Blame / Claim strawman

as Mr O will henceforth explain, the law is constantly changing, individuals set precedents by their summations, and some of these are given by societies' most upstanding 'crackpots' (Olis word), as the wider issues become more frequently discussed, overall knowledge of cycling issues will also increase- which has to happen too.

I know that the law is constantly changing, and I also believe that this can be a good thing. I still don't believe that the cases of cycle helmets and seat belts are analogous in the question of contributory negligence, at any point of their potential legislative progress, or indeed in multiple aspects of fact.

are you saying that there could be degrees of negligence? decided by the person presiding over the case?
"Multiple aspects of fact" is a nicely loaded phrase ;-)

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.

Insults? Blimey you're sensitive.
I understand you read my post. I was asking if you'd read the rest of the thread, such as the bits where i quickly acknowledged it was a crap idea, and moved the discussion on by asking for other ideas. To wade in a few days after the fact with a 'this is a crap idea' type response wasn't really much of a contribution.

As for the not knowing each others background - good point Jason, yet the threats of bans from moderators - i'm left a bit baffled by these.

I'll catch up on the thread properly after the weekend.

There are no threats of bans from moderators :)
I don't think we even have the power to do that. It was just banter. But the less bickering we have on here the better which is why Clive wrote another, longer post explaining his view more calmly.
So let's forget the tetchy words and carry on.

thankyou.

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.

Thanks for a more thorough explanation. I'm guessing you work in Law?

A couple of more questions, probably daft, but certainly not intended to insult:
*
"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."*

Could there be an argument that an untrained cyclist should receive lower damages than a trained cyclist in the same instance (e.g. unavoidable numpty move by driver)?

Forgetting bikes briefly, would a driver without a license be awarded lower damaged than a legit driver if involved in an incident cased by another driver (3rd party at fault)?

*"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."

*Does the compulsion to undergo training put off prospective drivers? What about the cost for them - this is much more than £40? Might there be a chance that a requirement for training could actually add further credibility to the bike as a mode of transport? (This would defo be the case if it became a requirement to get provisional driving license. No L3 Bikeability = No driving). Would a requirement for cyclists to be trained help to improve non-cyclists opinions about the cyclists place in amongst traffic?

Note, In some areas cycle training is currently delivered for free, due to funding from organisations like Cycling England, PCT's etc. E.g. Adults in certain Coventry postcodes are being offered free training at present.

There are no threats of bans from moderators :)
I don't think we even have the power to do that. It was just banter. But the less bickering we have on here the better which is why Clive wrote another, longer post explaining his view more calmly.
So let's forget the tetchy words and carry on.

Ok, understood.

@ *mf - I prefer

If someone injures another through his negligence, he is liable to that other person.

If the injured party contributes to his own injury, then the damages awarded will be reduced to take into account that contributory negligence.

So, an untrained rider, riding competently, will receive full compensation and a trained rider riding incompetently, will not.

A licensed driver driving like a numpty will not receive full compensation but an unlicensed driver driving properly will but is likely to be prosecuted for driving illegally.

Driving and owning a car as well as attaining the legal driving age and taking the driving test, are part of our culture (for better or worse). People in many if not most nations aspire to own and drive cars. We want to reverse that and to encourage people to cycle instead. Placing a legal impediment to cycling would discourage the get up and go nature of cycling particularly as cycling is culturally something that one learns to do as a kid when taught by one's parents.

The encouragement of responsinble and safe cycling through training is a good thing but please don't seek to do so in a way that would discourage cycling.

Of course - i forgot that transport policy research all begins at lfgss.

I left this point unanswered. My apologies.

This is a public internet forum read by thousands of people. It is not beyond the realms of imagination that an idle hack from the Daily Mail might google towards his next anti-cycling story.

"Cycle Trainers call for halt to damages for cyclists

Cycle trainers are calling for damages to be withheld from injured cyclists who fail to complete cycle training courses. Condemning the blame culture that exists among cyclists who seek damages from motorists, a leading cycle-trainer (who asked not to be named) called for an end to damages for untrained cyclists. " It does cyclists no favour to have lawyers advising them take someone to court in the event of a straightforward accident. Putting the onus on cyclists to seek training will make for fewer avoidable incidents." Cycling organisations, CTC and British Cycling were unavailable for comment."

I left this point unanswered. My apologies.

This is a public internet forum read by thousands of people. It is not beyond the realms of imagination that an idle hack from the Daily Mail might google towards his next anti-cycling story.

"Gay cycle trainers call for halt to damages for cyclists

Homosexual cycle trainers are calling for damages to be withheld from injured cyclists who fail to complete cycle training courses. Condemning the blame culture that exists among London-based cyclists who seek damages from motorists, a leading cycle-trainer, who lives with his gay partner in Islington (and who asked not to be named) called for an end to damages for untrained cyclists. " It does cyclists no favour to have lawyers advising them take someone to court in the event of an accident similar to that which saw the death of Princess Diana. Putting the onus on cyclists to seek training will make for fewer avoidable incidents, and reduce house prices." Cycling organisations, CTC and British Cycling were unavailable for comment."

.

I have a better idea... introduce cycling training for drivers. If they complete the cycle training then any future accident they have with cyclists is determined on the evidence. If they do not do cycle training then the cyclist is automatically assumed to be in the right and the driver is fully liable.

thats a much better idea jeez. in fact there has been some research comissioned to look at whether people who have had cycle training before learning to drive make better drivers...

And i would have no issue with c ycle training being a compulsary part of the driving test. ( people may decide not to to bother with the car part of the test once they realsise that cycling is more efficient than commuting by car in many instances.)

(also there are now groups of professional drivers who are getting cycle training in london)

Yes, making cycle training more widespread among drivers is certainly work in progress. The Institute of Advanced Motorists are already on board.

Level one and two in all primary schools and top up + level three in all secondary schools would be a good long term goal too. Although I expect it already is, or something similar.

It would be nice if trainee taxi drivers had to do cycle training as part of the knowledge. Better still if they were encouraged or rather incentivised, to use bicycles rather than mopeds to tour the streets of London. Cycle training as a prerequisite of getting a TfL badge for private hire vehicles would also be a positive step.

currently level 1 + 2 is funded for primary schools years 5 and 6 through local authorities in london and school/sports partnerships out of the capital

level 3 funding has recently been announced but not yet gone live, nor is it clear whether this will be directly targetting year 7. It will be for young people rather than adults. Adult cycle training funding is still pretty rare outside of london. We're awaiting details of this additional funding ( I really hope this level 3 funding won't be cut under this new regime)

I left this point unanswered. My apologies.

This is a public internet forum read by thousands of people. It is not beyond the realms of imagination that an idle hack from the Daily Mail might google towards his next anti-cycling story.

"Cycle Trainers call for halt to damages for cyclists

Cycle trainers are calling for damages to be withheld from injured cyclists who fail to complete cycle training courses. Condemning the blame culture that exists among cyclists who seek damages from motorists, a leading cycle-trainer (who asked not to be named) called for an end to damages for untrained cyclists. " It does cyclists no favour to have lawyers advising them take someone to court in the event of a straightforward accident. Putting the onus on cyclists to seek training will make for fewer avoidable incidents." Cycling organisations, CTC and British Cycling were unavailable for comment."

Whilst this (and subsequent edits) made me chuckle - you should go work for the Daily Mail - i think it unlikely to happen. If it appeared on a leaked memo from within a cycling organistaion, then maybe so as it'd have more credibility.

Gotta say gents,
it is still the schools own set of priorties that gets training happening,
it can be as simple as one person in the school office being difficult and that years 5's or 6's missing out completely on a training course.
Of course, parents can help by pressurising schools to organise training, but they still someetimnes dont get it sorted, even when its free, organised and provided.
sad, but true.

@BMMF
Loved that post.
especially the conclusion,
reminds me of this diatribe:-

"take more, give less, consolidate your loans, buy now pay later, SKY, drive more, eat what you can, survival of the fattest,do what I say not what I do, eye for an eye, free money if you fall over, sue the government for diminished responsibility, everything is acceptable as long as house prices dont crash........."

Is that British Cycling's mission statement? They're certainly keen on SKY, have been offering me deals on a Fiat this week, and are indirectly partially responsible for pricing many locals out of their Olympic borough, blah blah blah…

yeah I got all that shite too.......
Politely declined renewing membership over the phone,
when I told her I paid for several memberships and NGB fees, she got all Manc on me.....
ah, well, s'long as our new outdoor track opening 2011 Slades Farm opens and I can rip around it with mates leave them to it.

As I really can't be arsed to race, and thereby use the silver membership/free day licence deal (which they helpfully don't advertise anywhere), I think when my current card expires, I may revert to LCC or something for the 3rd party cover.

British Cycling have some great people working for them, but as for the organisation as a whole…

As I really can't be arsed to race, and thereby use the silver membership/free day licence deal (which they helpfully don't advertise anywhere), I think when my current card expires, I may revert to LCC or something for the 3rd party cover.

British Cycling have some great people working for them, but as for the organisation as a whole…

yep. tactic.

".............have some great people working for them, but as for the organisation as a whole…"[/QUOTE]

this^^ for every organisation out there, including the one I work for, but then Im a dangerous anarchist, rar!