Jump to content


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

@&#$ing cyclists version 2


  • Please log in to reply
225 replies to this topic

#21 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 19,900 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 03:37 PM

1. AMBER means ‘Stop’ at the stop line. You may go on only if the AMBER appears after you have crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident
2. It is COMPULSORY in Leeds for car drivers to go through red lights.
3. More cyclists are killed by cars jumping red lights than motorists killed by cyclists jumping red lights
4. We should switch to the system used in some countries where the cad drives is assumed to be responsible for the car/bike collision unless the driver can prove otherwise.

#22 Futtocks

Futtocks
  • Coach
  • 20,164 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 03:42 PM

4. We should switch to the system used in some countries where the cad drives is assumed to be responsible for the car/bike collision unless the driver can prove otherwise.


Paging Dr Freud! Paging Dr Freud! ;)

To be honest, I thought this system was already in place in the UK. In London, at least; I'm sure I remember reading about it.

A mind is like a parachute. It doesn’t work if it isn’t open. Frank Zappa (1940 - 1993)


#23 gazza77

gazza77
  • Coach
  • 2,178 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 03:49 PM

4. We should switch to the system used in some countries where the cad drives is assumed to be responsible for the car/bike collision unless the driver can prove otherwise.


Equally, we could just assume the lunatic without insurance on two wheels is to blame unless proven otherwise. :rolleyes:

Perhaps the best solution is simply to not apportion blame until the evidence has been examined, and then realise that sometimes, accidents are exactly that, and no-one is at fault. B)

"Featherstone outside the Super League is like Rooney, Ronaldo, Villa out of Euro 2012."

Please view my photos.

 

http://www.hughesphoto.co.uk/


Little Nook Farm - Caravan Club Certificated Location in the heart of the Pennines overlooking Hebden Bridge and the Calder Valley.

http://www.facebook.com/LittleNookFarm


#24 Futtocks

Futtocks
  • Coach
  • 20,164 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 03:52 PM

Perhaps the best solution is simply to not apportion blame until the evidence has been examined, and then realise that sometimes, accidents are exactly that, and no-one is at fault. B)


Weirdo!;)

A mind is like a parachute. It doesn’t work if it isn’t open. Frank Zappa (1940 - 1993)


#25 Severus

Severus
  • Coach
  • 12,742 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 04:00 PM

I believe Shane Sutton, GB cycling coach, is also seriously ill in hospital after a similar incident this morning. It seems Shane has come out of it with much more serious head injuries.

Crumbs. Hope he (and Brad) are ok.
Fides invicta triumphat

#26 Methven Hornet

Methven Hornet
  • Coach
  • 9,496 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 04:33 PM

You have to ask yourself why in those situations it may be safer to go through on red than wait for the light to turn green.

But, playing that game, I went for a walk at lunchtime and as is my want I crossed Marylebone Road. Number of cars going through red lights: 9; Number of bikes: 2.


Really? You should know better!
"There are now more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs."

#27 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 28,977 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 06:26 PM

Equally, we could just assume the lunatic without insurance on two wheels is to blame unless proven otherwise. :rolleyes:

Perhaps the best solution is simply to not apportion blame until the evidence has been examined, and then realise that sometimes, accidents are exactly that, and no-one is at fault. B)


The concept is based on the idea that if a pedestrian is hit by a cyclist you should assume the cyclist is to blame and look for reasons why not; then if a cyclist is hit by a car you'd assume the car is to blame and look for reasons why not; if the car is hit by a lorry you'd look for reasons not to blame the lorry; and finally if the lorry is hit by a bolt of lightning from the almighty you'd have to look for reasons why that's not because Washington State has allowed gay marriage.

There are plenty of equivalents in driving - if you go into the back of someone it'll be assumed to be your fault unless you can show otherwise, for example.
Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#28 Jerry the Berry

Jerry the Berry
  • Coach
  • 5,249 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 07:37 PM

Coming home from hospital with his Wigan RL Training gear on. :)

Posted Image

#29 guess who

guess who
  • Coach
  • 3,955 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 08:34 AM

4. We should switch to the system used in some countries where the cad drives is assumed to be responsible for the car/bike collision unless the driver can prove otherwise.


So what happens if the cyclist is killed and there is no other witness. What if the cyclist was at fault.
You could have a innocent person going to prison.

And you think that is the way to go?

#30 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 19,900 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 09:13 AM

Technically, it is strict liability or presumption of liability. This puts it far better than I can: presumption of liability – a rule that a motorist will be liable for a crash with a cyclist unlessthe motorist can showthat the cyclist was at fault....A presumption of liability would normally work by shifting the burden of proof. So after a crash, a cyclist wouldn’t need to prove that the driver did something wrong; it would be for the driver to prove that he didn’t do anything wrong (or that the collision was caused by the cyclist doing something wrong).
Beyond that, the usual rules would normally apply.


see http://ukcyclerules....n-for-cyclists/

#31 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 28,977 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 09:24 AM

So what happens if the cyclist is killed and there is no other witness. What if the cyclist was at fault.
You could have a innocent person going to prison.

And you think that is the way to go?


How do you think they determine what happened in a fatal car crash?
Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#32 Griff9of13

Griff9of13
  • Coach
  • 5,518 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 09:27 AM

Technically, it is strict liability or presumption of liability. This puts it far better than I can: presumption of liability – a rule that a motorist will be liable for a crash with a cyclist unlessthe motorist can showthat the cyclist was at fault....A presumption of liability would normally work by shifting the burden of proof. So after a crash, a cyclist wouldn’t need to prove that the driver did something wrong; it would be for the driver to prove that he didn’t do anything wrong (or that the collision was caused by the cyclist doing something wrong).
Beyond that, the usual rules would normally apply.

see http://ukcyclerules....n-for-cyclists/


Doesn't that go against our general principle of law though, that you are innocent until proved guilty? The burden of proof being with the prosecution not the defence.
"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

#33 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 19,900 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 09:41 AM

its not as general is we might think. In theUK about 1,500,000 speeding tickets are issued each year on a guilty until proven innocent basis

#34 guess who

guess who
  • Coach
  • 3,955 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 12:19 PM

How do you think they determine what happened in a fatal car crash?


Lots of different ways.

But the point John made was the driver was to blame until otherwise proved. This is clearly wrong and only the biking mafia seem to think its a good idea.

#35 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 4,332 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 12:25 PM

its not as general is we might think. In theUK about 1,500,000 speeding tickets are issued each year on a guilty until proven innocent basis

I would imagine that on the whole speeding tickets are issued on a guilty because you're proven guilty by the machine basis.

#36 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 28,977 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 12:30 PM

the biking mafia


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#37 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 19,900 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 12:46 PM

Posted Image



"This is clearly wrong"
Not so sure.I think its a good starting point. The Netherlands and Denmark have a law of ‘strict liability’ to protect vulnerable road users from more powerful road users. Under this law, in crashes involving vulnerable road users, unless it can be clearly proven that the vulnerable road user was at fault, the more powerful road user is found liable by default. This makes Dutch and Danish drivers more cautious around cyclists and pedestrians and is responsible for their safe roads.” see http://www.cycling-e...y-and-play-nice

#38 guess who

guess who
  • Coach
  • 3,955 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 05:03 PM

Posted Image



"This is clearly wrong"
Not so sure.I think its a good starting point. The Netherlands and Denmark have a law of ‘strict liability’ to protect vulnerable road users from more powerful road users. Under this law, in crashes involving vulnerable road users, unless it can be clearly proven that the vulnerable road user was at fault, the more powerful road user is found liable by default. This makes Dutch and Danish drivers more cautious around cyclists and pedestrians and is responsible for their safe roads.” see http://www.cycling-e...y-and-play-nice


So you would be happy to go to prison if you killed someone on a bike.
Even if it wasnt your fault?

#39 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 19,900 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 05:24 PM

No, but what has that got to do with it?

In this country, “strict liability” is often portrayed as a very strong legal tool. In fact, it is very weak. It does not refer to criminal liability, only to civil liability — i.e., primarily to matters of insurance in the event of injury. It is often mistakenly believed that “strict liability” would be relevant in the cases of cyclist deaths in which the motorists involved have received no or lenient punishment. In fact, the personal consequences of strict liability for the motorist are minimal to none.

#40 guess who

guess who
  • Coach
  • 3,955 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 05:42 PM

No, but what has that got to do with it?


You made the point that the law should change so the car is driver is at fault until proven otherwise. Its a silly idea.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users