Lorry driver killed cyclist, threw bike into undergrowth.

deptfordmarmoset

Maybe gender issues are a bit of a red his/herring on this thread?

glenncampbell

An utterly horrific story - my sympathies to the family.

We don't have justice or fairness in the UK - we have a legal system. 2 years is no penalty for what the driver has done.

jedster

number9,

There is something dreadfully wrong, so far twelve talented, intelligent women have been killed on the streets of London by neanderthal thugs driving large vehicles

You what?

Neither you nor I no the rights and wrongs of all those incidents but I am betting that some of those drivers are honest professionals and not "neanderthal thugs". IME most truck drivers are good and some cyclists make bad errors of judgment that put them at risk. Saying that every driver involved in a fatal RTA with a cyclist is subhuman helps noone.

J

The Rookie

glenncampbell wrote:

We don't have justice or fairness in the UK - we have a legal system. 2 years is no penalty for what the driver has done.

I'm guessing your couldn't be arsed to read the several explanations of why it was only 2 years and how now it would almost certainly be higher, therefore adding precisely zero to the debate on this thread?

Simon

number9

jedster wrote:

number9,

There is something dreadfully wrong, so far twelve talented, intelligent women have been killed on the streets of London by neanderthal thugs driving large vehicles

You what?

Neither you nor I no the rights and wrongs of all those incidents but I am betting that some of those drivers are honest professionals and not "neanderthal thugs". IME most truck drivers are good and some cyclists make bad errors of judgment that put them at risk. Saying that every driver involved in a fatal RTA with a cyclist is subhuman helps noone.

J

Emma Foa, killed by a lorry driver shuffling his paperwork. He didn't even get a driving ban.

The Polish girl killed in Greenwich, the lorry driver escaped, didn't even stop.

Elidh Cairns, killed by a van driver whose defence was that he simply didn't see the cyclists, accepted by the CPS as an adequate accounting for the death of a highly principled and well-loved woman.

shouldbeinbed

number9 wrote:

so far twelve talented, intelligent women have been killed on the streets of London by neanderthal thugs driving large vehicles.

number9 wrote:

I'm not sure how mentioning the sex of the victims of HGVs in London is sexist. Had I ascribed blame to the victims based on their sex then the "sexist" tag would have more merit. And I didn't say the only victims were women

OK maybe sexist wasn't exactly the right word - how about introducing an irrelevant sexually biased element to the debate.

And neanderthal thugs is grossly distorting. too, you quote a couple of examples, how many hundreds of thousands of miles do thousands of trucks drive a year without hitting anyone?

but you only detail women, why not mention that men have been killed too? or ignore the gender of victims altogether. when it's a few stone of person vs 40 odd tons of truck - gender has nothing to do with it, why bring unneccessary gender detail and red herrings into the debate about a man killed by a truck 200 miles up country from London.

There's plenty of cyclists are the architects of their own injuries or deaths, why not accuse all cyclists of being suicidally incompetent? simple because its a sweeping and grossly inaccurate generalisation. as is that post of yours.

such posting smacks of a very jaundiced one issue agenda in a situation where the gender of either participant is immaterial and where we all need help and protection.

yoohoo999

number9

I'm beginning to think that you are the person behind the E-petition "roadsafety9".

If you were not, or in the event that you were but you have forgotten why your concept won't work, I have helpfully quoted the Governments response below.

Your hopes of such dramatic reform died alongside Lord Denning.

The Government recognises the potential tragedy that can be caused by serious road traffic accidents. It shares the concern that vulnerable road users should be properly protected. Accidents can occur for many reasons and the outcome of an accident, for example a death or serious injury, is not necessarily as a result of a motorist acting unreasonably or driving in a dangerous manner. Motorists should not be unfairly penalised but it is right that they should always have in place insurance cover for damage to third parties and to their property and that vulnerable road users should be able to claim against it when liability has been proven.

Most claims for damages, including those for personal injuries, are brought as negligence claims. For a negligence claim to succeed the claimant must show that the defendant had a duty to take reasonable care towards the injured party, and that as a result of a breach of that duty, the injury was caused. It must also be shown that the type of loss or injury for which damages are being claimed was a foreseeable result of the breach of the duty.

The determination of liability in individual cases is a matter for the courts, having due regard to all the circumstances of the case and the actions and standards that it is reasonable to expect from each of the parties involved. Where liability is determined in favour of a claimant, under the principle of contributory negligence the amount of any damages awarded may be reduced to reflect the extent to which the claimant’s own negligence may have contributed to the injury.

It would not be appropriate to change the law to provide that motorists should automatically be liable for any accident involving a motor vehicle and a pedestrian or cyclist. This would lead to unfair results in cases where the motorist is driving entirely responsibly and the accident is caused by the irresponsible behaviour of the pedestrian or cyclist. The current law enables the court to decide where responsibility for the accident lies and to award damages accordingly.

http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page13961

spen666

Where is the evidence that the women were all :
talented, OR
intelligent


Similarly where is the evidence that the motorists were all:
neanderthal OR
thugs

Or are these just irrelevant unsupportive assertions designed to rouse emotions

White Horse

It's been said a couple of times in this thread that if you don't like the sentences being handed out speak to your MP.

The trouble is (again as someone else has pointed out) the majority of us are law-abiding motorists and so have no desire for an accidental death (even if there was an element of carelessness thrown in) to result in life-imprisonment. Everyone has been distracted whilst driving and it's luck that in those instances something hasn't happened that you couldn't avoid and no-one was killed or seriously injured. When people think about the rules and what sentences should exist they often imagine themselves in situations where they could be the accused and shudder at the thought of being given life for changing a CD in the car just as a cyclist they hadn't seen behind them nips up the inside.

Contrary to the extreme views some people hold a motor vehicle is not a deadly weapon. It is a mode of transport that when involved in an incident CAN have fatal consequences. Very few people always drive as if their motor vehicle was a deadly weapon. Some drive very occasionally as if it were. Most people killed on the roads are as a result of an incident where several factors combine to create the trajic events like the one that started this thread. It's at that point that the electorate back down from insisting on life sentences for anyone who is unfortunate enough to be behind the wheel of a vehicle when someone is killed.

Back to this case: the jury found that the driving was not dangerous but dumping the bike was perverting the course of justice. That is what he was sentenced for. If you want the law changed get on to your MP.

bigmat

White Horse wrote:

When people think about the rules and what sentences should exist they often imagine themselves in situations where they could be the accused and shudder at the thought of being given life for changing a CD in the car just as a cyclist they hadn't seen behind them nips up the inside.

Why don't they "shudder at the thought" and then think "I might starting driving like less of a tw*t". Its the whole attitude that "we all change CD's / use the phone/ text / sat nav when driving so it can't be wrong" that really needs to change.

il_principe

MatHammond wrote:

White Horse wrote:

When people think about the rules and what sentences should exist they often imagine themselves in situations where they could be the accused and shudder at the thought of being given life for changing a CD in the car just as a cyclist they hadn't seen behind them nips up the inside.

Why don't they "shudder at the thought" and then think "I might starting driving like less of a tw*t". Its the whole attitude that "we all change CD's / use the phone/ text / sat nav when driving so it can't be wrong" that really needs to change.

+1.

What a load of bollocks Horse, so what you should have impunity if you crash 'cos you were fecking about with a CD? I think people don't realise quite how much damage a car can cause.

snailracer

Some posters write as though rousing emotions is a bad thing - it might actually work. The public are humans, fairly easily roused, their opinions, emotive and ill-considered though they may be, may make their way through the political process, which changes society.

The example I like to highlight is drink driving. It used to be commonplace. A travelling rep who had an accident drunk-driving used to be called an honest working family man, drinking was an expected part of his job, he was doing what every other rep did, and escape with a legal slap on the wrist. Cold and dispassionate legal examination, in case after case, would find a drink driver guilty of only a relatively minor error. Punishments only escalated as a result of public pressure resulting from a concerted, emotive, not to say gory media campaign. Laws were rewritten, police were retrained and public attitudes were changed and it is no longer acceptable to drink drive. Along the way, I am sure there was some humanizing of the victims and demonizing of the culprits, but it worked, and we are better off for it.

number9

There's plenty of cyclists are the architects of their own injuries or deaths,

Name them.

This invidious victim-blaming is common, yet cyclists have the lowest "at fault" rating of any road user.

Rather than the streets being crammed with suicidal cyclists, almost invariably with a cyclist/vehicle collision the DRIVER is at fault, not the cyclist.

Most people killed on the roads are as a result of an incident where several factors combine to create the trajic events like the one that started this thread.

Wrong, I'm afraid. Upwards of 96% of RTAs have driver error as the cause. Drivers like to blame the weather, speed cameras, distractions, the road layout, anything bar their own sloppy behaviour behind the wheel.

This would lead to unfair results in cases where the motorist is driving entirely responsibly and the accident is caused by the irresponsible behaviour of the pedestrian or cyclist.

For the millionth time, no it would not. The scandalous reporting in the press of the proposed Presumed Liability is only partly to blame for peoples' inability to understand the concept. If the cyclist is irresponsible then there is no way the driver would be held culpable.

And neanderthal thugs is grossly distorting. too, you quote a couple of examples, how many hundreds of thousands of miles do thousands of trucks drive a year without hitting anyone?

HGVs in London have a dreadful safety record. Because the HSE refuse
to get involved in road deaths as opposed to deaths onsite, cyclists
deaths are ignored on London's roads and penalties to killer drivers
are laughable.

The most dangerous vehilces, the ones that pose the greatest danger
and the ones that are involved in a disproportionate number of deaths,
are given even greater leeway to lumber around a medievel road layout
unimpeded.

City of London [Police] spot checks on HGVs [were] carried out on 30
September 2008 as part of the Europe-wide Operation Mermaid2, which is
intended to step up levels of enforcement of road safety laws in
relation to lorries.


On this one day, 12 lorries were stopped randomly by City Police. Five
of those lorries were involved in the construction work for the 2012
Olympics. All of the twelve lorries were breaking the law in at least
one way

Repeat:



a 100 per cent criminality rate among small random sample of
HGVs on the streets of central London. The offences range included
overweight loads (2 cases), mechanical breaches (5 cases), driver
hours breaches (5 cases), mobile phone use while driving (2 cases),
driving without insurance (2 cases) and no operator license (1 case).


Now, tell me please, what am I distorting?

Terra Nova

This is Andrew Spink, Tony Spink's brother. Many thanks to those people who express their respect and sympathy towards our family for the loss of our Tony's life. It is very comforting to know that people care. When you go through such an ordeal and are subjugated into silence, and all the privileges and rights of protection are offered to the perpetrator of the crime you tend to question your own sanity and wonder who really is the victim. At the end of this trial its good to know that we haven't been making it all up in our heads, and that our thoughts and opinions are actually normal and rational to the ordeal we have suffered..

I have seen one thread about my brother’s case where a woman openly states that if a cyclist rides up the inside of a lorry then its his fault, end of story, and one man on the same thread said they would deserve it. What is this contempt for fellow humans? What happens to people when they get behind the wheels of their vehicles? I believe it is a psychological phenomena, a transformation in behaviour that renders people as potential killers and fellow humans as meaningless objects in their way. Two people bump into each other in a crowded street and they both can't apologise enough. Two people bump into each other on a road in their vehicles and one wants to kill the other or doesn't care even if he does.

However, what we feel emotionally has no bearing on the justice process. Only the truth matters. And of the total sum of truth there is out there only the truth that can be proved by the prosecution matters in the determining guilt. The fault of this system is that innocence is never proved. Stubbs was found not guilty of causing death by dangerous driving. It doesn’t mean that he was not guilty, just that it could not be proved to the standard set down in law that he was guilty. Stubbs never once protested his innocence to the police, to our family or to the court whilst on the stand. He only denied everything, the sum total of his defence being the answer to practically every question his defence barrister asked him, “no, not at all” repeatedly.

Some of you have debated the question of whether it is possible to kill someone whilst driving a lorry and never know. When I came out of court I wanted to say to the press: “Today the court has sent a clear message to all truck drivers: If you kill someone do not worry. Just say you saw nothing, you heard nothing and you felt nothing. You will be protected and found not guilty, whatever the circumstances” And the court also sent a clear message to cyclists: “If you choose to cycle on our roads you will not be protected from drivers of motorised vehicles. By choosing to cycle you are choosing to accept the road as a dangerous place to be and you accept that you could be killed and that any driver who kills you cannot be expected to take any greater care for your safety just because you choose the bicycle as your form of transport.” What does it take to change this appalling attitude? How many more deaths? How much more contempt should cyclists suffer?

We have no doubt from the evidence we heard in court (twice) that Stubbs knew our Tony was in front of his vehicle. And we believe that the defence had evidence to prove that Stubbs did hear everything that was happening on the outside of his vehicle but they had the privilege of not having to submit all that they knew to the court. To pass a man’s actions in killing another man off as nothing more than careless is monstrous and obscene. The new charge of death by careless driving is a step forward but should anything less than the safe standard as instructed be classed as dangerous?

Other people have debated at what stage was the driving dangerous. The CPS tried to prove that the driving was dangerous on two counts: Stubbs’ persistent failure to check the progress of my brother after Stubbs appeared on a CCTV camera150 metres from the junction a full 3 seconds BEHIND my brother and his persistent failure to check his mirrors before he begun his turn knowing the presence of a cyclist at that junction would be dangerous. And secondly that once he had begun his turn and had heard the shouts and the banging on the panel below his windscreen he would have known that it would be dangerous to continue to drive and that to continue to drive in such a way was dangerous. The CPS almost proved it, but it comes down to a matter of opinion as to an immeasurable standard. Also, in my brother’s case, the jury were instructed to decide unanimously how the collision occurred before they decided on the dangerousness. With lack of witnesses and proof of what my brother DID to get to where he was when he was struck by Stubbs(even though he was cycling in a straight line down a straight road) the defence were able to exploit this to their advantage and it failed through lack of evidence. The defence were able to throw in outrageous hypotheses about my brother doing outrageous manoeuvres which would cast all doubt on the jursy’s thoughts.

We believe they didn’t have to know how he came to be there. The road was straight, Stubbs had a clear view of my brother the entire time they were on the road together, up until the moment he struck him of course when it could be alleged that he had miraculously “appeared” in a blind spot without being seen. We believe the standard of driving should have been judged that to strike a cyclist and kill him at a junction when you are making a turn, just seconds after you have overtaken the cyclist is dangerous driving. For us as a family this was manslaughter because we believe Stubbs knew he was there. If our Tony had the time to shout and to hold on to his bike with one hand whilst raising his fist and striking the cab with his other, then Stubbs had time to stop. He could have prevented his death. We asked the CPS to consider this charge. They had considered it but knew they would struggle to prove dangerous driving because of the law, let alone manslaughter. I just wanted them to be bold and brave and take it on. I do not blame the CPS or have any bitterness about it. I respect the lengths they had to go to to try and get justice for another cyclist and I am grateful for everything that was done for my brother.

Even after all that, a guilty verdict on mere careless driving, it was still driving that led to the death of my brother, a human being. Even that did not invoke any acceptance of responsibility, regret, sorrow, remorse or sympathy from the man who killed him, nor his family for that matter. The defence barrister unbelievably said to the jury in his summing up “how can he show remorse when he has done nothing wrong.”

To correct a misconception of the story reported in the press our Tony never clung to the windscreen wipers. The witness who saw this devastating scene said he clearly saw my brother banging on the panel just below the windscreen with his fist, on at least three occasions, and that “in one last desperate attempt” tried to jump onto the windscreen wipers. He never said that he achieved it.

And to Aidy, yes the title “Tony Spink killed – resurrected” was a deliberate title.

eltonioni

An awful event Andrew. I'm sure that you don't need my sympathy to add to the bucketful that you already have but you have it anyway.

The 'victim blame culture' was mentioned above and for sure there is a need for some people to get their priorities straight. I noted during this morning's commute that a vehicle went through at red at every single set of traffic lights.

Surely, somebod,y somewhere, in a position of trust and authority, can campaign for the safety of cyclists if only to promote the environmental benefits that attract such massive funding? We need a realignment of attitudes back to the reality.

White Horse

MatHammond wrote:

White Horse wrote:

When people think about the rules and what sentences should exist they often imagine themselves in situations where they could be the accused and shudder at the thought of being given life for changing a CD in the car just as a cyclist they hadn't seen behind them nips up the inside.

Why don't they "shudder at the thought" and then think "I might starting driving like less of a tw*t". Its the whole attitude that "we all change CD's / use the phone/ text / sat nav when driving so it can't be wrong" that really needs to change.

I agree. I am merely stating why there is no political will to change the law. If parliament try to criminalise motorists there is general outrage because motorists think "but for the grace of God". Everyone gets distracted whilst using the roads on any form of transport. There is political will to lock up murderers because most people can't picture themselves killing someone in cold blood. Most people could picture themselves in a car accident where someone dies and so they don't think everyone should be locked up for it.

As I said (and others have) speak to your MP. I will be, because I don't think the penalties are large enough either. And that is for all motoring offences from doing 36 in a 30 to death by careless or dangerous driving.

White Horse

Il Principe wrote:

+1.

What a load of bollocks Horse, so what you should have impunity if you crash 'cos you were fecking about with a CD? I think people don't realise quite how much damage a car can cause.

See my response above. I'm not condoning anyone's careless actions or anyone not paying attention while using the roads.

il_principe

Terra Nova wrote:

This is Andrew Spink, Tony Spink's brother.

Andrew you and your family have my deepest sympathies. I hope that one day, justice is done.

yoohoo999

number9 wrote:

for the millionth time, no it would not. The scandalous reporting in the press of the proposed Presumed Liability is only partly to blame for peoples' inability to understand the concept.

With the greatest of respect, you clearly do not understand the concept of "Presumed Liability" either.

For starters, what is Presumed Liability? It doesn't exist. We have not such principle in this jurisdiction. What I think you mean is strict liability.

So before you start with "for the millionth time" and talking about peoples' "inability to understand the concept" do a bit of reading yourself so that you fully understand what you are talking about.

I still don't see the advantages of strict liability in respect of a motorist for an accident involving a cyclist. It is for the judiciary to decide on liability in such circumstances, each case will turn on its own facts. The Government (as they have already pointed out - see my earlier post) will NOT consider this as an option. I also find it highly unlikely that the law lords would be supportive either (other than perhaps Denning, but given that he died about 10 years ago he's not going to be much use).

Do you propose that strict liability should apply when a motorbike hits a bicycle?

What if an HGV hits a motorcycle?

What if a bicycle hits a pedestrian?

All road users are vulnerable. You can't pick certain classes out and attach strict liabilty to them. What happens when a driver has a motorbike on his outside and a cyclist on his inside and loses control of the car - with strict liabilty attached to the cyclist only, what direction do you think he will swerve?


Don't get me wrong, as I've said throughout this thread, I want the judiciary to be able to impose adequate sentences on road users found to have caused an accident. But that's the key point........I don't want the driver of one particular class of vehicle to be automatically found to have caused the accident, that would solve nothing, I want the court to decide liability and the judge to be able to determine an appropriate sentence.

The Government won't entertain your proposal, it's already made that clear. So why don't we focus on trying to come up with ideas that are plausible.

Wallace1492

yoohoo999 wrote:

number9 wrote:

for the millionth time, no it would not. The scandalous reporting in the press of the proposed Presumed Liability is only partly to blame for peoples' inability to understand the concept.

With the greatest of respect, you clearly do not understand the concept of "Presumed Liability" either.

For starters, what is Presumed Liability? It doesn't exist. We have not such principle in this jurisdiction. What I think you mean is strict liability.

So before you start with "for the millionth time" and talking about peoples' "inability to understand the concept" do a bit of reading yourself so that you fully understand what you are talking about.

I still don't see the advantages of strict liability in respect of a motorist for an accident involving a cyclist. It is for the judiciary to decide on liability in such circumstances, each case will turn on its own facts. The Government (as they have already pointed out - see my earlier post) will NOT consider this as an option. I also find it highly unlikely that the law lords would be supportive either (other than perhaps Denning, but given that he died about 10 years ago he's not going to be much use).

Do you propose that strict liability should apply when a motorbike hits a bicycle?

What if an HGV hits a motorcycle?

What if a bicycle hits a pedestrian?

All road users are vulnerable. You can't pick certain classes out and attach strict liabilty to them. What happens when a driver has a motorbike on his outside and a cyclist on his inside and loses control of the car - with strict liabilty attached to the cyclist only, what direction do you think he will swerve?


Don't get me wrong, as I've said throughout this thread, I want the judiciary to be able to impose adequate sentences on road users found to have caused an accident. But that's the key point........I don't want the driver of one particular class of vehicle to be automatically found to have caused the accident, that would solve nothing, I want the court to decide liability and the judge to be able to determine an appropriate sentence.

The Government won't entertain your proposal, it's already made that clear. So why don't we focus on trying to come up with ideas that are plausible.

I am all for strict liability. If it protects all users, not just cyclists. The larger vehicle should have the liability against the lesser user.

Not all cases will, in fact a very small portion will make it to the judiciary, therefore having clear strict liability will make a lot of sense and ease the insurance process. If the more vunerable user clearly caused the accident, the larger vehicle will have no liability.

This works well in many countries so I fail to see what the problem would be introducing it here.

yoohoo999

Wallace1492 wrote:

The larger vehicle should have the liability against the lesser user.

Why? How on earth can you determine which driver caused an accident based on the size of the vehicle? I think the belgians do it for civil purposes, but hey, they're belgian!

This is the reason attempts at liability proposals in respect of RTAs have failed in the past - they have absolutely no legal sense to them at all!

bigmat

Could we move the presumed liability / strict liability debate off this thread, if its going to take over? I think its been discussed at length elsewhere. Although I'm not sure why "presumed liability" is such a difficult concept to grasp e.g. it is presumed one party is liable unless there is evidence to the contrary. Its novel in English law (query whether rear end shunts are another example) but that doesn't mean it has no place.

number9

yoohoo999 wrote:

number9 wrote:

for the millionth time, no it would not. The scandalous reporting in the press of the proposed Presumed Liability is only partly to blame for peoples' inability to understand the concept.

With the greatest of respect, you clearly do not understand the concept of "Presumed Liability" either.

For starters, what is Presumed Liability? It doesn't exist. We have not such principle in this jurisdiction. What I think you mean is strict liability.

So before you start with "for the millionth time" and talking about peoples' "inability to understand the concept" do a bit of reading yourself so that you fully understand what you are talking about.

I still don't see the advantages of strict liability in respect of a motorist for an accident involving a cyclist. It is for the judiciary to decide on liability in such circumstances, each case will turn on its own facts. The Government (as they have already pointed out - see my earlier post) will NOT consider this as an option. I also find it highly unlikely that the law lords would be supportive either (other than perhaps Denning, but given that he died about 10 years ago he's not going to be much use).

Do you propose that strict liability should apply when a motorbike hits a bicycle?

What if an HGV hits a motorcycle?

What if a bicycle hits a pedestrian?

All road users are vulnerable. You can't pick certain classes out and attach strict liabilty to them. What happens when a driver has a motorbike on his outside and a cyclist on his inside and loses control of the car - with strict liabilty attached to the cyclist only, what direction do you think he will swerve?


Don't get me wrong, as I've said throughout this thread, I want the judiciary to be able to impose adequate sentences on road users found to have caused an accident. But that's the key point........I don't want the driver of one particular class of vehicle to be automatically found to have caused the accident, that would solve nothing, I want the court to decide liability and the judge to be able to determine an appropriate sentence.

The Government won't entertain your proposal, it's already made that clear. So why don't we focus on trying to come up with ideas that are plausible.

You have, possibly deliberately, completely misunderstood the proposal. I would suggest you go and read up on this forum and elsewhere exactly what the proposals were and stop railing against scenarios that have nothing to do with what's being discussed. Otherwise the thread moves at the speed of the comprehension of the dimmest contributor.

number9

This is what the European Commission said about the proposal to put this into the 4th Motor Insurance Directive:

"While pedestrians and cyclists cause some accidents, motor vehicles cause most accidents. Whoever is responsible, pedestrians and cyclists usually suffer more in accidents involving motor vehicles.

In cases where accidents are not caused by the driver, the situation of pedestrians and cyclists differs a good deal from one Member State to another.

In some Member States no insurance cover is provided and the courts often try to establish driver liability in such a way as to permit inclusion of the victim within the motor insurance cover.

In other Member States, the legislation provides that pedestrians and cyclists are covered by the insurance for the vehicle involved in the accident, irrespective of whether the driver is at fault, although the particular circumstances in which the civil liability of the pedestrian or cyclist is involved varies according to the national legislation. As far as the Commission is aware, such inclusion of pedestrians and cyclists in some Member States’ legislation has not had a significant impact on the cost of insurance.

The proposal adopted by the Commission in this regard aims to ensure that pedestrians and cyclists are covered by the compulsory insurance of the vehicle involved in the accident. This enhances their protection, as the weakest parties in traffic. This insurance coverage does not prejudge the civil liability which the pedestrian or cyclist may incur, or the level of compensation which is determined by the Member States’ national legislation."


NO, MOTORISTS WILL NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR ANY ACCIDENT INVOLVING CYCLISTS.!!

Sorry for shouting, I hope this helps.

It is not always the motorist's fault. The dishonesty above, and media reaction, is utterly dishonest.

If A sues B for libel, English law currently requires B to prove that did not say anything libellous. The are not automatically found to have done so but it is up to them to prove that they didn't, rather than for A to prove that they did.

In a similar way, the proposal is that if there is an accident between a cyclist and a car driver, if the cyclist sues the car driver it will be up to the car driver to prove they were not at fault. If the cyclist did something stupid like pulling out of a junction without looking or jumping a red light then the car driver would be able to do so quite easily. It's not being suggested that the car driver is always found liable for damages regardless. As I've said eleventy million times now!



One in ten cars is uninsured in East London.

Hit and runs are becoming more common, where an uninsured driver smashes into a cyclist or pedestrian and flees the scene.

In a random survey by City Of London police, every single HGV lorry stopped in central London was found to be unroadworthy, the driver was uninsured, had exceeded the safe working hours or was driving a dangerous vehicle.

On my cycle commute I will see several drivers on mobiles, they don't care because they won't be caught. Drivers flout the Advanced Stop Lines designed to increase safety for cyclists, not one single London driver has ever been fined for encroaching an ASL.

Emma Foa was killed by a lorry driver who admitted filling in his paperwork as he was driving, the driver did not even get a driving ban, he's still trundling around London.


From direct personal experience the police do not follow up reports of dangerous driving.

Cycling is safe and getting safer- accidents in London have halved whilst cycling journeys have doubled, but the roads are largely lawless.

Drivers ignore the speed limit and have little chance of getting caught. Lorry drivers kill with impunity, a £300 fine for killing someone is easily absorbed. Kill a cyclist and lose less than a week's wages.


In London, if you want to kill someone and get a way with a slapped wrist, use a vehicle.

yoohoo999

number9 wrote:

I would suggest you go and read up on this forum and elsewhere exactly what the proposals were

I've been trying to but it's not clear.

What exactly are you proposing?

Do you mean strict liability in respect of a criminal offence (ie where the mens rea does not have to be proven)?

Do you mean strict liability in respect of a tortious act (where there need be no finding of fault)?

Or do you want to reverse the burden of proof in criminal offences?

And if you intend to reverse the burden of proof, can you please set out the categories of road user that shall bear such burden.

number9

Search on the forum for "liability".

Please don't disrupt this thread any more.

spen666

number9 wrote:

Search on the forum for "liability".

Please don't disrupt this thread any more.

Yes,

how dare you have a view that does not 100% support Number 9

What do you think this is a place to exchange views and discuss matters?

Wallace1492

Please as others have said, and I apologies for joining the liability debate, could this be continued on a seperate thread.

This thread is regarding the tragic circumstances of Tony Spink, and should be given a little more reverence.

Liability is not a circumstance that would have any bearing on the case, so please start a seperate thread.

I agree with what Andrew says when he says “If you choose to cycle on our roads you will not be protected from drivers of motorised vehicles. By choosing to cycle you are choosing to accept the road as a dangerous place to be and you accept that you could be killed and that any driver who kills you cannot be expected to take any greater care for your safety just because you choose the bicycle as your form of transport.” What does it take to change this appalling attitude? How many more deaths? How much more contempt should cyclists suffer?"

This is the attitude that we must try and change.

My heart goes out to Andrew and his family and friends, they have gone through a lot.

number9

spen666 wrote:

number9 wrote:

Search on the forum for "liability".

Please don't disrupt this thread any more.

Yes,

how dare you have a view that does not 100% support Number 9

What do you think this is a place to exchange views and discuss matters?

People can disagree with me, but if they misrepresent what I've said and invent absurd scenarios that have nothing to do with what I'm saying then the thread gets bogged down in refuting pointless lies.

yoohoo999

number9 wrote:

Search on the forum for "liability".

Please don't disrupt this thread any more.

No.

Like I said before, I've read through the other information and it's not clear.

It's your proposal, you explain it.