Did anyone see last night's 'Drivers in the Dock' on ITV?
Doug
motorists?' A very good question. As usual though the programme seemed
a little biased against cyclists, with the one taxi driver being
notably the worst. In one example a car rammed a cyclists from behind
and yet opinion seemed divided as to who was to blame. Why is there so
much tolerance of cyclists being rammed by cars, which is clearly very
dangerous and aggressive?
--
Car Free Cities
http://www.carfree.com/
Carfree Cities proposes a delightful solution
to the vexing problem of urban automobiles.
Jim A
> The theme was 'Do cyclists in the UK need better protection from
> motorists?' A very good question. As usual though the programme seemed
> a little biased against cyclists, with the one taxi driver being
> notably the worst. In one example a car rammed a cyclists from behind
> and yet opinion seemed divided as to who was to blame. Why is there so
> much tolerance of cyclists being rammed by cars, which is clearly very
> dangerous and aggressive?
Like it or not, 'what goes around comes around' and unfortunately a
hot-headed minority of cyclist provoke such behaviour in motorists. It
doesn't make it right but that, put simply, is how it is imho.
Simon Mason
"Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote in message
news:c2a8a309-34fc-462b...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
> The theme was 'Do cyclists in the UK need better protection from
> motorists?' A very good question. As usual though the programme seemed
> a little biased against cyclists, with the one taxi driver being
> notably the worst. In one example a car rammed a cyclists from behind
> and yet opinion seemed divided as to who was to blame. Why is there so
> much tolerance of cyclists being rammed by cars, which is clearly very
> dangerous and aggressive?
>
The best bit was that Quentin Willson was forced out on a 2 hour ride and
became a total convert and looked pretty fit and cool out on the road. The
driver who rammed into the back of the cyclist was at fault for sure, did he
think the cyclist was going to fly over the parked car?
--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/
JNugent
> "Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote in message
>> The theme was 'Do cyclists in the UK need better protection from
>> motorists?' A very good question. As usual though the programme seemed
>> a little biased against cyclists, with the one taxi driver being
>> notably the worst. In one example a car rammed a cyclists from behind
>> and yet opinion seemed divided as to who was to blame. Why is there so
>> much tolerance of cyclists being rammed by cars, which is clearly very
>> dangerous and aggressive?
> The best bit was that Quentin Willson was forced out on a 2 hour ride
> and became a total convert and looked pretty fit and cool out on the
> road. The driver who rammed into the back of the cyclist was at fault
> for sure, did he think the cyclist was going to fly over the parked car?
The easiest way to consider these matter is to ask oneself the same question
with the roles reversed.
In the case where the cyclist pulled out to overtake a parked car and was hit
from behind by a vehicle which was (in turn) just about to overtake him and
the parked car, simply swap the roles and see whether you still think it was
the fault of the overtaking vehicle's user or whether it was the fault of the
person who moved from one lane to another without warning, without indication
and without checking whether his (lateral) way was clear.
I certainly see that one should not expect a moving vehicle on the nearside
to simply collide with a parked vehicle rather than pull out around it, but
where speeds are lower, the question whether that person is just about to
stop (somewhere behind the parked car) is that bit harder to judge.
Even the cyclists (most of them) thought that one was down to the cyclist,
albeit with some minor criticism of the driver).
John Clayton
"JNugent" <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in message
news:rJudnYRFT8evTGPX...@pipex.net...
> In the case where the cyclist pulled out to overtake a parked car and was
> hit from behind by a vehicle which was (in turn) just about to overtake
> him and the parked car, simply swap the roles and see whether you still
> think it was the fault of the overtaking vehicle's user or whether it was
> the fault of the person who moved from one lane to another without
> warning, without indication and without checking whether his (lateral) way
> was clear.
>
Were I the driver approaching this situation I would certainly have foreseen
the events about to occur.
I would also expect any other experienced road user to anticipate the
situation arising.
No excuses, no evasion.
Simply common sense.
Without this sense one should not be at the wheel of a motor vehicle.
John
JNugent
> "JNugent" <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> In the case where the cyclist pulled out to overtake a parked car and was
>> hit from behind by a vehicle which was (in turn) just about to overtake
>> him and the parked car, simply swap the roles and see whether you still
>> think it was the fault of the overtaking vehicle's user or whether it was
>> the fault of the person who moved from one lane to another without
>> warning, without indication and without checking whether his (lateral) way
>> was clear.
> Were I the driver approaching this situation I would certainly have foreseen
> the events about to occur.
I'm sure you're right.
That, of course, does *not* absolve the cyclist from following the rules of
the road - does it?
Even the cyclists on the panel (all fairly prejudiced on the issue) couldn't
award less than 70% of the blame to the cyclist.
> I would also expect any other experienced road user to anticipate the
> situation arising.
> No excuses, no evasion.
That's exactly what I was thinking: "Watch where you're goping and make sure
that someone else won't be there at the same time that you are".
> Simply common sense.
Absolutely.
> Without this sense one should not be at the wheel of a motor vehicle.
Or over the wheels of a bicycle.
It's your responsibility to look after yourself. If you can't be bothered,
don't expect others to do it for you.
Mas...@bp.com
> In the case where the cyclist pulled out to overtake a parked car and was hit
> from behind by a vehicle which was (in turn) just about to overtake him and
> the parked car, simply swap the roles and see whether you still think it was
> the fault of the overtaking vehicle's user or whether it was the fault of the
> person who moved from one lane to another without warning, without indication
> and without checking whether his (lateral) way was clear.
How many drivers do you see indicating before they overtake a parked
car?
I agree that at least the cyclist should have done an over the
shoulder glance at minimum, but any competent driver would wait to see
if the cyclist was going to overtake a parked car or run into it.
Jim A
> On 14 Nov, 15:48, JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>
>> In the case where the cyclist pulled out to overtake a parked car and was hit
>> from behind by a vehicle which was (in turn) just about to overtake him and
>> the parked car, simply swap the roles and see whether you still think it was
>> the fault of the overtaking vehicle's user or whether it was the fault of the
>> person who moved from one lane to another without warning, without indication
>> and without checking whether his (lateral) way was clear.
>
> How many drivers do you see indicating before they overtake a parked
> car?
If I think it will help other road users any, then I do occasionally, yes.
> I agree that at least the cyclist should have done an over the
> shoulder glance at minimum, but any competent driver would wait to see
> if the cyclist was going to overtake a parked car or run into it.
There are plenty of incompetent drivers around. To assume otherwise is
at best foolish and at worst suicidal.
JNugent
> On 14 Nov, 15:48, JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>
>> In the case where the cyclist pulled out to overtake a parked car and was hit
>> from behind by a vehicle which was (in turn) just about to overtake him and
>> the parked car, simply swap the roles and see whether you still think it was
>> the fault of the overtaking vehicle's user or whether it was the fault of the
>> person who moved from one lane to another without warning, without indication
>> and without checking whether his (lateral) way was clear.
>
> How many drivers do you see indicating before they overtake a parked
> car?
That depends on the circumstances.
If they are at all likely to be overtaken by a third vehicle *at the same
time*, it's probably nearer to 100% than (say) 70%.
> I agree that at least the cyclist should have done an over the
> shoulder glance at minimum, but any competent driver would wait to see
> if the cyclist was going to overtake a parked car or run into it.
Not so straightforward with a vehicle going relatively slowly (and which
might be going to stop).
OTOH, it is best to recall that the incident was staged, and acted out by
stuntmen.
Sir Jeremy
> The theme was 'Do cyclists in the UK need better protection from
> motorists?' A very good question. As usual though the programme seemed
> a little biased against cyclists, with the one taxi driver being
> notably the worst. In one example a car rammed a cyclists from behind
> and yet opinion seemed divided as to who was to blame. Why is there so
> much tolerance of cyclists being rammed by cars, which is clearly very
> dangerous and aggressive?
>
> --
> Carfree Cities proposes a delightful solution
> to the vexing problem of urban automobiles.
I never watch ITV. Its only watched by chavs and fuckwits.
webreader
To be honest I don't think Doug is a chav.
WSR
NM
wrote:
How will you measure and vett this 'sense' in order to determine who
is allowed on the road? Would a driviung test help? Maybe one for
cyclists as well?
Mark Williams
> The best bit was that Quentin Willson was forced out on a 2 hour
> ride and became a total convert and looked pretty fit and cool out
> on the road.
Yes. He gave some excellent advice later as well: `ride as though you
are driving a car and you will be absolutely fine'. This was so
obvious that it didn't need saying thirty years ago, but it apparently
does now.
The fading sequence of the programme was a case of inspired
editing---the taxi driver ranting (forehead throbbing) at the Top Gear
presenters for being `traitors', having voted the car driver at fault
for dooring the cyclist. It exposed the unacceptable face of motoring
sublimely.
> The driver who rammed into the back of the cyclist was at fault for
> sure, did he think the cyclist was going to fly over the parked car?
Whether he did or not (and all of the reconstructions were a bit too
heavily contrived for my liking, especially the left hook one), the
CTC representative did make the point that the law already presumes
the other party is liable when someone is hit from behind. The
motorist panel had no difficulty with that principle, yet were
repeatedly allowed to get away with misrepresenting the current
`presumed liability' proposal as `always guilty'.
--
Mark
Doug
liable when someone is hit from behind'. So why is it not applied when
motorists ram cyclists from behind at slow speeds? It seems to be
treated as trivial or the cyclist's fault but if it happens between
motorists there is usually a kerfuffle.
Doug.
JNugent
> ...the
> CTC representative did make the point that the law already presumes
> the other party is liable when someone is hit from behind.
The law presumes no such thing, especially not in a case of lane-changing and
failing to check, signal and give way to a vehicle on the right (offside),
which was the case in point.
> The motorist panel had no difficulty with that principle,
The "principle" has limited application and none at all in a case of a
vehicle serving laterally into the path of another.
Doug
> Mark Williams wrote:
> > ...the
> > CTC representative did make the point that the law already presumes
> > the other party is liable when someone is hit from behind.
>
> The law presumes no such thing, especially not in a case of lane-changing and
> failing to check, signal and give way to a vehicle on the right (offside),
> which was the case in point.
>
not unlawful?
>
> > The motorist panel had no difficulty with that principle,
>
> The "principle" has limited application and none at all in a case of a
> vehicle serving laterally into the path of another.
>
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
Tony Dragon
> On 16 Nov, 08:35, JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> Mark Williams wrote:
>>> ...the
>>> CTC representative did make the point that the law already presumes
>>> the other party is liable when someone is hit from behind.
>> The law presumes no such thing, especially not in a case of lane-changing and
>> failing to check, signal and give way to a vehicle on the right (offside),
>> which was the case in point.
>>
> So you think it is OK to ram a road user who cuts you up because it is
> not unlawful?
I know it's early but can you tell me where he says that?
>>> The motorist panel had no difficulty with that principle,
>> The "principle" has limited application and none at all in a case of a
>> vehicle serving laterally into the path of another.
>>
> Or only ram them if they are a cyclists?
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns
> www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
Were cyclists mentioned in that post?
--
Tony Dragon
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> Mark Williams wrote:
>>> ...the
>>> CTC representative did make the point that the law already presumes
>>> the other party is liable when someone is hit from behind.
>> The law presumes no such thing, especially not in a case of lane-changing and
>> failing to check, signal and give way to a vehicle on the right (offside),
>> which was the case in point.
> So you think it is OK to ram a road user who cuts you up because it is
> not unlawful?
What are you talking about?
>>> The motorist panel had no difficulty with that principle,
>> The "principle" has limited application and none at all in a case of a
>> vehicle serving laterally into the path of another.
What are you talking about?
Doug
Dock'?
JNugent
> On 14 Nov, 11:28, Jim A <j...@averyjim.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> The theme was 'Do cyclists in the UK need better protection from
>>> motorists?' A very good question. As usual though the programme seemed
>>> a little biased against cyclists, with the one taxi driver being
>>> notably the worst. In one example a car rammed a cyclists from behind
>>> and yet opinion seemed divided as to who was to blame. Why is there so
>>> much tolerance of cyclists being rammed by cars, which is clearly very
>>> dangerous and aggressive?
>> Like it or not, 'what goes around comes around' and unfortunately a
>> hot-headed minority of cyclist provoke such behaviour in motorists. It
>> doesn't make it right but that, put simply, is how it is imho.
>>
> See how quickly this thread is transformed into 'Cyclists in the
> Dock'?
That might have been partly caused by your reading the word "cyclist" in an
earlier post - when it simply wasn't there.
Mark Williams
> This is what puzzles me, 'the law already presumes the other party
> is liable when someone is hit from behind'. So why is it not applied
> when motorists ram cyclists from behind at slow speeds?
Taking only the broad thrust of your question, I imagine that most
cyclists hit from behind do not claim against the motorist's
insurance. They possibly consider it more trouble than it is worth.
> It seems to be treated as trivial or the cyclist's fault
By whom?
> but if it happens between motorists there is usually a kerfuffle.
Their insurance companies are laughing all the way to the bank. That
is the important thing. Any kerfuffling going on is just street
entertainment.
--
Mark
Mark Williams
> > ...the CTC representative did make the point that the law
> > already presumes the other party is liable when someone is hit
> > from behind.
>
> The law presumes no such thing, especially not in a case of
> lane-changing and failing to check, signal and give way to a vehicle
> on the right (offside), which was the case in point.
You appear to be conflating fault and liability. Your assessment of
fault is a bit suspect too, given that it was the front bumper of the
car hitting the bicycle squarely from behind. There was no vehicle to
the right of either of them in the video, unless it was behind the
camera.
> > The motorist panel had no difficulty with that principle,
>
> The "principle" has limited application and none at all in a case of
> a vehicle serving laterally into the path of another.
You'll have to take that up with the programme makers or members of
the panel. I had no influence on the discussion shown.
--
Mark
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> writes:
>>> ...the CTC representative did make the point that the law
>>> already presumes the other party is liable when someone is hit
>>> from behind.
>> The law presumes no such thing, especially not in a case of
>> lane-changing and failing to check, signal and give way to a vehicle
>> on the right (offside), which was the case in point.
> You appear to be conflating fault and liability.
They are co-causal. If you are not at fault, you are not liable. And there is
no reason for it to be otherwise.
> Your assessment of
> fault is a bit suspect too, given that it was the front bumper of the
> car hitting the bicycle squarely from behind. There was no vehicle to
> the right of either of them in the video, unless it was behind the
> camera.
The bike - in that contrived and staged incident - moved to the right into
the path of the motor vehicle without checking and without indicating or
giving the overtaking vehicle time to reduce speed. The low speeds
neccessarily used in the staging were certainly not typical of real-life
conditions - in a real situation, the driver wouldn't have so much time to
react and brake. Exactly the same in principle as veering right out of a
motorway lane into the path of a faster vehicle.
Fault is not attributed to the overtaking vehicle in such circumstances. The
steering gear of the vehicle about to be overtaken does not work the brakes
of overtaking vehicles on the offside.
>>> The motorist panel had no difficulty with that principle,
>> The "principle" has limited application and none at all in a case of
>> a vehicle serving laterally into the path of another.
> You'll have to take that up with the programme makers or members of
> the panel. I had no influence on the discussion shown.
But even you don't think that a sudden unsignalled and unguarded lateral
swerve into the path of a faster vehicle puts the operator of the faster
vehicle at fault.
Neither the programme makers nor the panellists were chosen for expertise in
the law. Had they been, their views would/could not have differed so sharply.
Doug
> Doug <jag...@riseup.net> writes:
> > This is what puzzles me, 'the law already presumes the other party
> > is liable when someone is hit from behind'. So why is it not applied
> > when motorists ram cyclists from behind at slow speeds?
>
> Taking only the broad thrust of your question, I imagine that most
> cyclists hit from behind do not claim against the motorist's
> insurance. They possibly consider it more trouble than it is worth.
>
the cyclist is injured.
>
> It seems to be treated as trivial or the cyclist's fault
>
> By whom?
>
>
> > but if it happens between motorists there is usually a kerfuffle.
>
> Their insurance companies are laughing all the way to the bank. That
> is the important thing. Any kerfuffling going on is just street
> entertainment.
>
rectify than a bent cycle wheel.
d...@telent.net
> But even you don't think that a sudden unsignalled and unguarded
> lateral swerve into the path of a faster vehicle puts the operator of
> the faster vehicle at fault.
I haven't seen the programme, but other comments indicate that the
cyclist was pulling out to pass a parked car - is this correct?
If so, it doesn't exactly take much intelligence on the motorist's part
to anticipate it.
"213
Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road
surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches
on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to
any sudden change of direction they may have to make. "
As we all know, advice in the Highway Code does not have the force of
law but may be used in evidence to establish liability. A case for
contributory negligence could easily be made - if you've never seen a
cyclist slalom around a parked car before, you clearly haven't been
driving much.
-dan
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> writes:
>> But even you don't think that a sudden unsignalled and unguarded
>> lateral swerve into the path of a faster vehicle puts the operator of
>> the faster vehicle at fault.
> I haven't seen the programme, but other comments indicate that the
> cyclist was pulling out to pass a parked car - is this correct?
It is. The situation was set up in the most laboured way imaginable. In the
real world, no collision would have taken place at that speed or combination
of speeds.
> If so, it doesn't exactly take much intelligence on the motorist's part
> to anticipate it.
> "213
> Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road
> surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches
> on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to
> any sudden change of direction they may have to make. "
True.
But it still doesn't make it alright (no matter *what sort* of vehicle one is
using) to swerve into the path of an overtaking vehicle without looking, and
without warning. What others *should* do doesn't change what we *must* do.
And we must always check that the space into which we wish to move is clear.
> As we all know, advice in the Highway Code does not have the force of
> law but may be used in evidence to establish liability. A case for
> contributory negligence could easily be made - if you've never seen a
> cyclist slalom around a parked car before, you clearly haven't been
> driving much.
Sorry... what *has* this got to do with anything I might have seen, said,
done or not done?
It was a question about principle, not about individuals.
Are you as incapable of arguing in the abstract as, say, mileburner?
mileburner
> But it still doesn't make it alright (no matter *what sort* of vehicle one
> is using) to swerve into the path of an overtaking vehicle without
> looking, and without warning. What others *should* do doesn't change what
> we *must* do. And we must always check that the space into which we wish
> to move is clear.
Oh the irony...
It cuts both ways.
We *must* give plenty of space when overtaking (that's more than Nugent's 12
inches), we *must* anticipate what the vehicle in front is going to do. The
cyclist *should* move out early, *should* signal and *should* check over
their shoulder, but they don't always.
> Are you as incapable of arguing in the abstract as, say, mileburner?
Perhaps he does not post here to argue and is not willing to play The Battle
of the Retard.
Doug
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> writes:
> > But even you don't think that a sudden unsignalled and unguarded
> > lateral swerve into the path of a faster vehicle puts the operator of
> > the faster vehicle at fault.
>
> I haven't seen the programme, but other comments indicate that the
> cyclist was pulling out to pass a parked car - is this correct?
> If so, it doesn't exactly take much intelligence on the motorist's part
> to anticipate it.
>
full view of the motorist for some distance before overtaking the
parked car. So it was obvious to the driver that the cyclist would
need to pull out. I can only conclude that, as usual, the cyclist was
expected to halt to give way to the overtaking motorist, for his own
safety of course.
d...@telent.net
> But it still doesn't make it alright (no matter *what sort* of vehicle
> one is using) to swerve into the path of an overtaking vehicle without
> looking, and without warning. What others *should* do doesn't change
> what we *must* do. And we must always check that the space into which
> we wish to move is clear.
Thus, both parties' driving/riding was below par. So, contributory
negligence, as I said
>> As we all know, advice in the Highway Code does not have the force of
>> law but may be used in evidence to establish liability. A case for
>> contributory negligence could easily be made - if you've never seen a
>> cyclist slalom around a parked car before, you clearly haven't been
>> driving much.
>
> Sorry... what *has* this got to do with anything I might have seen,
> said, done or not done?
>
> It was a question about principle, not about individuals.
I find it difficult to believe that you have never previously
encountered the impersonal use of "you" in all your years on usenet. It
has largely supplanted "one" in all but the most formal contexts.
JNugent
> "JNugent" <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in message
> news:a5mdnWW_gfZ_VpTW...@pipex.net...
>
>> But it still doesn't make it alright (no matter *what sort* of vehicle one
>> is using) to swerve into the path of an overtaking vehicle without
>> looking, and without warning. What others *should* do doesn't change what
>> we *must* do. And we must always check that the space into which we wish
>> to move is clear.
>
> Oh the irony...
>
> It cuts both ways.
I deliberately didn't specify the type of vehicle, either as the overtaker or
the overtakee. As you say (quite unnecessarily, since it had already been
covered), it cuts both ways. Or maybe more than two ways, since there are
more than two types of vehicle, though all types are subject to the same
rules (which seems to have escaped you again).
> We *must* give plenty of space when overtaking (that's more than Nugent's 12
> inches), we *must* anticipate what the vehicle in front is going to do. The
> cyclist *should* move out early, *should* signal and *should* check over
> their shoulder, but they don't always.
>> Are you as incapable of arguing in the abstract as, say, mileburner?
> Perhaps he does not post here to argue and is not willing to play The Battle
> of the Retard.
You'd know best all about both of those topics.
JNugent
That response is absolute rubbish and totally unworthy of you.
Your clause "...if you've never seen a cyclist slalom around a parked car
before, you clearly haven't been driving much" simply does not work if
reworded impersonally, thus:
"...if one has never seen a cyclist slalom around a parked car before, one
clearly hasn't been driving much".
Your English just isn't that bad - you clearly meant it as an ad-hominem, and
it subtracted from the strength of your argument rather than strengthening
it. At least (by denying - however unconvincingly - that you meant it as an
ad-hominem) you have accepted that it was a silly thing to say and a silly
line to use.
d...@telent.net
> That response is absolute rubbish and totally unworthy of you.
You are absolutely determined to pick a fight here, aren't you? I
notice you've entirely ignored all the substantive part of my post (the
position that both parties were in error and liability should be
shared), in favour of focusing on a throwaway remark that you think you
can have a go at.
If you insist on pursuing this "debate" further you are welcome to the
last word.
-dan
mileburner
<d...@telent.net> wrote in message news:87zl6d5...@lsip.4a.telent.net...
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> writes:
>
>> That response is absolute rubbish and totally unworthy of you.
>
> You are absolutely determined to pick a fight here, aren't you?
The best thing to do is to withdraw from the argument so as to allow Nugent
to become the winner. Nugent likes to be the winner.
I
> notice you've entirely ignored all the substantive part of my post (the
> position that both parties were in error and liability should be
> shared), in favour of focusing on a throwaway remark that you think you
> can have a go at.
Yes, Nugent likes to dwell on throwaway remarks. Even if said in jest, or
irony, or in error, or if they were used with the slightest error of their
proper meaning. It gives Nugent a chance to prove that he is the King when
it comes to arguing.
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> writes:
>> That response is absolute rubbish and totally unworthy of you.
> You are absolutely determined to pick a fight here, aren't you?
Absolutely *not*. That was you, with your completely unwarranted ad-hominem.
You had, and continue to have, no reason to accuse me of bad driving, but you
disappointingly couldn't resist it.
What did you think you were going to achieve by it?
> I
> notice you've entirely ignored all the substantive part of my post (the
> position that both parties were in error and liability should be
> shared), in favour of focusing on a throwaway remark that you think you
> can have a go at.
Don't make offensive throwaway remarks, and there is no problem.
In the meantime, if you wish to have the rest of your post commented upon,
I'll be happy to do that, but be aware that the rest of it was small beer
compared to the gratituitous insult you "threw away".
> If you insist on pursuing this "debate" further you are welcome to the
> last word.
Oh, the irony, as they say.
mileburner
Hey! Looks like you won then, well done!
The title is retained.
Mark Williams
>> > It seems to be treated as trivial or the cyclist's fault
>>
>> By whom?
>>
> Police.
Are you sure they were not just saying `we don't care' or `there appears
to have been no crime committed', either of which would be reasonable
positions for them to take?
If they genuinely have expressed the opinion that it was the cyclist's
fault, then why is their opinion important unless they were a witness?
It's not like it is the police (taxpayers) who have to pay up.
>> > but if it happens between motorists there is usually a kerfuffle.
>>
>> Their insurance companies are laughing all the way to the bank. �That
>> is the important thing. �Any kerfuffling going on is just street
>> entertainment.
>>
> More likely that a car paintwork scratch or dent costs much more to
> rectify than a bent cycle wheel.
Well, there is your answer... Still, it says a lot about the attitudes
of all those involved.
--
Mark
Mark Williams
>> You appear to be conflating fault and liability.
>
> They are co-causal. If you are not at fault, you are not liable.
Indeed---and this would not change under `presumed liability', contrary
to the insinuations of the motoring panel and other detractors.
> And there is no reason for it to be otherwise.
There are good reasons for `presumed liability'. At least, they are
good for cyclists (experienced and inexperienced alike). Not so good
for some motorists (the Mr. Toad types who expect to hit cyclists with
impunity). It would be interesting to find out whether the remaining
motorists (the careful ones) are so vehemently opposed to it.
I suspect this is one of those things which we'll get if the insurance
industry decide they want it, irrespective of the good reasons for it or
its popularity.
>>> The "principle" has limited application and none at all in a case of
>>> a vehicle serving laterally into the path of another.
>
>> You'll have to take that up with the programme makers or members of
>> the panel. I had no influence on the discussion shown.
>
> But even you don't think that a sudden unsignalled and unguarded
> lateral swerve into the path of a faster vehicle puts the operator of
> the faster vehicle at fault.
As mentioned by others, there was no lateral swerving going on when the
motorist hit the cyclist and there hadn't been for about two seconds
before impact. If they had shown an incident such as the one you
describe, then you might have a point and the CTC rep. would probably
not have said what he did about the principle.
And a bit less of the `even you', thank you very much.
> Neither the programme makers nor the panellists were chosen for
> expertise in the law. Had they been, their views would/could not have
> differed so sharply.
Yep. They were aiming to get as large an audience as possible. That's
what we get for watching ITV.
--
Mark