Why Lock The Thread re Death of a Cyclist?
Comments
-
Greg66 wrote: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.
I pretty much agree! The situations where it could make a difference are pretty small and there's a risk that it could do more harm in terms of perceptions and relations between road users. Its worth thinking about, though, would involve analysing data from other jurisdictions where its been introduced etc. etc. I'm gradually shifting from my initial "no, bad idea" stance to "maybe, worth thinking about".
One thing I would add - no witnesses isn't the same as nobody around so driver can disappear into the night. An accident can happen in broad daylight, with people all over the place, and still nobody actually sees what happened. Those are the cases where this could potentially make life a lot easier in terms of establishing a case for recompense in terms of liability. Quantum arguments will always be there, regardless, even with strict liability.0 -
WheezyMcChubby wrote: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'.
Please guys. I am genuinely interested as to what they do abroad, and how it works.
Fair enough, may never happen here, but be nice to know.
I have not debated it before, apart from on this thread (and last one) and never got to bottom of what happens."Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"0 -
Wallace1492 wrote:Please guys. I am genuinely interested as to what they do abroad, and how it works.
One other thing that occurred to me this morning: whatever is done in (say) the Netherlands has to be considered against their attitude to litigation. London is one of the litigation capitals of the world, if not the capital. It's an adversarial, fight for every inch, system here, and that's an ethic deeply ingrained into English lawyers. From what I've seen of European lawyers, the ethic is very, very different. So what works for them won't necessarily transpose to here.
ETA: from a quick trawl, it appears that the Netherlands has adopted strict liability (as we would understand it, ie the driver is liable in a collision (no ifs, buts or opportunity to argue to the contrary) with a cyclist or a ped.
However, cyclists in the Netherlands must use a cyclepath if there is one. And there's obviously a big cycling heritage there.
Unless a Govt here was feeling particularly suicidal, I can't see a measure like that having a snowball's chance here, whatever its effect might be.0 -
It takes less than a minute to post something like "This thread is getting a bit out of hand and some are finding it offensive therefore it is being closed". But means members are less likely to start threads like this in which the mods need to take more time to explain their actions.Jeff Jones wrote: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'.0 -
Greg66 wrote:
ETA: from a quick trawl, it appears that the Netherlands has adopted strict liability (as we would understand it, ie the driver is liable in a collision (no ifs, buts or opportunity to argue to the contrary) with a cyclist or a ped.
However, cyclists in the Netherlands must use a cyclepath if there is one. And there's obviously a big cycling heritage there.
This has sparked a thought... despite the username it doesn't happen often! This is rather similar to the system of rights of way in the sky here in the UK.
Basically, heavier, faster, more manoeuverable aircraft have to give way to slower less manoeuverable ones. So a glider gives way to a hot air balloon, and a powered aircraft gives way to a glider. It makes sense. And because of these rules, were there a collision between a powered aircraft and a glider, the powered aircraft's pilot would automatically have the blame on his shoulders, and would have a heck of a time proving otherwise, in fact, there would be very few situations where it was possible.
I wonder if a 'right of way' system like that would be more palatable for the GBP?0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:This has sparked a thought... despite the username it doesn't happen often! This is rather similar to the system of rights of way in the sky here in the UK.
Basically, heavier, faster, more manoeuverable aircraft have to give way to slower less manoeuverable ones. So a glider gives way to a hot air balloon, and a powered aircraft gives way to a glider. It makes sense. And because of these rules, were there a collision between a powered aircraft and a glider, the powered aircraft's pilot would automatically have the blame on his shoulders, and would have a heck of a time proving otherwise, in fact, there would be very few situations where it was possible.
Thoroughly off-topic...
About 12 years ago I got my glider pilot's licence. Second solo flight, I'd just dropped the winch rope and was crapping house-bricks with I-Want-The-Instructor-Back fear. I hear a train passing 1,000ft below. Look to my left - that wasn't a train it's two Tornado jets heading straight for me. I have *never* been so scared. They passed directly over head, and not by much. Don't think it was ever reported as an airprox but getting my s*** together to manage a circuit and a landing was... erm... character building...Rules are for fools.0 -
As the person who started the thread I would appreciate being asked first. I respect the editor's right to editorial control as to what goes on during a thread but I am trying to express my opnions and have a debate. I could have at least been consulted. I do feel that some people begin threads for genuine reasons to debate issues and have some right to steer discussions in teh direction they want. Otherwise, people are free to start their own discussions.
I am not offended by what was being said. I recognised animosity between certain individuals and how they struggle to refrain from personalising criticism of each other's opinions, and whilst it did peeve me, I accept it happens, and I would have asked them myself to refrain from their comments.
Since my brother was killed I have been censored many times by just trying to have a discussion about issues arising from his death. Why is it so difficult? One thread has been deleted, another thread had posts removed and calls for it to be locked, on another website I may ad, but on this website another thread someone else started about my brother has also been locked, and the one I started locked again.
Will someone please give me the platform for debating what I want to debate. I am asking, not demanding.0 -
Wallace1492 wrote: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
The thread was diverging away from my original intention but only in that it was getting personal again. I was happy with the content being debated but I didn't get the chance to come back on issues I wanted to discuss such as the "collision v accident" aspect, the acceptance of "suicidal" in a court of law for absolving a driver of repsonsibilty for the consequences of his bad driving; the strict liability issue and how we could get something to apply in Britain, safety of HGV's and the eradication of the blind spot excuse.
I want a voice!0 -
I locked the thread, and it was because it was getting far too personal. I received a complaint, I took action. Yes, I should have posted a brief note, but frankly I wanted to go to bed, so I did that instead.
Not going to happen. Can you imagine the problems we'd have if we had to try to contact the original poster of a thread before taking action? By the same argument, surely we should ask the spammers' permission before banning them...Terra Nova wrote:As the person who started the thread I would appreciate being asked first.
Discussion is absolutely not a problem. When people are making justified complaints about personal attacks, we take action. Anything can be discussed as long as people behave. Unfortunately, they often don't.0 -
whyamihere wrote:I locked the thread, and it was because it was getting far too personal. I received a complaint, I took action. Yes, I should have posted a brief note, but frankly I wanted to go to bed, so I did that instead.
Not going to happen. Can you imagine the problems we'd have if we had to try to contact the original poster of a thread before taking action? By the same argument, surely we should ask the spammers' permission before banning them...Terra Nova wrote:As the person who started the thread I would appreciate being asked first.
Discussion is absolutely not a problem. When people are making justified complaints about personal attacks, we take action. Anything can be discussed as long as people behave. Unfortunately, they often don't.
+1. Standard forum practice. No complaints.0 -
Did you enjoy your minute longer in bed?whyamihere wrote:I locked the thread, and it was because it was getting far too personal. I received a complaint, I took action. Yes, I should have posted a brief note, but frankly I wanted to go to bed, so I did that instead.
0 -
Oh dear, :?
-null- I think you forgot to use the wink emoticon!0 -
Definitely worth it.-null- wrote:
Did you enjoy your minute longer in bed?whyamihere wrote:I locked the thread, and it was because it was getting far too personal. I received a complaint, I took action. Yes, I should have posted a brief note, but frankly I wanted to go to bed, so I did that instead. 0 -
whyamihere wrote:I locked the thread, and it was because it was getting far too personal. I received a complaint, I took action. Yes, I should have posted a brief note, but frankly I wanted to go to bed, so I did that instead.
Not going to happen. Can you imagine the problems we'd have if we had to try to contact the original poster of a thread before taking action? By the same argument, surely we should ask the spammers' permission before banning them...Terra Nova wrote:As the person who started the thread I would appreciate being asked first.
Discussion is absolutely not a problem. When people are making justified complaints about personal attacks, we take action. Anything can be discussed as long as people behave. Unfortunately, they often don't.
Thanks for your bluntness... really appreciate it......
The action would have been better taken out on the person who gave the cause for the justified complaint, not your website users/ readers/ contributors who are trying to have important discussions.
Didn't expect personal contact, just courtesy.0 -
Locking the thread wasn't the only action that was taken.Terra Nova wrote:The action would have been better taken out on the person who gave the cause for the justified complaint, not your website users/ readers/ contributors who are trying to have important discussions.
Didn't expect personal contact, just courtesy.0 -
whyamihere wrote:
Locking the thread wasn't the only action that was taken.Terra Nova wrote:The action would have been better taken out on the person who gave the cause for the justified complaint, not your website users/ readers/ contributors who are trying to have important discussions.
Didn't expect personal contact, just courtesy.
No? And what other action was taken then?0 -
There were fewer active members when I'd finished than before I started.0
-
Terra Nova wrote:whyamihere wrote:
Locking the thread wasn't the only action that was taken.Terra Nova wrote:The action would have been better taken out on the person who gave the cause for the justified complaint, not your website users/ readers/ contributors who are trying to have important discussions.
Didn't expect personal contact, just courtesy.
No? And what other action was taken then?
does it matter? Liability on public access forums for inappropriate or offensive comment is shared by the forum owner(s) they have a duty to keep things civil and legal and a right to protect themselves in any way they see fit.
Quoted this one but to a few posters on here. There is the PM facility on the board for discussing 1:1 and other areas of this forum to speak more directly to the Admin and Mods. TBH it's a thankless task and we've only got the platform to express our views and share our experience throught the goodwill of these people. courteous communciation works both ways, maybe a 1:1 chat with the mods to agree ground rule for such an emotive and potentially explosive subject or PM's keeping them in the loop if the thread diverges or gets personal.0 -
_Brun_ wrote:
You don't have any such rights on a privately owned internet forum. The owners can do what the hell they please.colintrav wrote:We have the right to express opinions even if people dont agree with it it iis our human and democratic right ..
No disrespect to you .. you may not be aware of the sites that do allow no holds barred .. say what you like
Plus most forums do have disclaimers ..
Let's leave it at that ... 0 -
whyamihere wrote:There were fewer active members when I'd finished than before I started.
Really? Again, bluntness so much appreciated.
I am starting to get an impression of this website and its forum now.
An editorial team that tramples on people's forum threads without consideration to the people debating in a civil and respectful manner and then brags about its getting an extra few seconds of sleep at the expense of some common courtesy to its contributors; and then one that shows how "powerful" and "masterful" it is by cocky comments such as above.
I am not impressed at all by this. Having been a member and contributor to Outdoors Magic for some years I can only say the difference in editorial attitude betweent the two is startling. But hey, this is YOUR website, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the public that use it. Respect.0 -
Terra Nova wrote:issues I wanted to discuss such as the "collision v accident" aspect, the acceptance of "suicidal" in a court of law for absolving a driver of repsonsibilty for the consequences of his bad driving; the strict liability issue and how we could get something to apply in Britain, safety of HGV's and the eradication of the blind spot excuse.
1. Accident v collision. I'm not entirely sure what the point is here, I have to admit. I *think* it's your view that "accident" connotes as a dictionary term an absence of cause and so an absence of blame, and so puts the defendant 15-love up before anyone starts. I don't really see how collision makes a difference - there's the same connotation underlying it.
As to why accident is used, its definition is an incident without apparent cause. Its use isn't (IMO) inaccurate, as the trial process is there to determine the cause (ie the incident = a collision, but what was the cause of the collision?).
2. "Suicidal" conduct of others as a defence. In the abstract, what's wrong with this? You're rolling along the motorway at 70 at someone who is suicidal steps out, precisely because they want to be flattened. No reason why the driver should be held responsible. Why is there a difference if (a) the driver is driving at 90, or (b) the driver is driving at 70 in thick fog?
No one's saying that what your brother did was comparable to the ped in that example. But reading between the lines, wasn't the lorry driver saying (admittedly through an extreme use of language): "Look, this wasn't entirely my fault. The cyclist put himself in a very dangerous position". You may not agree with that opinion, but surely you'd accept the driver's right to say it?
3. SL. Covered above. In criminal law no chance, and frankly rightly so. In civil law, no chnace either, but plainly there's one country that thinks otherwise (the Netherlands).
4. Safety of HGVs and elimination of the blind spot excuse. I'd rather go for elimination of the blind spot than the blind spot excuse. IIRC a couple of threads ago I suggested parking sensors down the left side of an artic, and mini cams feeding the cab. Have the cams recording to a HD and you've got a perfect record of what the driver was capable of seeing. The beeping sensors give him no excuse for not looking. This strikes me as a pretty good, reasonable and politically sellable campaigning idea.
PS. Probably not that sensible to whine about the mods here (or anywhere). Threads are not the property of the OP, and in this particular forum, they can move OT very quickly.0 -
Waddlie wrote:Thoroughly off-topic...
About 12 years ago I got my glider pilot's licence. Second solo flight, I'd just dropped the winch rope and was crapping house-bricks with I-Want-The-Instructor-Back fear. I hear a train passing 1,000ft below. Look to my left - that wasn't a train it's two Tornado jets heading straight for me. I have *never* been so scared. They passed directly over head, and not by much. Don't think it was ever reported as an airprox but getting my s*** together to manage a circuit and a landing was... erm... character building...
Now thats a brown trouser moment and no mistake!Le Cannon [98 Cannondale M400] [FCN: 8]
The Mad Monkey [2013 Hoy 003] [FCN: 4]0 -
Greg:
"PS. Probably not that sensible to whine about the mods here (or anywhere). Threads are not the property of the OP, and in this particular forum, they can move OT very quickly."
WHINE? Who do you think you are? Whine? How dare you dismiss my comments as whining? And when did I say the thread was my property? I am on a website where we have posters who club together like packs to bully and humiliate other posters because they hold opinions that may differ slightly from their own to make themselves feel superior. And where we have "mods" that close threads at will because of the allegedly "justifiable" complaints of members of those "packs" against other posters, then brag about what powers they have. And you think its "sensible" to kow-tow to that and accept it? What are the mods going to do? Come round my house and do me over for asking for courtesy?
I came on this website because people were discussing my brother's death and I have tried to engage with those people in debate. All I have seen is a select few hijack those debates for the purpose of continuing their bullying behaviour of other posters. I am not into that sort of behaviour and don't think that the anonymity of the internet is a justifiable reason for it. I could compare that same sort of behaviour with that of the driver behind the wheel of a veicle who uses the windscreen and his impenetrable peronal space as an excuse to treat fellow human beings with contempt.
And this is the cycling community???0 -
Terra Nova wrote:And this is the cycling community???
No, this is the Commuting forum, and is basically a spam forum. If you want threads full of crap, post on the commuting forum, want sensible discussion don't post here. Sensible debate lives elsewhere on Bikeradar.0 -
Greg says, “No one's saying that what your brother did was comparable to the ped in that example”
So what the heck has this example got to do with anything? It is completely irrelevant to the case in point as my brother did not commit suicide.
“….. But reading between the lines, wasn't the lorry driver saying (admittedly through an extreme use of language): "Look, this wasn't entirely my fault. The cyclist put himself in a very dangerous position". You may not agree with that opinion, but surely you'd accept the driver's right to say it?”
“Reading between the lines?” “Through and extreme use of language?” Are you serious? You read between the lines and come up with that? How naïve is that statement? I was in court. I didn’t read between any lines. And I haven’t told any lies or fabricated any truth about the contempt that driver had for a cyclist’s life. Yes, its a free country. the driver has a right to say anything he likes - and he did not say what you defend as his intention to say when he said my brother was stupid and suicidal. Cyclists have a right to be protected from people with attitudes like this, because attitudes like this lead to deaths on the road and make it very unsafe for cyclists like you.
The use of the term "accident" in our psyche and in our culture and attitude to road traffic death assists this attitude.0 -
redddraggon wrote:Terra Nova wrote:And this is the cycling community???
No, this is the Commuting forum, and is basically a spam forum. If you want threads full of crap, post on the commuting forum, want sensible discussion don't post here. Sensible debate lives elsewhere on Bikeradar.
I have worked that one out, thanks.... IExactly where does the sensible debate live on here?0 -
-
Terra Nova wrote:IExactly where does the sensible debate live on here?
You don't want debate. You want agreement.
I hope you find it. I'll get out of your way.0 -
redddraggon wrote:Terra Nova wrote:And this is the cycling community???
No, this is the Commuting forum, and is basically a spam forum. If you want threads full of crap, post on the commuting forum, want sensible discussion don't post here. Sensible debate lives elsewhere on Bikeradar.
That's not ALL that helpful Reddragon. I can't really see the logic in reading and posting somewhere you hold such contempt for. Its rather like writing to Points of View to complain about how dull the first 4 hours of children in need were.
No anonymous internet forum, anywhere, is a suitable forum for all of the issues being discussed here. TerraNova - sorry, but this isn't the place to tackle issues so personal and painful for you.0
