J
Just zis Guy, you know?
Guest
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
<[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
