Highway code - Cylists must use cyclepaths

Matt B said:

triddletree said:

Matt B said:

>>>> I just read it properly - it's utter scare-mongering balderdash!
>>>> because he was running late. No motorist is going to be able to
>>>> claim it wasn't his fault he hit you because you should have been
>>>> in the cycle facility, out of his way! ... or does someone have
>>>> evidence to the contrary?

Quoted message said:

>>> Yes.
>>
>>
>> Where?
>
>
> Here.

Where here? Can you be more helpful please. Do you know of a
specific case where failure to obey a 'should' led to reduced
compensation on the grounds that "one was asking for it" by being in
the way?

There are many cases where a motorist has "claimed it wasn't his
fault" because a cyclist should have been in a cycling facility.
That is what you asked.

The claims I am aware of were all thrown out.

Ah, so there's /no/ problem then.

AClaims may cause problems - ask your teacher.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I can refer you to the specific solicitors office if I didn't know you
were simply an ill-informed troll.

What /specific/ "solicitors office"? What makes you so sure that I am a
troll - I ask awkward questions?

Try Lamb, Phillips & Hawford.
You can look their number up yourself. Ask for Alan in the Claims
Department.
Say Tony gave you his name.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You are not a cyclist are you.

No answer, I didn't think you were.

What are you doing here?

tt

triddletree said:

Matt B said:

triddletree said:

Matt B wrote:

> Where here? Can you be more helpful please. Do you know of a
> specific case where failure to obey a 'should' led to reduced
> compensation on the grounds that "one was asking for it" by being in
> the way?
>
There are many cases where a motorist has "claimed it wasn't his
fault" because a cyclist should have been in a cycling facility.
That is what you asked.

The claims I am aware of were all thrown out.

Ah, so there's /no/ problem then.

AClaims may cause problems - ask your teacher.

Sorry?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I can refer you to the specific solicitors office if I didn't know
you were simply an ill-informed troll.

What /specific/ "solicitors office"? What makes you so sure that I am
a troll - I ask awkward questions?

Try Lamb, Phillips & Hawford.

For what, I'm not with you.

Quoted message said:

You can look their number up yourself. Ask for Alan in the Claims
Department.
Say Tony gave you his name.

Why?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You are not a cyclist are you.

No answer, I didn't think you were.

Why are you being so provocative? Didn't you get my answer? If you
/are/ using normal English then, of course, I /am/ a cyclist.

Quoted message said:

What are you doing here?

I'm attempting to contribute to the discussion. Now, more importantly,
what are /you/ you doing here other than attempting to isolate me?

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

Don't just think of me, think of all our fellow cyclists -

"our fellow cyclists" ??

In what way are you a cyclist, except for being a recycler of tired old
trolls?

Mike

MSeries said:

Perhaps, I have recieved a snail mail response though, can't see how he
would deal with it any differently had I penned a letter. I emailed him
through his website not using the CTC site.

You're lucky. My MP has ignored all communications by all means I've
ever tried (letter to constituency office, letter to HoC, fax, email).
All disappear without trace. It's the price you pay for living in
such a safe seat you're a nice cushy sinecure.

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

"Arthur Clune" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I haven't seen this mentioned here yet:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4303

The Driving Standards Agency has begun a public consultation
on a revised draft of the Highway Code - it can be viewed at
http://www.dsa.gov.uk/highwaycode

The major problem is a proposed new rule telling cyclists to
use cycle routes when practicable and cycle facilities ... where
they are provided (Rule 58). If confirmed, this would open the
way for driver's insurance companies to seek to reduce the damages
for any cyclists injured by their clients, on the basis that the
cyclist's failure to use a nearby cycle facility (in accordance
with the Highway Code) represented "contributory negligence"

It's contributory negligence already if a cyclist does not take adequate
measures to contribute to his own safety by using a suitable alternative,
where one exists, to a crowded busy road with potentially dangerous
traffic on it.

ian henden said:

It's contributory negligence already if a cyclist does not take
adequate measures to contribute to his own safety by using a suitable
alternative, where one exists, to a crowded busy road with
potentially dangerous traffic on it.

<plonk>

ian henden said:

It's contributory negligence already if a cyclist does not take adequate
measures to contribute to his own safety by using a suitable alternative,
where one exists, to a crowded busy road with potentially dangerous
traffic on it.

So you would agree a driver is being negligent towards his own safety if
there were a suitable alternative for his journey?

Such as a bus perhaps?

tt

triddletree said:

ian henden said:

It's contributory negligence already if a cyclist does not take adequate
measures to contribute to his own safety by using a suitable alternative,
where one exists, to a crowded busy road with potentially dangerous
traffic on it.

So you would agree a driver is being negligent towards his own safety if
there were a suitable alternative for his journey?

Or towards others safety?

Quoted message said:

Such as a bus perhaps?

...d

Matt B said:

MSeries said:

triddletree said:

Matt B wrote:
> Arthur Clune wrote:
>
>> http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4303
>
> I just read it properly - it's utter scare-mongering balderdash!
> because he was running late. No motorist is going to be able to claim
> it wasn't his fault he hit you because you should have been in the cycle
> facility, out of his way! ... or does someone have evidence to the
> contrary?
Yes.

Next.

Its not about who is to blame its about compensation.

If one has a good reason ( i.e. not just bloody mindedness ;-) ) for
/not/ being in the 'facility' then how can that be construed as
contributory to any collision? I'm not sure that even disobeying a
'must' could be construed as therefore deserving to be hit.

--
Matt B

Who defines good ? The cyclists lawyer or the motorists lawyer ?

Ian Smith said:

MSeries said:

Perhaps, I have recieved a snail mail response though, can't see how he
would deal with it any differently had I penned a letter. I emailed him
through his website not using the CTC site.

You're lucky. My MP has ignored all communications by all means I've
ever tried (letter to constituency office, letter to HoC, fax, email).
All disappear without trace. It's the price you pay for living in
such a safe seat you're a nice cushy sinecure.

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

I contacted Mr Challon to ask for his support on the helmet EDM, he
responsed by email saying he is a CTC member and rides a bike whenever
he can make the time.

David Martin said:

triddletree said:

ian henden said:

It's contributory negligence already if a cyclist does not take adequate
measures to contribute to his own safety by using a suitable alternative,
where one exists, to a crowded busy road with potentially dangerous
traffic on it.

So you would agree a driver is being negligent towards his own safety if
there were a suitable alternative for his journey?

Or towards others safety?

That too.
I was thinking of claims against his own insurance which could be
refused because he could have taken a bus (or cycled) instead.

tt

On 3 Mar 2006 00:22:16 -0800 someone who may be "MSeries"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

I contacted Mr Challon to ask for his support on the helmet EDM, he
responsed by email saying he is a CTC member and rides a bike whenever
he can make the time.

That doesn't tell us what his views were on the EDM though.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen said:

On 3 Mar 2006 00:22:16 -0800 someone who may be "MSeries"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

I contacted Mr Challon to ask for his support on the helmet EDM, he
responsed by email saying he is a CTC member and rides a bike whenever
he can make the time.

That doesn't tell us what his views were on the EDM though.

He was ready to oppose the EDM.

Ian Smith said:

You're lucky. My MP has ignored all communications by all means I've ever
tried (letter to constituency office, letter to HoC, fax, email). All
disappear without trace. It's the price you pay for living in such a safe
seat you're a nice cushy sinecure.

Name and shame them. I also live in a nice safe Conservative seat but I
do get the courtesy of a considered reply from my MP to every
communication I have sent.

--
Regards
Tony
(Take out the garbage to reply)

Arthur Clune came up with the following;:

Quoted message said:

I haven't seen this mentioned here yet:

Look for the thread started by Guy titled "Highway Code Consultation"

Quoted message said:

The major problem is a proposed new rule telling cyclists to
use cycle routes when practicable and cycle facilities ... where
they are provided (Rule 58).

.... and further into the thread where [email hidden] explains
that this _ISN'T_ what's said, but is a parahrase of

"And the actual wording of rule 58 is

When cycling
58. Use cycle routes when practicable and cycle facilities
such as advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan
crossings where they are provided, as they can make your
journeys safer."

Which is different to how you put it ...

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!

ian henden wrote:
[snip]

Quoted message said:

It's contributory negligence already if a cyclist does not take adequate
measures to contribute to his own safety by using a suitable alternative,
where one exists, to a crowded busy road with potentially dangerous
traffic on it.

OK, lets try an an example. I'm driving along the A6 in Cumbria because
it's prettier than the M6, and I get hit and killed by a negligent 3rd
party. The 3rd party's insurers try to get out of paying reasonable
compensation to my family because I could have used an alternative
route (the M6) that is statistically safer. Would this pass muster in a
court? I don't think so. However, this is exactly what the proposed
wording of the HC attempts to do to cyclists.

And that's before we actually look at the statistics, which all show
that cycling on the road is _safer_ than cycling on a cycleway / path.

Just one of the reasons I disagree with the HC wording is that it
misrepresents the facts. The bit "they may make your journey safer" is
a distortion of the truth. In the majority of cases, the presence of a
'facility' makes things lees rather than more safe. The weasel word
'may' is not sufficient to rectify this IMO.

TL

Paul - censored said:

When cycling
58. Use cycle routes when practicable and cycle facilities
such as advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan
crossings where they are provided, as they can make your
journeys safer."

I was just quoting the CTC.

--
Arthur Clune

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

triddletree said:

Matt B said:

triddletree wrote:

> Matt B wrote:
>
>> Where here? Can you be more helpful please. Do you know of a
>> specific case where failure to obey a 'should' led to reduced
>> compensation on the grounds that "one was asking for it" by being in
>> the way?
>>
> There are many cases where a motorist has "claimed it wasn't his fault"
> because a cyclist should have been in a cycling facility.
> That is what you asked.
>
> The claims I am aware of were all thrown out.

Ah, so there's /no/ problem then.

AClaims may cause problems - ask your teacher.

Sorry?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I can refer you to the specific solicitors office if I didn't know you
> were simply an ill-informed troll.

What /specific/ "solicitors office"? What makes you so sure that I am a
troll - I ask awkward questions?

Try Lamb, Phillips & Hawford.

For what, I'm not with you.

Quoted message said:

You can look their number up yourself. Ask for Alan in the Claims
Department.
Say Tony gave you his name.

Why?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> You are not a cyclist are you.

No answer, I didn't think you were.

Why are you being so provocative? Didn't you get my answer? If you /are/
using normal English then, of course, I /am/ a cyclist.

Quoted message said:

What are you doing here?

I'm attempting to contribute to the discussion. Now, more importantly,
what are /you/ you doing here other than attempting to isolate me?

--
Matt B

Matt,

I'm sure that you are totally sincere in your contributions, but if your
idea of 'contributing' is to fire off a series of questions which you
yourself regard as 'awkward' rather than 'useful' or 'constructive' or
'adding to the debate' there are those of us who would be tempted to
conclude that you might be trying to be awkward for awkwardness' sake, which
is certainly a troll-like characteristic.

Here's a question for you, slightly off topic, but hey, all discourse is
good...

Is the term 'troll' derived from the game-fishing lure or the bogey-man who
lives under a bridge - both would seem to be appropriate.

Hope that's not too awkward for you ;-)

In article said:

Is the term 'troll' derived from the game-fishing lure or the bogey-man who
lives under a bridge - both would seem to be appropriate.

Fishing, but the meaning has shifted since then. The usage of "trolling
for newbies" included making statements that anyone who had followed the
group for a while before posting (as recommended in netiquette guides)
would recognize as in jokes, and seeing who leapt to "correct" them.

alt.folklore.urban is (or at least was) a good place to see that sort
of trolling, with conventions about headers, rules against crossposted
trolls, etc..

The typical modern "you can't be sure I'm trolling, I could really
be this stupid instead of just stupid enough to pretend to be this
stupid" type troll is rather boring in comparison.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#Etymology

"Alan Braggins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Budstaff

Quoted message said:

Is the term 'troll' derived from the game-fishing lure or the bogey-man
who
lives under a bridge - both would seem to be appropriate.

Fishing, but the meaning has shifted since then. The usage of "trolling
for newbies" included making statements that anyone who had followed the
group for a while before posting (as recommended in netiquette guides)
would recognize as in jokes, and seeing who leapt to "correct" them.

alt.folklore.urban is (or at least was) a good place to see that sort
of trolling, with conventions about headers, rules against crossposted
trolls, etc..

The typical modern "you can't be sure I'm trolling, I could really
be this stupid instead of just stupid enough to pretend to be this
stupid" type troll is rather boring in comparison.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#Etymology

Alan,

Thank you for your most enlightening answer, I shall enjoy following the
references.

I was of course, hoping to provoke an answer from MattB. Does that make _me_
a troll? ;-)