Oh dear... cycling "advocate" on Radio Wales

[JNugent]

Marc Brett wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Marc Brett wrote:
>>>JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>>Do you suggest that there is already a default mechanism whereby
>>>>persons or bodies not shown to have been negligent are treated in law
>>>>as though they had been shown to be negligent?

>>>>When was that introduced?

>>>I'm not a lawyer, so cannot quote chapter and verse for all variations.
>>>But as an example, the Consumer Protection Act (1987) has strict
>>>liability for defective products. The consumers must prove the defect
>>>existed, and the defect caused injury, but negligence does not have to
>>>be proven.

>>Proving that the defect existed and that it caused injury seems pretty
>>non-automatic (and a relatively high hurdle, comparable to proving
>>negligence) to me.

>>Do you actually have an example that supports your very weak case?

> You wanted an example where negligence needn't be proven. There it is.
> Are you going to keep moving the goal posts every time you're losing the
> argument?

No, and I haven't done so.

I'm still waiting for an example where negligence need not be proven
against an individual citizen in a case where it is alleged that
he/she has been negligent.

> You claim strict liability for motorists would be a huge opportunity for
> fraud. Is this the experience in the European countries where it has
> been implemented? If not there, why should it be in the UK?

Has it been implemented in the way you want ("the driver is always in
the wrong and cyclists never lie")?

 

[Clive George]

"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Has it been implemented in the way you want ("the driver is always in the
> wrong and cyclists never lie")?

Nice straw man there. I don't believe anybody has asked for what you
describe.

clive

 

[David Lloyd]

On 15 Oct, 13:40, [email protected] wrote:
> David Lloyd wrote:
> > excuse to hate us. I am a great believer in the principle of 'innocent
> > until proven guilty', wether or not we are talking about legal guilt,
> > and see this as an erosion of this principle. I also don't like the
>
> If the cyclist comes off worse and you presume the motorist innocent,
> that's really not so different from presuming the cyclist guilty ("he
> deserved what he got"/"it's just one of those things, he shouldn't have
> been on the road"). How is that any fairer or more just?
>
> > thought that such a scheme would add to the view of POBs and other
> > cycle mounted numpties that their safety was not their own
> > responsibility.
>
> It's a concern, but I feel sure they'll quickly be disabused of such an
> erroneous notion when they get the letter from the court with the
> motorist's insurance co on the other side.
>
> -dan

Unfortunately, you snipped the begining of what I was saying, which
was the more important to the context of my statement. What I said was
'Perhaps it would be more constructive to make financial aid readily
available to the injured cyclist without it having to first be taken
off the motorist.' This would enable the injured rider to get required
finiancial support without first having to attribute blame. Just
because we don't blame the driver immediately, doesn't mean that we
blame the rider.

David Lloyd

 

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 05:37:05 -0700, David Lloyd <[email protected]> wrote:

> I am a great believer in the principle of 'innocent until proven
> guilty', wether or not we are talking about legal guilt, and see
> this as an erosion of this principle.

It's not an erosion of teh principle - it's not a principle of UK law
any more, and hasn't been for some time.

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

 

[Marc Brett]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 15:06:29 +0100, JNugent
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Marc Brett wrote:
>
>> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Marc Brett wrote:
>>>>JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>>Do you suggest that there is already a default mechanism whereby
>>>>>persons or bodies not shown to have been negligent are treated in law
>>>>>as though they had been shown to be negligent?
>
>>>>>When was that introduced?
>
>>>>I'm not a lawyer, so cannot quote chapter and verse for all variations.
>>>>But as an example, the Consumer Protection Act (1987) has strict
>>>>liability for defective products. The consumers must prove the defect
>>>>existed, and the defect caused injury, but negligence does not have to
>>>>be proven.
>
>>>Proving that the defect existed and that it caused injury seems pretty
>>>non-automatic (and a relatively high hurdle, comparable to proving
>>>negligence) to me.
>
>>>Do you actually have an example that supports your very weak case?
>
>> You wanted an example where negligence needn't be proven. There it is.
>> Are you going to keep moving the goal posts every time you're losing the
>> argument?
>
>No, and I haven't done so.
>
>I'm still waiting for an example where negligence need not be proven
>against an individual citizen in a case where it is alleged that
>he/she has been negligent.

There! Look! You've gone and shifted them again. First, you ask for
examples where the negligence of "persons or bodies" needn't be proven,
and now it's "individual citizens". My head's spinning!

Besides, the CPA's "relatively high hurdle" of needing to prove the
existence of a defect which also caused an injury would be comparable to
the UK's (hypothetical) law of strict liability which would certainly
demand proof that (i) a collision had taken place and that (ii) this
collision had resulted in the claimed injury & property damage.

>> You claim strict liability for motorists would be a huge opportunity for
>> fraud. Is this the experience in the European countries where it has
>> been implemented? If not there, why should it be in the UK?
>
>Has it been implemented in the way you want ("the driver is always in
>the wrong and cyclists never lie")?

You're dodging the question.

In any case, it's almost certain that fraudsters will find a way to
exploit any new strict liability law, just as they have already found
ways to exploit existing laws. If we let that be the criteria for
implementing an insurance scheme, then the industry would cease to
exist. Just because some people deliberately pour ketchup onto their
own carpet does not mean that home contents insurance should be
abolished. Fraud can be managed, and as long as it's kept below an
acceptable level, there is no reason to abandon the concept.

 

[JNugent]

Ian Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 05:37:05 -0700, David Lloyd <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> I am a great believer in the principle of 'innocent until proven
>> guilty', wether or not we are talking about legal guilt, and see
>> this as an erosion of this principle.
>
>
> It's not an erosion of teh principle - it's not a principle of UK law
> any more, and hasn't been for some time.

I'v never been too impressed with 'innocent until proven guilty',
which sounds a touch too predetermined to me.

I prefer "innocent *unless* [and, if you like, until] proven guilty".

 

[John Kane]

On Oct 13, 5:49 am, Tom Crispin
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 02:27:41 +0100, Rob Morley <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >burtthebike
> >[email protected] says...
>
> >> If someone could point out to him his error about seperate facilities, he
> >> would be spot on.
>
> >So apart from being totally wrong he was mostly right?
>
> There's nothing wrong with segregated facilities, so long as they are
> properly designed. Segregated facilities do a huge amount to
> encourage new cyclists.

I'm not sure that I agree with the 'nothing wrong' but the other
question is when and where are they likely to be properly designed. I
have used the "mixed usage' paths in Ottawa and Gatineau. They have
pedestrians, dogs, crossing golf cartsat an unsigned crossing , in-
line skaters, blind corners, inadequate warning signs ( fancy a dip in
the local rapids?) etc. And this is a facility developed by an agency
of the Federal Government of Canada with a lot of money and generally
good engineers.

My feeling is that most if not all segregated would be incompetently
designed and/or improperly implemented. Perhaps I am a bit cynical as
the first time that I can remember encountering seperate cycling
facilities was a cycle path inside the sidewalk (pavement) in central
Munich. A friend and I were just about hit as we left a technical
museam.

I have riden on a couple of half decent cycling paths but they went
from nowhere much to littler nowhere. Nice riding but of very little
use to a regular utility cyclist.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

 

[JNugent]

Marc Brett wrote:

> JNugent<[email protected]> wrote:
>>Marc Brett wrote:
>>>JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>Marc Brett wrote:
>>>>>JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>>>>Do you suggest that there is already a default mechanism whereby
>>>>>>persons or bodies not shown to have been negligent are treated in law
>>>>>>as though they had been shown to be negligent?

>>>>>>When was that introduced?

>>>>>I'm not a lawyer, so cannot quote chapter and verse for all variations.
>>>>>But as an example, the Consumer Protection Act (1987) has strict
>>>>>liability for defective products. The consumers must prove the defect
>>>>>existed, and the defect caused injury, but negligence does not have to
>>>>>be proven.

>>>>Proving that the defect existed and that it caused injury seems pretty
>>>>non-automatic (and a relatively high hurdle, comparable to proving
>>>>negligence) to me.
>>>>Do you actually have an example that supports your very weak case?

>>>You wanted an example where negligence needn't be proven. There it is.
>>>Are you going to keep moving the goal posts every time you're losing the
>>>argument?

>>No, and I haven't done so.
>>I'm still waiting for an example where negligence need not be proven
>>against an individual citizen in a case where it is alleged that
>>he/she has been negligent.

> There! Look! You've gone and shifted them again.

Nonsense. You never set out their positions in the first place - and
you keep introducing new parameters.

> First, you ask for
> examples where the negligence of "persons or bodies" needn't be proven,
> and now it's "individual citizens". My head's spinning!

It shouldn't be.

Companies can't commit motoring offences (though they can be liable at
law for injury). Only individuals can commit motoring offences (which
negligent driving is). And a claim against the insurance company of a
driver involved in a TA is, among other things, an allegation that
he/she was to blame for the incident by reason of their negligence
(take a look at the papers for such a case and you'll see what I mean).

I do apologise for assuming you knew this. Can I please also refer you
to the Human Rights Act and the European Human Rights Convention? See
below for the reason why.

> Besides, the CPA's "relatively high hurdle" of needing to prove the
> existence of a defect which also caused an injury would be comparable to
> the UK's (hypothetical) law of strict liability which would certainly
> demand proof that (i) a collision had taken place and that (ii) this
> collision had resulted in the claimed injury & property damage.

Again, my apologies for not making that so clear as to be proof
against your goalpost-shifting. I meant (obviously) that there would
need to be proof that there was a defect in the item when it was sold
(clearly, a supplying company cannot be responsible for defects due to
accident, wear and tear or maltreatment - though perhaps some think
they should be). That would be quite likely to require evidence of a
generic fault in the design, because proving that a particular
individual item was faulty at the point of sale would usually be more
difficult - and open to the counter-claim that the defect was caused
by abuse on the part of the owner.

We're also going to have to accept that I can only answer you in
generalities, since you only write in generalities, even though you
follow that up with requests for intricate detail on topics of which
you provide no evidence.

>>>You claim strict liability for motorists would be a huge opportunity for
>>>fraud. Is this the experience in the European countries where it has
>>>been implemented? If not there, why should it be in the UK?

>>Has it been implemented in the way you want ("the driver is always in
>>the wrong and cyclists never lie")?

> You're dodging the question.

Absolutely not. I can't answer it because I don't know that the
situation that you want here exists anywhere else, even though you
imply that in your question. Even if it did, I wouldn't have access to
the statistics. Do you (assuming you know a country where your law has
been enacted)?

Taking this a step further, I find it hard to believe that any state
signed up to the European Human Rights Convention (or the UN Charter)
would enact a law which purported to deny any citizen full due process
of law and the right to be treated as innocent/non-liable unless/until
shown to be otherwise. It would be... a... er... denial of Human Rights.

[Incidentally, Human Rights don't apply to companies - just in case
you thought there was a parallel there.]

> In any case, it's almost certain that fraudsters will find a way to
> exploit any new strict liability law, just as they have already found
> ways to exploit existing laws. If we let that be the criteria for
> implementing an insurance scheme, then the industry would cease to
> exist. Just because some people deliberately pour ketchup onto their
> own carpet does not mean that home contents insurance should be
> abolished. Fraud can be managed, and as long as it's kept below an
> acceptable level, there is no reason to abandon the concept.

Well, there's the Human Rights Act.

How would you guarantee (meaningful) due process to your victims,
since your law would essentially consist of nothing but a cultured
denial of it?

 

[Marc Brett]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 18:27:24 +0100, JNugent
<[email protected]> wrote:

<much rubbish snipped>

You're making no sense and making no effort to understand the issue.
You're a troll.

TTFN

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> There! Look! You've gone and shifted them again. First, you ask for
> examples where the negligence of "persons or bodies" needn't be proven,
> and now it's "individual citizens". My head's spinning!
>

That's what happens when you try to Troll wrestle, and even worse while
you are feeling dizzy the troll is having the time of its life.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

 

[JNugent]

Marc Brett wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

> <much rubbish snipped>

> You're making no sense and making no effort to understand the issue.
> You're a troll.

> TTFN

Let's recap...

You want other groups of people to be put at an undeserved and
arbitrary disadvantage (and you at an unmerited corresponding
advantage at their expense) but you can't justify it in debate beyond
saying that you prefer it - and that the world is rotten because the
government won't agree with you.

Oh, well.

Still, uk.politics.misc is full of people arguing along the same lines
as you, so you're not alone.

 

[Adam Lea]

On 14 Oct, 13:27, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Neil Williams
>
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 11:10:49 +0100, Simon Brooke
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>* Liability: motorist should be by default liable in all motor
> >> vehicle/cycle collisions unless (s)he can prove otherwise
>
> > I keep seeing this, but why? There seem to be a lot more
> > stupid/dangerous cyclists out there than car drivers, and I say that
> > as a cyclist.
>
> True, and I don't disagree. But the duty of care must be related to the
> potential to do damage. A motor car is a very dangerous machine, and we
> treat its use much too casually. And, furthermore, research shows that in
> a very high proportion of cycle/motor vehicle collisions, it is the driver
> of the motor vehicle that is at fault.
>
> We need to persuade motorists to be more careful around cyclists. I
> regularly encounter drivers who drive too close too fast, and quite often
> encounter drivers who are actively aggressive. If they knew that any bump
> was going to hit their no-claims bonus, they would tend to be a little
> more careful.
>
> And that isn't simply important because it would save a few injuries and
> deaths. It's still more important because it would improve the general
> standard of driver behaviour, making the road a more comfortable place for
> less experienced cyclists.
>
> None of this excuses bad cyclist behaviour, which I agree is also too
> common.
>

Out of interest, do you think the same should apply in cyclist/
pedestrian collisions i.e. should cyclists always be liable unless
they can prove they weren't at fault?

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:54:39 -0700, Adam Lea <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> None of this excuses bad cyclist behaviour, which I agree is also too
>> common.
>>
>
>Out of interest, do you think the same should apply in cyclist/
>pedestrian collisions i.e. should cyclists always be liable unless
>they can prove they weren't at fault?

I think yes, certainly with adult cyclists. There is a certain duty
of care cyclists owe to those on foot, and the reckless manner in
which some cyclists behave around pedestrians gives all cyclists a bad
name. A change in the law might also be accompanied by a
modification/clarification of the 1835 highways act which, at a time
before the motor car, prohibits almost everything on wheels and most
livestock from the footway (this probably includes supermarket
trolleys). An exception has been granted to powered wheelchairs, but
interestingly not to unpowered wheelchairs. Heelies, skateboards,
rollerskates, sledges and wheeled suitcases are all banned.

" If any person shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by
the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of
foot passengers; or shall wilfully lead or drive any horse, ass,
sheep, mule, swine, or cattle or carriage of any description, or any
truck or sledge, upon any such footpath or causeway; or shall tether
any horse, ass, mule, swine, or cattle, on any highway, so as to
suffer or permit the tethered animal to be thereon;[...]; every person
so offending in any of the cases aforesaid shall for each and every
such offence forfeit and pay any sum not exceeding [level 2 on the
standard scale], over and above the damages occasioned thereby."

http://tinyurl.com/2dxzmq from
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/conten...032567&ActiveTextDocId=1032567&filesize=71451

 

[Fulmar]

> That's why it's Stevenage that's Britain'scyclingcity, and not
> Cambridge, 15 miles away
>
> Stevenage is certainly well designed. They built the bike paths
> first, and then built the town round them. It takes less dynamite to
> clear a path if you do things that way round.
>
> Stevenage became world famous, with Eric Claxton, Stevenage's chief
> engineer, touring the world giving talks about it. Stevenage is the
> town that taught the Dutch how to do things.
>

Why does not Milton Keynes get a mention? Its segregated network of
Redways has no intersections with main roads & well marked crossings
of small roads.
By rights it should have the maximum possible amount of utility
cycling, which should indicate the highest attainable target that any
city could aspire to.

 

[Pete Biggs]

Fulmar wrote:
>> That's why it's Stevenage that's Britain'scyclingcity, and not
>> Cambridge, 15 miles away
>>
>> Stevenage is certainly well designed. They built the bike paths
>> first, and then built the town round them. It takes less dynamite to
>> clear a path if you do things that way round.
>>
>> Stevenage became world famous, with Eric Claxton, Stevenage's chief
>> engineer, touring the world giving talks about it. Stevenage is the
>> town that taught the Dutch how to do things.
>>
>
> Why does not Milton Keynes get a mention? Its segregated network of
> Redways has no intersections with main roads & well marked crossings
> of small roads.
> By rights it should have the maximum possible amount of utility
> cycling, which should indicate the highest attainable target that any
> city could aspire to.


I lived in MK for a couple of years in the late eighties. The Redways were
not especially nice or quick to cycle on, and the road network was good and
empty enough for motorists to have little reason not to use their cars. I
was one of the few people cycling there at that time - both on the roads and
Redways.

Contrast that to the large number of people cycling in central London now -
where the roads are congested and the cycling facilities virtually
non-existant.

~PB

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> >
> > Why does not Milton Keynes get a mention? Its segregated network of
> > Redways has no intersections with main roads & well marked crossings
> > of small roads.
> > By rights it should have the maximum possible amount of utility
> > cycling, which should indicate the highest attainable target that any
> > city could aspire to.
>
>
> I lived in MK for a couple of years in the late eighties. The Redways were
> not especially nice or quick to cycle on, and the road network was good and
> empty enough for motorists to have little reason not to use their cars. I
> was one of the few people cycling there at that time - both on the roads and
> Redways.
>

Nothing to do with why people didn't cycle but the Redways are an
example of where a custom built cycle network unrestrained by existing
buildings turns out to be more dangerous than the mainly national speed
limit grid roads.
http://cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/2decades.html

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw

 

[MJ Ray]

Fulmar <[email protected]> wrote:
> Why does not Milton Keynes get a mention? Its segregated network of
> Redways has no intersections with main roads & well marked crossings
> of small roads.

Buh? Have they rebuilt the Redways network massively since I last
visited it earlier this year? Then it still had intersections with
many main roads and I don't class the little yellow bollards as a
well-marked crossing. There are actually very few fully-segregated
routes in the Redway network.

> By rights it should have the maximum possible amount of utility
> cycling, which should indicate the highest attainable target that any
> city could aspire to.

No, it was an experiment. It did some things well, but includes some
real howlers. I think we can do better, by learning lessons from it.
To do that, we need to avoid the oversimplification of some critics.
(What is food after it is digested? Poo...)

--
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

 

[Ian Jackson]

In article <[email protected]>,
Fulmar <[email protected]> wrote:
>Why does not Milton Keynes get a mention? Its segregated network of
>Redways has no intersections with main roads & well marked crossings
>of small roads.

I cycled across Harlow to work for much of 1989. I found the
dedicated cycleway network useless. Instead of interesections with
the main roads, it has underpasses. Each side's cycleway goes down a
steep ramp to the 90 degree crossroads where the two underpass tunnels
meet. They were also regularly strewn with glass.

Despite my ignorance about the safety properties of off-road
facilities, it was clear to me that the road was better so I used it.
Roadabouts aren't so bad once you get used to them.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <[email protected]>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:hVc*[email protected],
Ian Jackson <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to
tell us:

> I cycled across Harlow to work for much of 1989. I found the
> dedicated cycleway network useless. Instead of interesections with
> the main roads, it has underpasses. Each side's cycleway goes down a
> steep ramp to the 90 degree crossroads where the two underpass tunnels
> meet. They were also regularly strewn with glass.
>
> Despite my ignorance about the safety properties of off-road
> facilities, it was clear to me that the road was better so I used it.
> Roadabouts aren't so bad once you get used to them.

I work in Harlow now. Nothing has changed, except for the "Cyclists
Dismount" Forest:

http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month

Except that, having spent shedloads of money on resurfacing that path a few
months ago, a section of it has just been dug up.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
I thought I saw his name on a jar of marmalade the other day,
but when I looked more closely, I saw it read 'thick cut'.

 

[Neil Williams]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:39:54 -0000, "Jeremy Parker"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The Milton Keynes network was not designed as a cycle network. The
>"redways" were originally to be called "pedways" but a typo led to
>their becoming "redways" on which not only peds were allowed.

Do you have a reference for that, as everything I have ever read on
the matter does not agree with it, nor does it sound even remotely
feasible, as if they hadn't wanted cyclists to use them they could
still have prohibited such use under the name "redway".

They're called Redways because they're red tarmac, by the way. A
noticeable difference from the Dutch model is that cyclists normally
do not have priority at junctions, while in the Netherlands normally
either the cyclist has priority or there are traffic signals.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.