A Reason for H*lm*t Use?

JohnB

Tony Raven wrote:
>
> dkahn400 wrote:
> >
> > I happen to think it's misguided, but not wearing one certainly looks
> > like not observing the HC to me. We'll have to ask one of our resident
> > lawyers how a court would be likely to interpret it.
>
> I think the answer is in the article and good on the newspaper for
> publishing the CTC and John Franklin comments about it. No UK Court has
> found in favour of the insurance company in such cases.

Which is not to say that damages have never been reduced.
AIUI reduced damages have been accepted as a result of pressure from the
insurance companies 'on the court steps'.

John B

David Hansen

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:43:35 +0000 someone who may be JLB
<JLB@bigbad.demon.co.uk> wrote this:-

>This part of the HC looks to me like a good example of the rather
>confused output that tends to emerge from committees given the job of
>writing such things. One faction argues for a single "rule" for all
>vehicles. Another faction wants exceptions, such as the 62 "rule" for
>the very timid.

My recollection is that the road lobby used to stress almost
exclusively "rule 62" in the Highway Code. Since the problems with
this were pointed out they have been rowing backwards, while trying
to appear not to be doing so for various reasons. The current mess
is the result of their attempts to do so.

I'm happy with my opinion that it is the road lobby that produces
the thing. That is why they stress cycle helmets, but are silent on
car helmets.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Paul Rudin

JLB <JLB@bigbad.demon.co.uk> writes:


> Not having a HC to hand...

It's available online: <http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/>

Ambrose Nankivell

In news:cs3q0e$6hu$1@hercules.btinternet.com,
pk <spam.trap100@btinternet.com> typed:
> David Hansen wrote:
>> On 12 Jan 2005 01:28:23 -0800 someone who may be
>> hyweljenkins@hotmail.com wrote this:-
>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/3tnqo
>>
>> I also noted this:
>>
>> "Peter Green, 59, died from head injuries after he was in collision
>> with a Ford Sierra at the junction of Hales Road and Hewlett Road in
>> Cheltenham in April.
>>
>> "The driver of the car, Anthony Leach, was fined 200 for careless
>> driving in November."
>>
>> So, even though the motorist was actually fined for not driving
>> properly the "newspaper" implies that the cycle crashed into the
>> car.
>
> To my reading the newspaper text is neutral, not implying one way or
> the other who hit whom. Whether it should have been more specific is
> another issue, but "in collision with" does not read as "crashed
> into".

Well, it does read differently. It's a far uglier construction than the
latter. Also, it's disingenuous, in that when the construction is reflected
on it appears neutral, but when it's being read the reader will be very
likely to form a model of the event that does have the cyclist crashing into
the car.

Of course, proving that would require an experiment to show this to be the
case, and I doubt there's anyone here who can do so, so we'll have to agree
to disagree.

A

Mark Thompson

>> Does a company get any benefit from people buying shares from
>> existing holders and selling them on when they've risen in price?
>
> So long as the shareholders have made money, the effect on the company
> is at best secondary. A lot of people don't think this unrelenting
> emphasis on short term results helps the company itself, its employees
> or the community (others would argue it's the essence of capitalism
> and all for the best), but the directors have little choice. It would
> be improper for them to put other interests first.

This all assumes that the shareholders only desire money in the short
term. In reality I'm sure that many are concerned about the company's
position in the long term too. This allows those running the company to
take into account the interests of its other stakeholders. This is
justified because it is normally in the mid and long term interests of
the company to have reasonable levels of cooperation and goodwill from
its various stakeholders. The behaviour of a company doing this could
possibly be likened to that of a psychopath faking altruistic behaviour -
it's only done because ultimately it's in the companies interests to do
it, but it still does good.

> Also, if they
> followed a path that (even if only temporarily) suppressed the share
> price, it would be an open door to others to buy the company cheap,
> change course for short term maximum share price and take the profit.

Suppressing the share price wouldn't be an open door for others to buy
the company cheap if the share price was suppressed to a more realistic
level. i.e. the directors take action to stop a 'bubble' from forming.
It would be an example of good practice!

Dave Kahn

David Hansen wrote:

> It says that you should wear one which conforms to current
> regulations. As there are no current regulations this "rule" is
> rather hard to follow, even if one was inclined to do so.

Could "regulations" not be interpreted as "standards"? A bit of a
stretch, I know.

--
Dave...

Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the
future of the human race. - H. G. Wells

Richard

David Hansen wrote:
>>The difference between "practicable" and "possible" is more subtle. The
>>former is concerned with what can be practiced; the latter is anything
>>that is not impossible. There is certainly a large overlap, but I would
>>generally expect what is possible to go further than what is
>>practicable.
>
>
> There is a difference. However, if it is not possible to do
> something in reasonable safety then it is undoubtedly impractical.

Rubbish. It's perfectly practical for me to fling myself off the top
floor of the large building in which I work. Admittedly it's only
practical to do it once. :-)

R.

JLB

Dave Kahn wrote:
> David Hansen wrote:
>
>> It says that you should wear one which conforms to current
>> regulations. As there are no current regulations this "rule" is
>> rather hard to follow, even if one was inclined to do so.
>
>
> Could "regulations" not be interpreted as "standards"? A bit of a
> stretch, I know.
>
No. Not in law, anyway.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

Dave Kahn

Richard Bates wrote:
> On 12 Jan 2005 08:25:48 -0800, "dkahn400" <dkahn400@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>Paul Rudin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yeah - well I don't really know what were supposed to make of these
>>>nuances of language. Take for example the difference in language
>>>between rule 47 - "Use cycle routes when practicable" - and rule
>>>49 -
>>>"Keep within the [cycle] lane wherever possible."
>>
>>It's confusing but a cycle lane is not the same thing as a cycle route.
>>I happen to disagree with both these rules too, and I also "fail to
>>observe" them, as I do rule 45.
>
>
> Do you *really* fail to observe them? I would have thought that when
> you made a decision not to use a cycle route, it would be because it
> was not practicabale - perhaps though geography, perhaps through
> disrepair, perhaps through fear of being mugged.

The cycle routes that I know of are mostly inferior to the direct route
in many ways. They are inconvenient, poorly signposted, badly surfaced
and often IMO more dangerous than the main road. They could, however, be
described as practicable even if not practical.

> Similarly, when you decide not to ride within the cycle lane, it is
> possible that your decision is based on the fact that riding in the
> lane would make you more unsafe.

The HC wants us to use the cycle lane wherever possible. This is an
extraordinary requirement. Clearly it can be possible to ride in the
cycle lane in conditions which even a road planner might realise are
suicidal. Blondin crossed the Niagara falls by bicycle on a tightrope.
It's clearly possible but I don't fancy it much myself.

> They both seem reasonable "excuses" for me, and therefore quite within
> the HC guidelines.

I have reasonable excuses for all my conscious failures to observe the
Highway Code, but I think they still count as failures to observe. ISTM
that much of the section pertaining to cyclists is there to undermine
the status of cycling, make it as difficult and inconvenient as
possible, and portray it as dangerous.

--
Dave...

Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the
future of the human race. - H. G. Wells

Dave Kahn

David Hansen wrote:

> Neutral text would say something like, "Peter Green, 59, died after
> a collision between his bike and a car...". The text in the
> newspaper is anything but neutral.

It's also nothing like normal use of English. The phrase "was in
collision with" sounds as though it's been lifted verbatim from a police
report. David is right; that clumsy phrase does convey an impression
that the cyclist was at fault without actually stating it.

--
Dave...

Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the
future of the human race. - H. G. Wells

Dave Kahn

JLB wrote:
> Dave Kahn wrote:

>> Could "regulations" not be interpreted as "standards"? A bit of a
>> stretch, I know.
>>
> No. Not in law, anyway.

Thanks.

--
Dave...

Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the
future of the human race. - H. G. Wells

Mark Thompson

> Neutral text would say something like, "Peter Green, 59, died after
> a collision between his bike and a car...". The text in the
> newspaper is anything but neutral.

We're missing the point - the driver has already been found guilty & fined
so why is it even trying to be neutral? The neutral stuff can be used
before the court case. I suggest:

"Peter Green, 59, was killed by Anthony Leach when he drove his Ford Sierra
into him at the junction of Hales Road and Hewlett Road in Cheltenham in
April. He was fined just £200 for careless driving"

Ambrose Nankivell

In news:5QhFd.9321$GG1.753@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk,
Dave Kahn <dkahn400@yahoo.co.uk> typed:
> David Hansen wrote:
>
>> Neutral text would say something like, "Peter Green, 59, died after
>> a collision between his bike and a car...". The text in the
>> newspaper is anything but neutral.
>
> It's also nothing like normal use of English. The phrase "was in
> collision with" sounds as though it's been lifted verbatim from a
> police report. David is right; that clumsy phrase does convey an
> impression that the cyclist was at fault without actually stating it.

That's what I was trying to say. Only clear.

A

Rich

"David Hansen" <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:s01au0l7e5k65nh3felgffolsqokoqm447@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:03:43 -0000 someone who may be "Paul - xxx"
> <notcheckedever@hotmail.com> wrote this:-
>
>>Just 'cos the insurance company, by doing their job,
>
> Is it their job to cause more grief to the family of the victim? I'm
> not sure that it is.

Do we know which insurance company this is, so that we could possibly cause
some grief to it, and its shareholders, by withdrawing/with-holding our
custom? And possibly extracting a promise from them that they will no
longer try this particularly disgusting trick on unsuspecting grieving
widows?
>
>
> --
> David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
> I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
> prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.