Paperboy hit.

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Tony Raven, Oct 16, 2004.

  1. On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 08:03:09 GMT, "Sniper8052"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >I heard it was to be considered in this country. At the time I was dead
    >against it as it sounded completely unfair to assume one party was always to
    >be at fault. However I am coming to believe that there may be some virtue
    >in the idea and that it should not only cover cyclists and pedestrians but
    >also motorcyclists. After all when did you last see two motorcycles crash
    >into each other, and look at their accident / death rate.


    The key point here is that what you read in the papers almost
    certainly bears no relation to the true picture. As I recall from my
    reading of the Directive at the time it was designed to harmonise the
    position re third party cover - some countries' insurers do not cover
    occupants of a vehicle whose driver is at fault, others do not cover
    uninsured third parties (mainly pedestrians) hit by an at-fault
    driver.

    Another section was designed to make it easier to insure a car in one
    country and have that cover valid in other countries, particularly
    when moving new unregistered vehicles. I thought that would have made
    it quite popular with the motoring press as it was particularly
    intended to help personal imports, something they are very keen on.

    A very small subclause of a subsection of a subparagraph covered the
    presumption of fault for pedestrians and cyclists. Although the
    cyclists were always singled out in the press, it is well known that
    pedestrian injuries are (a) much more numerous and (b) much more
    likely to be the pedestrian's own fault - but of course we are all
    pedestrians, so that makes them a less attractive scapegoat.

    The draft I saw specifically excluded the question of either fault or
    criminal liability, and explicitly allowed for the presumption of
    liability to be overriden where the pedestrian or cyclist was at
    fault.

    Representing the directive as being primarily about putting the blame
    on drivers when cyclists did somethign stupid was mischievous,
    probably deliberately so since I was able to obtain and understand the
    draft quite easily.

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
     


  2. Sniper8052

    Sniper8052 Guest

    On 21-Oct-2004, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Representing the directive as being primarily about putting the blame
    > on drivers when cyclists did something stupid was mischievous,
    > probably deliberately so since I was able to obtain and understand the
    > draft quite easily.


    I agree, if what I wrote is not correct than I am at fault and apologies for
    unintentionally having posted a misleading reply. It was my understanding
    that the entire purpose was to provide a redress for cyclists and
    pedestrians injured in accidents without reference to the actual
    circumstances of the incident. It seems incredible that some countries have
    such unfair third party insurance laws, I assume they were to change to our
    system and we to adopt the presumption of liability?

    Could you point me to an Internet resource for this please?

    Sniper8052
     
  3. >I heard it was to be considered in this country. At the time I was dead
    >against it as it sounded completely unfair to assume one party was always to
    >be at fault.


    It was never intended to presume *fault*, no matter what the Daily Wail would
    have had the public believe. It was simply making sure that the onus was on
    those of us who happen to be driving to be more careful than many a motorist is
    at present. If the cyclist/pedestrian was at fault, then the motorist would
    still be able to claim such & persue such if wanted. What it did was ensure
    that the more vulnerable road users had greater protection in the event of an
    "accident"

    Cheers, helen s


    --This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
    to get correct one remove fame & fortune
    h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*[email protected]$*a$o*l.c**$om$

    --Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--
     
  4. Sniper8052

    Sniper8052 Guest

    Thanks Helen,
    Guy has pointed out I am in error but you have clarified it more succinctly.
    I have asked Guy to point me in the right direction to learn more about
    this. Ta anyway.

    --
    Sniper8052
     
  5. >Thanks Helen,
    >Guy has pointed out I am in error but you have clarified it more succinctly.
    > I have asked Guy to point me in the right direction to learn more about
    >this. Ta anyway.


    Most welcome. Probably the only time in my life I'll ever be described as
    putting something more succinctly ;-)

    Cheers, helen s


    --This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
    to get correct one remove fame & fortune
    h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*[email protected]$*a$o*l.c**$om$

    --Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--
     
  6. On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:14:23 GMT, "Sniper8052"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> Representing the directive as being primarily about putting the blame
    >> on drivers when cyclists did something stupid was mischievous,
    >> probably deliberately so since I was able to obtain and understand the
    >> draft quite easily.


    >I agree, if what I wrote is not correct than I am at fault and apologies for
    >unintentionally having posted a misleading reply.


    None needed. The misleading was doen by the press, and quite possibly
    with deliberately mischievous intent.

    >It was my understanding
    >that the entire purpose was to provide a redress for cyclists and
    >pedestrians injured in accidents without reference to the actual
    >circumstances of the incident.


    Which is what the Daily Mail wanted you to think :)

    >Could you point me to an Internet resource for this please?


    Um. The link I had seems to have died. EU Fifth Insurance Directive
    - I'll have another look this evening.

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
     
  7. "Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:

    > >>Was there not a bit of a hoo-har a while back about some pending
    > >>(EU?) ruling which was planned to place a presumption of fault on the
    > >>driver of a motor vehicle that was involved in an accident with
    > >>pedestrians or cyclists? What's happened to that?

    >
    > >One country does have a law like that - I think it's Switzerland.

    >
    > I believe several do, including Holland.


    France has such a law. Any accident between a car and a cyclist is the fault
    of the motorist, even if the cyclist was doing something very stupid.

    EFR
    Ile de France
    who tries not to do very stupid things but is still terrified on the road.
     
  8. Nick Kew

    Nick Kew Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Elisa Francesca Roselli <[email protected]> writes:

    >
    > France has such a law. Any accident between a car and a cyclist is the fault
    > of the motorist, even if the cyclist was doing something very stupid.


    s/fault/responsibility/ and that makes sense. It may still be the
    fault of the cyclist.

    --
    Nick Kew
     
  9. On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 22:29:18 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:48:12 +0100, Sue White <[email protected]>
    >wrote in message <[email protected]>:
    >
    >>>Was there not a bit of a hoo-har a while back about some pending
    >>>(EU?) ruling which was planned to place a presumption of fault on the
    >>>driver of a motor vehicle that was involved in an accident with
    >>>pedestrians or cyclists? What's happened to that?

    >
    >>One country does have a law like that - I think it's Switzerland.

    >
    >I believe several do, including Holland.


    Does it include France? I cycled around Dieppe in the summer and was
    amazed at how well the drivers behaved themselves around cyclists
    there compared to here.
     
  10. Jon Senior

    Jon Senior Guest

    Andrew Richardson [email protected] opined the following...
    > Does it include France? I cycled around Dieppe in the summer and was
    > amazed at how well the drivers behaved themselves around cyclists
    > there compared to here.


    Something to do with having a country which respects cyclists, rather
    than looking down on them as inferior for not driving cars.

    Jon
     
  11. On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:40:24 +0100, Andrew Richardson
    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    <[email protected]>:

    >Does it include France? I cycled around Dieppe in the summer and was
    >amazed at how well the drivers behaved themselves around cyclists
    >there compared to here.


    I think French motorists have always regarded cyclists as having some
    kind of right to be there, which distinguishes them from British
    drivers :)

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
     
  12. >I think French motorists have always regarded cyclists as having some
    >kind of right to be there, which distinguishes them from British
    >drivers :)
    >
    >Guy


    I think so to a large extent. Everytime I've cycled in France it's been lovely.
    Motorists do appear to be genuinely more courteous to cyclists, giving a wider
    berth than often is the case when I cycle over here. Even the Paris rush hour
    was a doddle to cycle in.

    Cheers, helen s




    --This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
    to get correct one remove fame & fortune
    h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*[email protected]$*a$o*l.c**$om$

    --Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--
     
  13. James Hodson

    James Hodson Guest

    On 22 Oct 2004 16:49:27 GMT, [email protected]omcom
    (dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote:

    >>I think French motorists have always regarded cyclists as having some
    >>kind of right to be there, which distinguishes them from British
    >>drivers :)


    >
    >I think so to a large extent. Everytime I've cycled in France it's been lovely.
    >Motorists do appear to be genuinely more courteous to cyclists, giving a wider
    >berth than often is the case when I cycle over here. Even the Paris rush hour
    >was a doddle to cycle in.
    >


    Hi Helen

    This reminds me a little of a programme I saw a while ago about
    cancer-sufferer Jane Tomlinson and her cycle trip through several
    countries in mainland Europe.

    Having cycled from Rome to Calais (I think), it was only when she hit
    British soil that she and her cycling partners were treated badly,
    sworn at etc.

    James
     
Loading...