than currently exists
between cyclists, pedestrians & cars/trucks (we can safely ignore motorcyclists - they obviously have a death wish anyway! ). If we had more
bridges/subways instead of pedestrian Xings that would be a start - oh!,no, wait, that would cost money, an investment - we don't do investments
anymore in this country do we!
I no longer run Furore Products or Furore Cars Ltd, but would still highly recommend them for Acewell dashes, projector headlights, dominator
headlights, indicators, mirrors etc, best prices in the UK! Take a look at http://www.furoreproducts.co.uk/ or find more parts on Ebay, user names
furoreltd & furoreproducts, discounts available for LCB users.
Don't forget Stainless Steel Braided brake hoses, made to your exact requirements in any of around 16 colours.
http://shop.ebay.co.uk/furoreproducts/m.html?_dmd=1&_ipg=50&_sop=12&_rdc=1
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
mad_dogpompey
|
| posted on 14/11/09 at 11:27 AM |
|
|
fat ass?!
you have made enough assumptions there?
fat arse?! as a member of the armed forces i have to stay fit for my job. i ve ran the london marathon four times and have done the great south run
pretty much every year i ve not been deployed for. so don t assume that because i drive a car(as you do to!) that i m fat!
Its nothing to do with how careful any body is on a bike or a car! the whole principle is if we should be held liable for something that is not our
bloody fault!
where do you stop being liable ?! if a cyclist cycles into your parked car?! and claims damages against you then?! if you can t see the stupidity in
that then maybe you need to move to the netherlands!!!!
if i hit a cyclist and its my fault sue me if its there fault i should be able to sue them!
|
|
|
DRC INDY 7
|
| posted on 14/11/09 at 11:27 AM |
|
|
It's been common knowledge for a few years now i belive it's a good thing but like all good things there are downsides to it
https://www.facebook.com/groups/462610273778799/
Puddle Dodgers Club
|
|
|
GMPMotorsport
|
| posted on 14/11/09 at 11:31 AM |
|
|
They should make it law that cyclists have insurance and be made to obey traffic lights, zebra crossings and other highway requirements then people
may be more tolernt to cyclists IMHO.
|
|
|
SeaBass
|
| posted on 14/11/09 at 11:31 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by 02GF74
I suggest you get your fat arse out of your car and onto a bike, then may be you'll begin to understand.
And relax!
|
|
|
mad_dogpompey
|
| posted on 14/11/09 at 11:31 AM |
|
|
there was a TV program on about it the other night. and its been in the papers alot!
And couldn t agree more there needs to be ore seperation on the roads! in netherlands dedicated cycle ways are everywhere!!!! unlike here.
yet again i ve started a heated debate. oops!!!!! think the only thing i ve taken from this is how important having legal cover on your insurance
is!!!
|
|
|
sebastiaan
|
| posted on 14/11/09 at 11:35 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mad_dogpompeyif you can t see the stupidity in that then maybe you need to move to the netherlands!!!!
Easy boy, calm down.... ;-)
|
|
|
oldtimer
|
| posted on 14/11/09 at 11:36 AM |
|
|
I guess it's the goverment trying to force motorists to be more considerate to cyclists, I think this is poorly judged at the moment but could
show some good intent. I am a regular cyclist and driver and only one side of this arguement regularly threatens the life of the other. Only cyclists
know what it's like.
|
|
|
Humbug
|
| posted on 14/11/09 at 11:41 AM |
|
|
IMHO it's a good idea to make motorists more considerate, but a blanket rule to make the car driver liable in any incident with a cyclist is
just asking for trouble. Also, if we are trying to make things fairer for all road users, cyclists have to understand that the rules of the
road apply to them too: stop at red lights, don't go up one way streets the wrong way, signal before and while manoeuvring, etc.
|
|
|
philw
|
| posted on 14/11/09 at 11:43 AM |
|
|
I would have thought there will be a lot of dodgey insurance claims occuring.
Must try harder
|
|
|
stevebubs
|
| posted on 14/11/09 at 11:47 AM |
|
|
[If they want to make a real impact on the death toll on the roads then separate cars & trucks, & make more separation than currently exists
between cyclists, pedestrians & cars/trucks (we can safely ignore motorcyclists - they obviously have a death wish anyway!). If we had more
bridges/subways instead of pedestrian Xings that would be a start - oh!,no, wait, that would cost money, an investment - we don't do investments
anymore in this country do we!
Ditto - although something that wouldn't need investment but I believe would make a significant difference to road safety would be if lorries
were immobilised and forced to park off-road during certain hours...e.g. 6am - 10am, 3pm - 8pm
|
|
|
blakep82
|
| posted on 14/11/09 at 11:50 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by philw
I would have thought there will be a lot of dodgey insurance claims occuring.
+57
i can see a good number of dishonest cyclists crashing into cars, knowing they will never be to blame. new bike for them
happens a fair bit round here, smack addicts walking into the paths of cars (like jumping out in front of them) to claim a bit of compensation for
injury.
fault should lay with whoevers at fault, regardless of what they're driving/riding
________________________
IVA manual link http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1081997083
don't write OT on a new thread title, you're creating the topic, everything you write is very much ON topic!
|
|
|
spaximus
|
| posted on 14/11/09 at 12:15 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Humbug
IMHO it's a good idea to make motorists more considerate, but a blanket rule to make the car driver liable in any incident with a cyclist is
just asking for trouble.
No it isn't anything to do about that. The car driver being insured and held to be responsible will then have to claim on his insurance. They
will have to pay for the ambulance, the medical care, the loss of earnings and all the usual rubbish with the poor motorist unable to defend them
selves.
The goverment saves all the mony and appears to be doing their bit for global warming etc etc. This remember is the same goverment who is making it
law that if you challenge a speeding ticket, even if you are proved innocent, will still have to pay the court costs. The idea being we will all just
cough up the £60 knowing it will cost more to be innocent.
|
|
|
austin man
|
| posted on 14/11/09 at 12:23 PM |
|
|
big brother state, next thing we will all need to have onboard camera. A lot of arguments for and against as I think we can all agree there are the
idiots out there on bikes and there ar really concientious bike riders as there are car drivers.
Sometimes I think even the club / professional riders show no consideration especially when they ride 3 abreast at 20mph on a 60mph stretch and fail
to even drop in to single file to let cars pass.
Life is like a bowl of fruit, funny how all the weird looking ones are left alone
|
|
|
nitram38
|
| posted on 14/11/09 at 12:24 PM |
|
|
Ahem, I live in london.
Cyclists, who ignore red lights, ride on the wrong side of the road, the wrong way down one way streets, no lights or reflective clothing, cycling up
the right hand side to turn left across the front of my car, etc, etc.
I've cycled and I wouldn't dare do this stuff, but cyclists today do not care.
I have a simple solution.
My car carries a permenent video recorder (T-eye ADR 3000). If they crash into me or pull off some stupid manoveure I have the evidence against
them.
I suggest a few more people buy these devices.
As an aside, Under the Road Traffic Act 1956, in the event of an accident by a motorised vechile with a non-motorised vehicle or pedestrian, the
motorised vehicle owner pays the ambulance fees...........so this blame stuff is not new
[Edited on 14/11/2009 by nitram38]
|
|
|
adithorp
|
| posted on 14/11/09 at 12:39 PM |
|
|
As a cyclist, yes, cyclist should obay traffic lights, one way streets, not ride on footpaths, etc. But then as a driver, drivers should obay them as
well... but add in use there indicators and mirrors, stop using thier mobiles, stick to the speed limits, etc.
The statistics show very few cyclist/car accidents are the cyclist fault...and the first thing the driver says is "I didn't see
you"! so add, look where they're going/ get their eyesight checked.
Whoever is at fault, they should be held responsible. If you're a cyclist then get insured; Join Britsh Cycling or CTC (Insurance included in
both) or add it to your houshold cover (if it's not already there).
Not all cyclist are idiots as aren't all drivers or all pedestians. If we all stuck to the rules then there'd be a lot fewer accidents and
we wouldn't have any need for these proposals.
adrian
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire
http://jpsc.org.uk/forum/
|
|
|
Agriv8
|
| posted on 14/11/09 at 01:01 PM |
|
|
just changing the angle slightly but still relevant.
Does this not apply to hourses and riders already ? Ie if they take a dislike to your car the can put the hoves through the bonnet and there is
nothing you can do about it appart from claim on your insurance. could be wrong ( usually am )
regards
Agriv8
Taller than your average Guy !
Management is like a tree of monkeys. - Those at the top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces. BUT Those at the bottom look up and see a
tree full of a*seholes .............
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 14/11/09 at 01:04 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Humbug
cyclists have to understand that the rules of the road apply to them too: stop at red lights, don't go up one way streets the wrong way, signal
before and while manoeuvring, etc.
what is the big issue with stopping at red traffic light?
if the road is clear, then give me a reason why you cannot cycle, or indeed drive across it.
I commute on bike - fortunately can do most of it away from cars - and from experience I know for a fact that the further I am away from a car, the
safer I am. That is the situation crossing a junction on ared traffice when there is no traffic coming form eiher. You won;tbe able to
convince me otherwise.
And don;t hey have turn right on LED in US? Same thing but instead of goiung straighyt across you err, like, turn right. Obvoulsy comon sense and
observation means you do not do that when there is traffic about to smack into you.
signal before manouevring? yeah, rigyt os what aboutr cars? There have been too many occasious I am at corssing and vehicl on my riught will cut
across my path, at times deliverately knowing that as a cyclist I will have to give way iunless I want to be injured.
A cuclist not giving signlas makes it safer for them since the driver needs to pay attention and not make assumption whcih waythe cuylcist is
going.
re: fat arse - ooh a bit touchy there - sorry, no offense 
I've had too many bad experinces with drivers whilst on a bike so any topic like this is gonna make me go off on one. 
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 14/11/09 at 01:07 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by philw
I would have thought there will be a lot of dodgey insurance claims occuring.
You'd kind of think so but is there any evidence of this from where this scheme operates?
Unless you are a practised stunt rider, smacking yourself hard into a car in order to write off a bike runs the risks of killing or permanently
injuring yourself - I doubt there are that many claims and surely you'd be found out if you did it on a regular basis?
|
|
|
rusty nuts
|
| posted on 14/11/09 at 01:13 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by 02GF74
quote:
Originally posted by Humbug
cyclists have to understand that the rules of the road apply to them too: stop at red lights, don't go up one way streets the wrong way, signal
before and while manoeuvring, etc.
what is the big issue with stopping at red traffic light?
if the road is clear, then give me a reason why you cannot cycle, or indeed drive across it.
I commute on bike - fortunately can do most of it away from cars - and from experience I know for a fact that the further I am away from a car, the
safer I am. That is the situation crossing a junction on ared traffice when there is no traffic coming form eiher. You won;tbe able to
convince me otherwise.
And don;t hey have turn right on LED in US? Same thing but instead of goiung straighyt across you err, like, turn right. Obvoulsy comon sense and
observation means you do not do that when there is traffic about to smack into you.
signal before manouevring? yeah, rigyt os what aboutr cars? There have been too many occasious I am at corssing and vehicl on my riught will cut
across my path, at times deliverately knowing that as a cyclist I will have to give way iunless I want to be injured.
A cuclist not giving signlas makes it safer for them since the driver needs to pay attention and not make assumption whcih waythe cuylcist is
going.
re: fat arse - ooh a bit touchy there - sorry, no offense
I've had too many bad experinces with drivers whilst on a bike so any topic like this is gonna make me go off on one.
A typical blinkered response from an idiot cyclist.!
[Edited on 14/11/09 by rusty nuts]
|
|
|
Steve G
|
| posted on 14/11/09 at 01:20 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by 02GF74
if the road is clear, then give me a reason why you cannot cycle, or indeed drive across it.
here's one - because its the law!!! I'm a cyclist too by the way and really dont understand the logic behind your thinking there. You
really think not signalling or obeying an of the rules of the road is a good thing to do?? Personally i think the police should actively prosecute
cyclists who think the laws dont apply to them - and repeat offenders should have their bike confiscated for their own and other road users safety.
Yes car drivers could and should be more considerate around cyclists....... but its not likely to happen when car drivers continually see cyclists
being a law unto themselves.
|
|
|
.jpg)
.jpg)
