Some really interesting points about strict liability from several people on here, particularly Ed, Soper and Spindrift, marred by a tedious debate about the impact of mobile phones.
None of us want a litigious society where we all get to sue the shit out of drivers. However unfortunate it may be, I feel that the threat of financial implication hanging over the head of drivers is one way to make London a safer place to ride - that's what it's about innit?
Two other things:
I hate to admit it, but I didn't actually mind that Daily Mail article. He's a hateful Tory prig and I disagree with everything he stands for BUT he's got a point about the manners of some riders.
If Strict Liability is being misrepresented by the press then we need to do something about it. Fight fire with fire. Write a strongly worded letter to the Guardian etc etc.
And two: Lynx, your posts are mostly unintelligible to me, but I do kind of admire your obstinate advocacy of the opposite of sense.
Some really interesting points about strict liability from several people on here, particularly Ed, Soper and Spindrift, marred by a tedious debate about the impact of mobile phones.
None of us want a litigious society where we all get to sue the shit out of drivers. However unfortunate it may be, I feel that the threat of financial implication hanging over the head of drivers is one way to make London a safer place to ride - that's what it's about innit?
Two other things:
I hate to admit it, but I didn't actually mind that Daily Mail article. He's a hateful Tory prig and I disagree with everything he stands for BUT he's got a point about the manners of some riders.
If Strict Liability is being misrepresented by the press then we need to do something about it. Fight fire with fire. Write a strongly worded letter to the Guardian etc etc.
And two: Lynx, your posts are mostly unintelligible to me, but I do kind of admire your obstinate advocacy of the opposite of sense.