Why Lock The Thread re Death of a Cyclist?

spen666

There was a serious debate going on there re presumption of liability or strict liability

This is an important issue yet it appears to have been locked without any reason being given?

Wallace1492

I agree, we seemed to be getting somewhere, though i am still not clear as to whether it is strict or presumption that is in force in Holland, would have been good to get it clear in a rational way.

Guess some were not too rational though.

I do think it is a good, honest topic though, if everyone is open to suggestions, and not too blinkered.

spen666

Wallace1492 wrote:

I agree, we seemed to be getting somewhere, though i am still not clear as to whether it is strict or presumption that is in force in Holland, would have been good to get it clear in a rational way.

Guess some were not too rational though.

I do think it is a good, honest topic though, if everyone is open to suggestions, and not too blinkered.

i had some links to post re the Holland issue, but couldn't post them!

My research suggests that Wikipedia is wrong and it is presumption of liability in Holland. We are talking civil law here.

I think any rational person looking at the human Rights legislation would accept it could not be strict liability in Criminal law for this type of matter




Number 9 quoted from a paer by Roadpeace that clearly is wrong in law. It was adiscussion paper for their 2008 Conference. It is wrong in its description as to what is strict liability.




Strict liability = ( in lay mans terms and assuming a RTA situation) all victim has to prove is accident occurred. Then Defendant is automatically liable. This is irrespective of the evidence. So for a silly example if V, a cyclist had told people he intended to commit suicideby falling under a lorry from his bike, and was seen by numerous witnesses to swerve his bike into a different lane into the path of a lorry driven safely and slowly,. Then the lorry driver would be liable to compensate V if he survived of his family if he died.

Clearly an unfair situation, and it has an interesting side issue. V's own life insurance policy may not pay out if he commits suicide, but here is a way for him to ensure a legacy of money for his dependents if strict liability applies.

PRESUMPTION OF LIABILITY = if an accident occurs, then it is presumed that D is liable for the accident, unless he can satisfy the court it was not his fault. Currently V has to show it was D's fault. Here it is different.

i would support the cange in the presumption of liability

colintrav

We have the right to express opinions even if people dont agree with it it iis our human and democratic right ..



Possibly some thought it wasnt getting anwhere ...

Consider the fact there is a registerd Policeman on this site ...
Pity he didn't give his opinions ...

always_tyred

Did the old thread degenerate into abuse and put downs, or was it al nice and respectful?

Another problem might be that the thread originated in a discussion about a particular event. Rename this one "should we have a presumption of liability?" and discuss the matter in general terms, and perhaps you have a chance of freely discussing the matter to your heart's content.

spen666

Always Tyred wrote:

Did the old thread degenerate into abuse and put downs, or was it al nice and respectful?

Another problem might be that the thread originated in a discussion about a particular event. Rename this one "should we have a presumption of liability?" and discuss the matter in general terms, and perhaps you have a chance of freely discussing the matter to your heart's content.

It would be nice to know why it was locked.

Without knowing the reason why, how can people be expected to avoid repeating the mistakes again

tailwindhome

spen666 wrote:

There was a serious debate going on there re presumption of liability or strict liability

This is an important issue yet it appears to have been locked without any reason being given?

No. That wasn't a debate.

Wallace1492

spen666 wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

I agree, we seemed to be getting somewhere, though i am still not clear as to whether it is strict or presumption that is in force in Holland, would have been good to get it clear in a rational way.

Guess some were not too rational though.

I do think it is a good, honest topic though, if everyone is open to suggestions, and not too blinkered.

i had some links to post re the Holland issue, but couldn't post them!

My research suggests that Wikipedia is wrong and it is presumption of liability in Holland. We are talking civil law here.

I think any rational person looking at the human Rights legislation would accept it could not be strict liability in Criminal law for this type of matter




Number 9 quoted from a paer by Roadpeace that clearly is wrong in law. It was adiscussion paper for their 2008 Conference. It is wrong in its description as to what is strict liability.




Strict liability = ( in lay mans terms and assuming a RTA situation) all victim has to prove is accident occurred. Then Defendant is automatically liable. This is irrespective of the evidence. So for a silly example if V, a cyclist had told people he intended to commit suicideby falling under a lorry from his bike, and was seen by numerous witnesses to swerve his bike into a different lane into the path of a lorry driven safely and slowly,. Then the lorry driver would be liable to compensate V if he survived of his family if he died.

Clearly an unfair situation, and it has an interesting side issue. V's own life insurance policy may not pay out if he commits suicide, but here is a way for him to ensure a legacy of money for his dependents if strict liability applies.

PRESUMPTION OF LIABILITY = if an accident occurs, then it is presumed that D is liable for the accident, unless he can satisfy the court it was not his fault. Currently V has to show it was D's fault. Here it is different.

i would support the cange in the presumption of liability

Spen, post away here.

andy83

havent read through all the thread but it may have been locked as the bus driver has been arressted on suspicion of death by dangerous driving. heard it on the news the other day

That island in question is not nice at all, i cross it about once a week going to my brothers and the speed people come round is frightening, you really need to just pelt it across with some speed. glad i dont commute that way every day

prawny

andy83 wrote:

havent read through all the thread but it may have been locked as the bus driver has been arressted on suspicion of death by dangerous driving. heard it on the news the other day

That island in question is not nice at all, i cross it about once a week going to my brothers and the speed people come round is frightening, you really need to just pelt it across with some speed. glad i dont commute that way every day

It wasn't about that accident Andy, it was the Yorkshire one. AFAIK the thread about the brum cyclist is still open, the thread just died unfortunately.

spen666

andy83 wrote:

havent read through all the thread but it may have been locked as the bus driver has been arressted on suspicion of death by dangerous driving. heard it on the news the other day

Busdriver?

The driver in this case has beensentenced. He was a lorry driver.

The OP did not want the topic to be locked.

That island in question is not nice at all, i cross it about once a week going to my brothers and the speed people come round is frightening, you really need to just pelt it across with some speed. glad i dont commute that way every day

i was not aware we were discussing an incident involving a bus driver in this thread?


Have you got the wrong thread? This is the thread started by Terra Nove re the deathof his brother. The court case has concluded.

I think you are referring to the thread re the Birmingham accident this week. If so, it was not that thread

andy83

ah sorry yes i was refering to the birmingham one, its early and im tired

back to bed me thinks

spen666

andy83 wrote:

ah sorry yes i was refering to the birmingham one, its early and im tired

back to bed me thinks

You had me worried at first. I thought I haad so missed the plot that I'd missed talk of an accident involving a bus.
It took me a couple of minutes to realisewhich thread you referred to

spen666

prawny wrote:

andy83 wrote:

havent read through all the thread but it may have been locked as the bus driver has been arressted on suspicion of death by dangerous driving. heard it on the news the other day

That island in question is not nice at all, i cross it about once a week going to my brothers and the speed people come round is frightening, you really need to just pelt it across with some speed. glad i dont commute that way every day

It wasn't about that accident Andy, it was the Yorkshire one. AFAIK the thread about the brum cyclist is still open, the thread just died unfortunately.

An unfortunate choice of words?

prawny

spen666 wrote:

prawny wrote:

andy83 wrote:

havent read through all the thread but it may have been locked as the bus driver has been arressted on suspicion of death by dangerous driving. heard it on the news the other day

That island in question is not nice at all, i cross it about once a week going to my brothers and the speed people come round is frightening, you really need to just pelt it across with some speed. glad i dont commute that way every day

It wasn't about that accident Andy, it was the Yorkshire one. AFAIK the thread about the brum cyclist is still open, the thread just died unfortunately.

An unfortunate choice of words?

Possibly, but fairly accurate in terms of the thread activity. No offence intended.

spen666

Clearly the moderators won't answer the question


A thread is locked without any warning, any reason and without any real abuse going on.

I know the OP who was the brother of the deceased is not in favour of it being locked

So moderators, why was thread locked and why when locking a thread do you not as a final post put a short post to state why?

Wallace1492

Completely agree.

While there were misconceptions and certainly confusion, as to what should be introduced, and what is currently in effect in Holland and Germany (even after searching futher I am still not sure), I did not think it required locking.

I would be interested to hear Terra Nova's comments, maybe the thread was diverging away from what he intended.

Wall

Jeff Jones

The thread was locked because we were getting too many complaints about personal attacks and abuse.

_Brun_

colintrav wrote:

We have the right to express opinions even if people dont agree with it it iis our human and democratic right ..

You don't have any such rights on a privately owned internet forum. The owners can do what the hell they please.

John Stevenson

I'd add to Jeff's comment: Again.

There are a few posters in these discussions who seem to be unable to post without giving and taking offence.

Some of you could do with to turn off your computers and go ride your bikes, or at least take a deep breath before hitting 'Submit' and ask yourself: "Is my reaction to this post completely reasonable or am I finding the worst in what the other has had to say?" and "Given the emotions this subject generates, is this post just pouring petrol in the fire?"

Oh, and starting a new thread to complain about the actions of moderators is pointless unless you do it in 'About the forum'. We don't read everything - we don't have time. We deal with things then they are flagged.

spen666

John Stevenson wrote:

I'd add to Jeff's comment: Again.

There are a few posters in these discussions who seem to be unable to post without giving and taking offence.

Some of you could do with to turn off your computers and go ride your bikes, or at least take a deep breath before hitting 'Submit' and ask yourself: "Is my reaction to this post completely reasonable or am I finding the worst in what the other has had to say?" and "Given the emotions this subject generates, is this post just pouring petrol in the fire?"

Oh, and starting a new thread to complain about the actions of moderators is pointless unless you do it in 'About the forum'. We don't read everything - we don't have time. We deal with things then they are flagged.

Why not do as I suggested when locking a thread, post a simple post at the end of the thread- saying- locked due to complaints re abuse or whatever. It would clarify the matter for people.

I for one am not questioning your right to lock thethreads. It would be usefull as a learning tool to know why though

If the post is made in the about the forum section, then those who post in the section where the post was won't see it and wil not know why it was locked.

Communication!

Wallace1492

Spen, do you recon it is Presumed liability on the continent then?
I could not see a definative answer, there were both presumed and strict on the interweb searches I did.

Obviously talking about civil law here.

bigmat

Its a rebuttable presumption in the Netherlands, not sure about elsewhere but I'd be surprised if it was strict liability - for reasons previously discussed it just goes against any concept of natural justice. Interesting to see what comes up when you do a google search for "presumed liability cycling" - several Daily Mail style ranting headlines from the regionals, together with several cycling lobbyist types clearly having the same confusion as on here!

spen666

Wallace1492 wrote:

Spen, do you recon it is Presumed liability on the continent then?
I could not see a definative answer, there were both presumed and strict on the interweb searches I did.

Obviously talking about civil law here.

I think in most countries it is presumed liability. This makes sense and allows innocentmotorist to show he is not to blame, yet provides more protection for those most likely to suffer injury in an accident.

The media are unfortunately not bothering to let truth get in the way of their stories. I am suprised at Roadpeace however posting such rubbish on their site about what strict liability means. Whoever drafted that has completely missed the point. Sadly because it is posted on the internet, some people treat it as Gospel truth and won't hear anything said against it.

Jeff Jones

spen666 wrote:

Why not do as I suggested when locking a thread, post a simple post at the end of the thread- saying- locked due to complaints re abuse or whatever. It would clarify the matter for people.

Good practice and usually we do. It does come down to our mods' time and patience, which is at times in short supply.

Basically it boils down to 'play the ball, not the man'.

tailwindhome

Strict or Presumed

Civil or Criminal

It's irrelevent

It ain't happening

And we 'debated' it all before

Move on

Please

greg66_tri_v2.0

I was chewing this over a bit on my way in this morning. I ended up wonder whether either of these measures would make a big "real world" difference.

I think my starting point is that road safety is dependent on road behaviour. So would a difference in the way that a driver's insurers would have to handle a claim make the driver more careful? I can't really see why it would. The driver *is* likely to be more careful if he thought his premiums would be increased sharply as a result of something he did, I accept. But (and I don't know the ins and outs of a motor insurer's quote department) drivers have to disclose claims *and* accidents when they want car insurance. So whether or not is driver is actually at fault, or deemed to be at fault, an accident would still have to be declared. So I ended up struggling a bit to see why either strict or presumed liability would play on a driver's mind.

spen666

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

Strict or Presumed

Civil or Criminal

It's irrelevent

It ain't happening

And we 'debated' it all before

Move on

Please

Strict or presumed may be relevant.

However we need to ensure we are calling for the same thing. It is no good people calling for striuct liability when they mean presumed


As for the criminal v civil issue. I think you will find it is very relevant. It is here today and affects everyone invoved in a road traffic incident.

If you don't understand or don't want to debate the issue, that's fine. Jog along and let those of us who do want to discuss the matter.

Simply stop reading the thread. Or are you a control freak who can't allow others to discuss things that are not of interest to you.

bigmat

Greg66 wrote:

I was chewing this over a bit on my way in this morning. I ended up wonder whether either of these measures would make a big "real world" difference.

I think my starting point is that road safety is dependent on road behaviour. So would a difference in the way that a driver's insurers would have to handle a claim make the driver more careful? I can't really see why it would. The driver *is* likely to be more careful if he thought his premiums would be increased sharply as a result of something he did, I accept. But (and I don't know the ins and outs of a motor insurer's quote department) drivers have to disclose claims *and* accidents when they want car insurance. So whether or not is driver is actually at fault, or deemed to be at fault, an accident would still have to be declared. So I ended up struggling a bit to see why either strict or presumed liability would play on a driver's mind.

It would make a difference in terms of making it a lot easier for cyclists to recover damages following accidents though. But I agree probably be unlikely to have much an impact on driving habits, although ideally would form part of a general cultural shift towards better road safety for all (better education, better enforcement of exisiting laws, more appropriate sentencing etc. etc.)

greg66_tri_v2.0

MatHammond wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

I was chewing this over a bit on my way in this morning. I ended up wonder whether either of these measures would make a big "real world" difference.

I think my starting point is that road safety is dependent on road behaviour. So would a difference in the way that a driver's insurers would have to handle a claim make the driver more careful? I can't really see why it would. The driver *is* likely to be more careful if he thought his premiums would be increased sharply as a result of something he did, I accept. But (and I don't know the ins and outs of a motor insurer's quote department) drivers have to disclose claims *and* accidents when they want car insurance. So whether or not is driver is actually at fault, or deemed to be at fault, an accident would still have to be declared. So I ended up struggling a bit to see why either strict or presumed liability would play on a driver's mind.

It would make a difference in terms of making it a lot easier for cyclists to recover damages following accidents though. But I agree probably be unlikely to have much an impact on driving habits, although ideally would form part of a general cultural shift towards better road safety for all (better education, better enforcement of exisiting laws, more appropriate sentencing etc. etc.)

I don't necessarily agree with any of that - sort of (bet that makes you feel all warm & fluffy inside ). I agree it might be an element in a broader road safety drive, but not a particularly big one.

As for recovery of damages, hmm. Big hmm. First thing is that a claim is in two parts - liability (who was at fault) and quantum (what's it worth). SL would get you straight to stage 2. But there's plenty of scope to screw around at stage 2, and obviously the more serious the claim, the more it's worth, and the more incentive there is to argue. Anyway, SL is out the window for these purposes.

PL. Tricky. PL reall just moves the starting positions. The driver (or his insurers) can still argue the toss, raise contributory negligence and so on. Where it might make a difference is where there are no witnesses. Although in those circs, the canny driver might be more likely to drive off. Would it really be easier to recover damages? I'm doubtful, myself.

Then there's the "big picture": raise anything like this and you get a wave (not entirely unjustified) of anti-cycling sentiment from drivers. The "if a cyclist RLJs and I crash into him it's may fault?" type grievance. None of that assists in the necessary process of all of us road users rubbing along together with the friction as low as possible.

tailwindhome

spen666 wrote:

If you don't understand or don't want to debate the issue, that's fine. Jog along and let those of us who do want to discuss the matter.

Simply stop reading the thread. Or are you a control freak who can't allow others to discuss things that are not of interest to you.

Any thoughts on what this could mean?

Basically it boils down to 'play the ball, not the man'.