Lunatics are running the asylum ...
Discussion
Pothole said:
calm down and read the whole item:
"A Department for Transport spokesman said: 'This is something that gets raised by pressure groups from time to time.
'Cycling England has suggested it but it is not being considered by ministers"
Yeah my fault for falling for the typical Daily Wail type of reporting...starting out by saying 'Government advisers' then doubling back to relegate those 'advisers' to nothing more than pressure groups..aka moaning gits... "A Department for Transport spokesman said: 'This is something that gets raised by pressure groups from time to time.
'Cycling England has suggested it but it is not being considered by ministers"
Guilty as charged of posting a non-story, sorry, ...I hate Mondays!
Pothole said:
"A Department for Transport spokesman said: 'This is something that gets raised by pressure groups from time to time.
'Cycling England has suggested it but it is not being considered by ministers"
Cycling for England ARE part of the DfT, why else would their website be on the DfT site?'Cycling England has suggested it but it is not being considered by ministers"
http://www.dft.gov.uk/cyclingengland/
Jasandjules said:
I wonder IF it's true.
The simple answer is, make cyclists pay for insurance and then put a registration plate on their bikes. That way, whoever is at fault gets to pay.
This is the case here in Switzerland. It is mandatory that all cyclists pay for third party liability insurance. Costs about a tenner a year and for that you get a little sticker on your bike that means you are covered in case you cause damage to someone else or their property. Damned good idea. I cycle a lot and enjoy being a cyclist, but automatically blaming vehicle drivers for accidents is ridiculous.The simple answer is, make cyclists pay for insurance and then put a registration plate on their bikes. That way, whoever is at fault gets to pay.
If you are involved in a no-fault accident with an a
hole on a bike, then get your money's worth. Hop out the car and give them a bloody good kicking. You're going down for a stretch anyway 
oldsoak said:
Pothole said:
calm down and read the whole item:
"A Department for Transport spokesman said: 'This is something that gets raised by pressure groups from time to time.
'Cycling England has suggested it but it is not being considered by ministers"
Yeah my fault for falling for the typical Daily Wail type of reporting...starting out by saying 'Government advisers' then doubling back to relegate those 'advisers' to nothing more than pressure groups..aka moaning gits... "A Department for Transport spokesman said: 'This is something that gets raised by pressure groups from time to time.
'Cycling England has suggested it but it is not being considered by ministers"
Guilty as charged of posting a non-story, sorry, ...I hate Mondays!
rypt said:
Pothole said:
"A Department for Transport spokesman said: 'This is something that gets raised by pressure groups from time to time.
'Cycling England has suggested it but it is not being considered by ministers"
Cycling for England ARE part of the DfT, why else would their website be on the DfT site?'Cycling England has suggested it but it is not being considered by ministers"
http://www.dft.gov.uk/cyclingengland/
"Cycling England is an independent, expert body, working to get more people cycling, more safely, more often."
although they are funded by DfT...
Gotta love a Quango.
It is only removal of the presumption of innocence in the case of drivers that they are talking about. That does NOT mean that the driver is "guilty" in all cases. It means they have to prove they were not negligent, rather than currently, that the TP must prove they were.
In fact this is a lot less than how the original EU 5th directive was envisaged. They wanted fault to always lie with the driver. And then for the cyclists own fault to reduce their own damages, and for the driver to be able to sue for their damages. Never made it in to law.
It is only removal of the presumption of innocence in the case of drivers that they are talking about. That does NOT mean that the driver is "guilty" in all cases. It means they have to prove they were not negligent, rather than currently, that the TP must prove they were.
In fact this is a lot less than how the original EU 5th directive was envisaged. They wanted fault to always lie with the driver. And then for the cyclists own fault to reduce their own damages, and for the driver to be able to sue for their damages. Never made it in to law.
Pothole said:
handpaper said:
The only thing this will encourage is hit-and-runs. If we have no legal way of avoiding injustice, we'll take the illegal way. fk them.
at the risk of repeating myself, read the whole article, FFS!k them.Injustice is not limited to criminal courts. Foisting an undeserved liability onto someone is still an injustice.
The article is written in such a way to make you think :-
a) there is no redress
b) somehow this is the government
neither of which are true, but this is the Daily Mail !
Although the truth, that they are seeking a reversal of one of our fundamental human rights, is no less shocking.
But that probably doesn't quite boil the blood enough in the run up the the election
a) there is no redress
b) somehow this is the government
neither of which are true, but this is the Daily Mail !
Although the truth, that they are seeking a reversal of one of our fundamental human rights, is no less shocking.
But that probably doesn't quite boil the blood enough in the run up the the election
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff