-
The only legal context where having had cycle training might help, that I can think of, would be in a court case where the other side's lawyer was trying to suggest or imply that you were a reckless cyclist or that your understanding of road situations was poor. Being able to point out that you had had training might help to undermine this.
-
Strawman, tear it apart....
Of course - i forgot that transport policy research all begins at lfgss.
Did you read anymore of the thread, particularly the bit asking for constructive suggestions towards the two specific issues i had in mind?
Very easy to just rip in with criticism. Well done.
I read the whole of your post and accepted the invitation contained in your last sentence.
However, if you would like my opinion (and presumably you posted the original question in order to hear the opinions of others, but I may be wrong) I think that your suggestion displays the self interested arrogance of someone who cares more about selling cycle training than encouraging cycling, a shallow, short term view that would lead to fewer potential customers for you in the longer term.
Of course, if you don't like to hear opinions that differ from your own, feel free to throw in some more insults.
-
The only legal context where having had cycle training might help, that I can think of, would be in a court case where the other side's lawyer was trying to suggest or imply that you were a reckless cyclist or that your understanding of road situations was poor. Being able to point out that you had had training might help to undermine this.
A cycle trainer could make a very good expert witness in such circumstances - either for the cyclist or the driver.
-
http://www.lfgss.com/thread43900.html
we have a clear cut case of internet polarity going on here,
RHB dosent know Cliveos occupation.
Cliveo dosent know RHB works for a charity.
Easy now. -
OK, let me spell out clearly why the original suggestion is one that has provoked an angry response from me.
In this country, the law of tort provides, in summary, that a person who causes injury to another or damages that other's property through negligence, is liable to compensate for that injury or damage. If the injured party contributes to the injury or damage through his or her own negligence, the compensation payable is reduced according to the level of the contribution of that contributory negligence to the accident.
This is the law for everything from products liability to motoring accidents.
In some countries, there is an idea that in cycle/motorist accidents, the rule should be that negligence by the motorist is assumed. This does not apply here.
The consequence of English law is that if a motorist injures a cyclist through the motorist's fault, the cyclist can win damages. If the cyclist did something that contributed to his injury, the damages will be reduced. For example, in recent cases it has been held that if a helmet would have reduced injury and a helmet was not worn, damages could be reduced. This is in line with cases surrounding the failure to wear seat belts in cars.
The suggestion in the original post woul,d have absolved the motorist for any liability if the cyclist, however innocent of any fault and contributory negligence, from any liability to the cyclist whom he had injured. This would place a cyclist in such circumstances in a worse position that anyone else in law. If a cyclist was paralysed through no fault of his own but plenty of the motorist's, he would be unable to recover from the motorist's insurance and would become a burden on the state. This is unfeasible on a macroeconomic scale and contrary to every move in liability law.
So it only takes a couple of hours to be trained and, the suggestion is that this would force everyone to be trained. It would, in my opinion actually reduce the numbers being trained as it would mean that people would be put off cycling. New cyclists wouldn't start cycling. The cycle-hire scheme would be still born. Very few would invest two hours and £40 to train without knowing whether they really wanted to cycle or not. Kids wouldn't be taught to cycle.
We need to encourage more people to cycle and then encourage those that do to do so safely. We do not need to make cyclists' legal position somewhat lower than the balance of the population. Cyclists are not and should not be treated as second class citizens.
-
Good post Mr O
Tactical requote just in case *m.f. feels intimidated by Wiganwill
Im sure hes a top bloke, plus, once Tynans had you over the coals a couple of times, nothing on here bothers you.
this for the pot:-
http://www.roadpeace.org/change/safer_streets/stricter_liability/index.html -
OK, let me spell out clearly why the original suggestion is one that has provoked an angry response from me.
Nice summary, Clive, and I agree with all of that, except for:
If the cyclist did something that contributed to his injury, the damages will be reduced. For example, in recent cases it has been held that if a helmet would have reduced injury and a helmet was not worn, damages could be reduced. This is in line with cases surrounding the failure to wear seat belts in cars.
It's certainly not in line with seat belts in cars. There is no law requiring cyclists to wear helmets.
Oh yes, if such a law ever came in, it would be bad news.
-
. There is no law requiring cyclists to wear helmets.
I mentioned this to the driver of a skip truck on Thursday. I'd pointed out to him that he was using his phone (stopped at the lights at the junction of Gt Portland st and Euston rd). "Why aren't you wearing a helmet?" was his response. There's not much you can say in the face of that kind of idiocy is there?
-
I mentioned this to the driver of a skip truck on Thursday. I'd pointed out to him that he was using his phone (stopped at the lights at the junction of Gt Portland st and Euston rd). "Why aren't you wearing a helmet?" was his response. There's not much you can say in the face of that kind of idiocy is there?
You should have laid down a radical rap.
I would have.
Rap is a very powerful tool in high stress 'street' stand offs, my 6th wife Babs was a skip driver, that's how we met, I rapped her pants off.
-
I mentioned this to the driver of a skip truck on Thursday. I'd pointed out to him that he was using his phone (stopped at the lights at the junction of Gt Portland st and Euston rd). "Why aren't you wearing a helmet?" was his response. There's not much you can say in the face of that kind of idiocy is there?
You should've respond by saying "well why aren't you're?"
Helmet reduced fatalites when operating a motorised vehicle.
-
Nice summary, Clive, and I agree with all of that, except for:
It's certainly not in line with seat belts in cars. There is no law requiring cyclists to wear helmets.
Oh yes, if such a law ever came in, it would be bad news.
The contributory negligence issue with seat belts existed before seat belt wearing became mandatory. There has been at least one of case mentioned on this forum in recent times of a judge holding that if a helmet would have prevented or reduced injury, there was an element of contributory negligence in not wearing a helmet. I cannot now recall if the judgment held up but, the principle of contributory negligence was the one that I was seeking to address and that is addressed well enough by the seat belt example.
-
The contributory negligence issue with seat belts existed before seat belt wearing became mandatory. There has been at least one of case mentioned on this forum in recent times of a judge holding that if a helmet would have prevented or reduced injury, there was an element of contributory negligence in not wearing a helmet. I cannot now recall if the judgment held up but, the principle of contributory negligence was the one that I was seeking to address and that is addressed well enough by the seat belt example.
See judgement summary here:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1051.html
He would not however have found contributory negligence based upon A's failure to wear a safety helmet as there was no statutory requirement for him to do so
This still has as a worrying undercurrent that not wearing a cycle helmet could be considered contributory negligence, even if not found as such in a court of law, but I believe that it is correct to judge the absence of such a law to be sufficient grounds for not finding contributory negligence. It is true that insurance companies attempt to have precedent established all the time, but hopefully the crackpot judgement you refer to will remain isolated. The cases of seat belts and cycle helmets are very different indeed, and the analogy doesn't work, I think.Some more resources here:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1048.html
John Adams is good on seat belts and cycle helmets:
http://john-adams.co.uk/?s=seat+belt
http://john-adams.co.uk/?s=cycle+helmet
(NB I'm not trying to turn this into a helmet thread. Heaven forfend. ;) )
-
is it only cyclists whoes non helmet wearing is considered contributory negligence if the judge thnks damamge would have been reduced by wearing one. What about helmetless drivers who have head injuries, or bare headed pedestrians?
And if a cyclists damages a knee and wasn't wearing knee protection is this also contribuatry negeigence?
-
I mentioned this to the driver of a skip truck on Thursday. I'd pointed out to him that he was using his phone (stopped at the lights at the junction of Gt Portland st and Euston rd). "Why aren't you wearing a helmet?" was his response. There's not much you can say in the face of that kind of idiocy is there?
The best way of responding to that is by something really counter-intuitive (and true) like: 'Because I don't want to put myself in danger.' They'll either think you're mad for saying this and quickly drive away, or their curiosity is piqued and they give you some more time (rare).
Oh no, this is turning into a helmet thread, isn't it? :(
deleted
cliveo
Oliver Schick
tynan
edscoble
skydancer-
Post a reply
About
Blame / Claim strawman
Posted by
@rhb
Of course - i forgot that transport policy research all begins at lfgss.
Did you read anymore of the thread, particularly the bit asking for constructive suggestions towards the two specific issues i had in mind?
Very easy to just rip in with criticism. Well done.