Contributory Negligence

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> I have just heard about a case where the insurers of a car driver are
> claiming 25% contributory negligence from an injured cyclist because
> he was not using a roadside cycle path.
>
> I wonder how long it will be before they start claiming contributory
> negligence because we should be driving a car?
>
The HC doesn't help in these respects, even though most cycle paths (and
ALL cycle paths when it's icy) are more dangerous than the road.

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> I have just heard about a case where the insurers of a car driver are
> claiming 25% contributory negligence from an injured cyclist because
> he was not using a roadside cycle path.
>
> I wonder how long it will be before they start claiming contributory
> negligence because we should be driving a car?
>
> Guy

What do you expect - they're insurance companies.

Tony

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:56:50 +0000 someone who may be Zog The
Undeniable <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>The HC doesn't help in these respects, even though most cycle paths (and
>ALL cycle paths when it's icy) are more dangerous than the road.

That's because it is written by the road lobby.


--
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.

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> I have just heard about a case where the insurers of a car driver are
> claiming 25% contributory negligence from an injured cyclist because
> he was not using a roadside cycle path.
>
> I wonder how long it will be before they start claiming contributory
> negligence because we should be driving a car?
>
> Guy

Was it anything to do with this, although this cyclist is a she?
http://www.thisisnorthscotland.co.u...Search&keyword=cyclist&formname=sidebarsearch
or more reasonanably
http://tinyurl.com/6lbzd
--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> I have just heard about a case where the insurers of a car driver are
> claiming 25% contributory negligence from an injured cyclist because
> he was not using a roadside cycle path.

Please name and shame the company, so I can bang off a letter of complaint.

R.

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 18:07:21 +0000, David Hansen
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:56:50 +0000 someone who may be Zog The
>Undeniable <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>The HC doesn't help in these respects, even though most cycle paths (and
>>ALL cycle paths when it's icy) are more dangerous than the road.
>
>That's because it is written by the road lobby.


What do you mean by "road lobby" exactly? I use my various bikes and
trike on the road. Am I part of the road lobby?



Tim

> I have just heard about a case where the insurers of a car driver are
> claiming 25% contributory negligence from an injured cyclist because
> he was not using a roadside cycle path.

Heh, how long before they start claiming contributory negligence because
the other driver wasn't using the footpath..

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I have just heard about a case where the insurers of a car driver are
> claiming 25% contributory negligence from an injured cyclist because
> he was not using a roadside cycle path.
>
> I wonder how long it will be before they start claiming contributory
> negligence because we should be driving a car?

Shouldn't the cyclist's lawyer argue for at least a doubling of damages
since the car was not on a motorway?

T

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:04:41 +0000 someone who may be Tim Hall
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>What do you mean by "road lobby" exactly?

The road lobby. The Department for Roads, County Surveyors Society,
AA, RAC, the (former I think) British Road Federation,
manufacturers, material suppliers (for example an organisation
called something like the Aggregates Association), RoSPA, lots of
organisations and individuals. It can't be defined exactly, but its
influence can be traced. The time it invited MPs to see what that
nice Mr ****** was doing in Germany marks the start of the real rise
of the road lobby.

Bus operators were part of it, but when people didn't use their
"replacement" bus services for closed railways in any numbers they
largely withdrew.

In its early days cyclists were influential. It was the lobbying of
cyclists that got better road surfaces for example. CTC has been in
and out of RoSPA a few times, but the divorce now seems permanent.

>I use my various bikes and
>trike on the road. Am I part of the road lobby?

I have no idea.


--
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.

Tony W wrote:

> Shouldn't the cyclist's lawyer argue for at least a doubling of
> damages since the car was not on a motorway?

Indeed: the motoristonly has himself to blame! Oh, I don't know, we pay all
these taxes to build all these lovely motorways -- and they don't even use
them!

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I have just heard about a case where the insurers of a car driver are
> claiming 25% contributory negligence from an injured cyclist because
> he was not using a roadside cycle path.
>
> I wonder how long it will be before they start claiming contributory
> negligence because we should be driving a car?
>
> Guy
> --

I do hope this is one the CTC take up under auspices of Cyclists' Defence
Fund.

helen s

Helen C Simmons wrote:
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

> > I wonder how long it will be before they start claiming
contributory
> > negligence because we should be driving a car?

> I do hope this is one the CTC take up under auspices of Cyclists'
Defence
> Fund.

Indeed. This is a case that could directly erode cyclists' rights to
use the road. I'd have said it was entirely appropriate use of the
Fund.

--
Dave...

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> I have just heard about a case where the insurers of a car driver are
> claiming 25% contributory negligence from an injured cyclist because
> he was not using a roadside cycle path.
>
> I wonder how long it will be before they start claiming contributory
> negligence because we should be driving a car?
>
> Guy
Make a change for claiming it for not wearing a helmet!

In message <[email protected]>, Tim Hall
<[email protected]> writes

> Am I part of the road lobby?

Do you also drive a car?

--
congokid
Good restaurants in London? Number one on Google
http://congokid.com

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 13:25:24 +0000, congokid
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In message <[email protected]>, Tim Hall
><[email protected]> writes
>
>> Am I part of the road lobby?
>
>Do you also drive a car?


Yes.

The point I was (feebly) trying to make was that perhpas the term
"road lobby" is a misnomer. A bit like calling parts of the Sustrans
network "traffic free". When I'm on my bike (or walking come to that)
I'm traffic. Similarly, when I'm using the road am I part of the
"road lobby". However, having read David's definition, I don't think
I am directly. I just use the things.


Tim

David Hansen wrote:
> ******

***********, that was quick!

Simon

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:20:13 GMT someone who may be Simon Proven
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>> ******
>
>***********, that was quick!

Ha, ha.

However, it remains a fact that inspection tours of Germany were
arranged by the road lobby in 1934 and 1937. The latter was a great
propaganda coup for ****** (58 MPs were in the delegation) and was
used by the road lobby to campaign for motorways. When in 1938 the
Treasury rejected the idea of an experimental motorway the road
lobby suggested reallocating money from the defence budget to road
construction.

Funny they never mention that part of their history.


--
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.

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005, Tim Hall <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The point I was (feebly) trying to make was that perhpas the term
> "road lobby" is a misnomer. A bit like calling parts of the Sustrans
> network "traffic free". When I'm on my bike (or walking come to that)
> I'm traffic. Similarly, when I'm using the road am I part of the
> "road lobby".

No. The road lobby is not the same thing as teh aggregate of road
users. As to whether you are a member of teh road lobby, that depends
on whether you buy your cars new, are a member of teh RAC/AA/ABD, and
so on. If you do/are, then yes you are.

> However, having read David's definition, I don't think
> I am directly. I just use the things.

Indeed.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|