Why Lock The Thread re Death of a Cyclist?

greg66_tri_v2.0

cee wrote:

i also think i remember that someone somewhere was taken to court (apoogies...cannot remember if it was a criminal or civil case....my first thought is that it was a civil case) for administering first aid and causing more harm.....might have been in america....or i might have made it up....

Awesome work!

Wallace1492

dilemna wrote:

spen666 wrote:

cjw wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

I would have thought being fair in a dispute was the whole point - you hear two sides and decide the fairest outcome based on what is most likely the truth.

But these are not disputes. That is Civil Law. This is the state prosecuting in a criminal matter. That is not a dispute.

Most likely the truth is not part of criminnal law - standard Crown must reach is beyond all reasonable doubt - a much higher test


Salmon -you are living in a utopia - a state where there would be no need for laws as people would be so nice to each other and so considerate.

Where its a case of your freedom or not people are going to defend themselves

And.......... no lawyers. But to dream oh to dream ...............

I like the Simpsons' sketch where one of the cartoon characters muses - the world would be a far happier place with more lawyers and then they cut to hundreds of lawyers dancing holding hands in large circles, in meadows of flowers and flowers in their hair .....

I think SS has a good point. The lawyers on here or those that work in the legal profession are so cynical and mercenary they have sold their souls........ if they ever had one.

I was accused by Spen of denying an accused their human rights and innocence until proven guilty when I questioned the deliberate frustration of the legal process by the defence. I shall state again that it is right and proper that a defendant should rgiorously defend themselves and challenge what is put to them, but to knowingly frustrate the course of justice to gain acquittal is just plain wrong. I believe any solicitor or counsel has primary duties to the court and legal process above and beyond the needs of their client. To do otherwise IMHO is to bring the judicial system into disrepute.

But the same old clap trap that is written now is spouted against the principles of right, wrong and fairness which is what the legal system or process likes to think it adheres to,. However the criminal justice system seems to frequently fail to serve the people it is put in place to protect or control.

If I am fatally injured this evening by a another dangerous driver I would expect the State to vigorously investigate, prosecute, convict and punish the driver. But judging by recent performances I know that this won't be the case - SMIDSY or momentary loss of concentration or blinded by the sun :shock:

http://www.movingtargetzine.com/search/?q=eilidh+cairns

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -year.html

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news ... ?ID=451662

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/arti ... vans-22830

http://www.roadpeace.org/documents/HGV% ... 0Guide.pdf

http://cms.met.police.uk/news/publicity ... ign_launch

The driver who knocked me down as he approached me fast from behind whilst I was riding around a roundabout in 1999 causing me quite serious injury was only convicted of driving without due care and attention despite his drivng IMHO being dangerous. The RAC chap who witnessed it said "The driver still hit him (me) even though he (me) was lit up like a Christams tree!" The defence tried to make out I was a poor cyclist, didn't have control of my bike, all over the road, the defence barrister even tried to suggest I was a nervous novice who had caused the collision! The b4stard. It was a deeply unsettling experience. But the magistrates must have preferred my version of events as in response to the defence barrister I said I was gripping the bars firmly like Eddy Merkx in the Tour de France which I was was and demonstrated this in the witness box. However when I went onto point out that I had 6 bright rear lights the defence barrister tried to stop me speaking (even bigger b4stard by now), but the magistrates (3) told me to continue. Heheheheheeee..... The driver a Mr Frank Leigh had his driving license endorsed with only 3 points and was fined £60. Pathetic. I know it wasn't the fault of the magistrates as they found him guilty, but that of the pathetic sentencing policy at the time laid down by the government which tbh has changed little. The driver never showed any remorse. He tried to drive around me as I and my bike lay splatted on the road in front of him. I guess the noise of my bike graunching on the road under the air dam of his car made him think better of it plus their was a lot of other traffic around who presumably at that time had seen what had happened which proved to be the case. Mr Leigh was a nasty piece of work. When the ambulance and police arrived he pushed in front of them to try to remonstrate with them that it was my fault for the accident. I lay injured requiring medical help. The b4stard. I remember as I lay waiting for the ambulance and police that the RAC chap who was one of the witnesses and who attended to me, bless him, telling Mr Leigh in no uncetain terms to ****ing leave me alone as he (Mr Leigh) was in my face the whole time saying the collision was all my fault!!! Yet he was driving his car behind me, driving straight into the back of me taking me out, sending me flying through the air. Another also witness confirmed this. Mr Leigh never showed any regard for my safety or condition. He was a complete b4stard. We in the UK should have a similar law that they have in France that it is a criminal offence to decline support or walk away from some who has been injured who needs medical attention.

So this case with Stubbs brings it all back for me and the Spink family have my full sympathy for their loss of Anthony. Stubbs sounds a really nasty piece of work. I'm only sorry that the Spink family were dealt a double blow by the trauma of the legal process which seems to have let yet another family down.

TN I would suggest you approach families of other cyclists who have been killed on the roads. I believe Eilidh Cairns' mum, in conjunction with road safety groups and the Met Police, eg Roadpeace, have launched campaigns to improve safety for cyclists and awareness on the roads by educating both cyclists and HGVs of the dangers when we come into close proximity, and pushing for more mirrors to eradicate blind spots on large vehicles. Just a thought, better than continually beating yourself up on here by reading the frankly insensitive stuff written by some posters on here.............

Good post Dilema. However, I do not think there has been many (if any) insensitive posts on here. Everyone as far as I can see is moved by Terra Nova's loss, and feels enormous sympathy, there is no doubt about that.

However, there have been a few questions about the positioning of his brother at the time of the collision, and I see nothing wrong in asking that. I think that is not being insensitive at all, and I am sure Terra Nova would not be affronted by it.

As far as I can see, he has posted here to discuss all details, and hopefully prevent something like this happening again.

spen666

simple_salmon wrote:

I would have liked to have had a discussion regarding moral behaviour versus the law but I'm no longer going to take part.

Spen - on two threads you've now accused me of lying; I let the first one go but you have done so again and offered no evidence. If you are unable to debate without resorting to childish insults then that's up to you but I've got better things to do.

Point out where I lied and I will apologise here to everyone for ruining this thread.

I'm quite happy to repeat it again you said if you did something wrong you woukld admit it and then later said you wouldn't

Hmmm one of those two remarks is untrue

dilemna

Nooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!! Christ, you stupid muppets. All you would have to do is call the emergency services, doctor, police, etc or even offering general support until they arrive as opposed to driving off or fleeing the scene leaving some one for dead. I said nothing about it being mandatory for a lay person to administer first aid unless of course they were properly trained. Surely even a pyscho can call the police or an ambulance and then leave if he/she so wishes. Jees........... talk about no f'kin common sense :roll: :roll: :roll:

spen666

cee wrote:

...

spen....do you happen to know the legal position of a person who administers first aid and makes the injury worse?

Yes - in England they'd be liable for the harm they caused in civil law.

There is no criminal offence as such

Wallace1492

spen666 wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

I would have liked to have had a discussion regarding moral behaviour versus the law but I'm no longer going to take part.

Spen - on two threads you've now accused me of lying; I let the first one go but you have done so again and offered no evidence. If you are unable to debate without resorting to childish insults then that's up to you but I've got better things to do.

Point out where I lied and I will apologise here to everyone for ruining this thread.

I'm quite happy to repeat it again you said if you did something wrong you woukld admit it and then later said you wouldn't

Hmmm one of those two remarks is untrue

I believe that Simple stated he would admit to whatever he had done. This would be when he was charged by the Police or court. However, that does not mean that he would hand himself in, and he stated that he would not, if he found himself speeding.

I fail to see how that constitutes lying. Certainly hypocritical if he expected your client to hand himself in while under the influence, but certainly not lying.

However, this has digressed from the point of the tread into some niggly point scoring. Very annoying.

greg66_tri_v2.0

dilemna wrote:

Nooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!! Christ, you stupid muppets. All you would have to do is call the emergency services, doctor, police, etc or even offering general support until they arrive as opposed to driving off or fleeing the scene leaving some one for dead. I said nothing about it being mandatory for a lay person to administer first aid unless of course they were properly trained. Surely even a pyscho can call the police or an ambulance and then leave if he/she so wishes. Jees........... talk about no f'kin common sense :roll: :roll: :roll:

Hmm.

Would the emergency services like having 10 people call them all at the same time about the same incident, just in case one of said 10 doesn't have the exculpatory outgoing call to 999 on their mobile...?

dilemna

spen666 wrote:

cee wrote:

...

spen....do you happen to know the legal position of a person who administers first aid and makes the injury worse?

Yes - in England they'd be liable for the harm they caused in civil law.

There is no criminal offence as such

Yes they may be sued but I think they would have to be seriously reckless to over ride the primary causation of the injured party's injuries. It is not public policy to allow parties who offer first aid to be sued otherwise no one would risk putting themselves out to save people. In the medical field it would be absurd for doctors, paramedics and nurses to be routinely sued for not saving the life of a seriously injured person except when there was every prospect of them living and they were negligent.

Believe it or not Spen there are people with goodness in their heart, who are altrustic and are prepared to do the right thing................

Also I suspect that if a rescuer/life saver who did everything they could is subsequently sued it is down to money grabbing ambulance chasing lawyers who find the main party who caused the injuries has no money so the next target in their sights becomes the good Samaritan. May be the GS who administered first aid never had a chance of saving the person anyway even if they were a consultant surgeon with a whole team and trick kit around them. :evil: The ambulance chasing lawyers are funded by a no win no fee system that allows them to be predatory. Don't get me wrong I am not against suing partys that have genuinely caused injury or loss, but not this ugly distasteful scenario driven purely by lawyers and claims companies desperate to make money. Greed.

dilemna

Greg66 wrote:

dilemna wrote:

Nooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!! Christ, you stupid muppets. All you would have to do is call the emergency services, doctor, police, etc or even offering general support until they arrive as opposed to driving off or fleeing the scene leaving some one for dead. I said nothing about it being mandatory for a lay person to administer first aid unless of course they were properly trained. Surely even a pyscho can call the police or an ambulance and then leave if he/she so wishes. Jees........... talk about no f'kin common sense :roll: :roll: :roll:

Hmm.

Would the emergency services like having 10 people call them all at the same time about the same incident, just in case one of said 10 doesn't have the exculpatory outgoing call to 999 on their mobile...?

Do not feed the Troll :roll:

spen666

dilemna wrote:

spen666 wrote:

cee wrote:

...

spen....do you happen to know the legal position of a person who administers first aid and makes the injury worse?

Yes - in England they'd be liable for the harm they caused in civil law.

There is no criminal offence as such

Yes they may be sued but I think they would have to be seriously reckless to over ride the primary causation of the injured party's injuries.

easily done in emergency situation- move someone leading to paralysis etc

It is not public policy to allow parties who offer first aid to be sued otherwise no one would risk putting themselves out to save people.

its also not public policyto force someone to tend to injured even witrhout training

In the medical field it would be absurd for doctors, paramedics and nurses to be routinely sued for not saving the life of a seriously injured person except when there was every prospect of them living and they were negligent.

Believe it or not Spen there are people with goodness in their heart, who are altrustic and are prepared to do the right thing................

Good for them- the law does not affect them does it- so what is the relevance of them to this point?

Also I suspect that if a rescuer/life saver who did everything they could is subsequently sued it is down to money grabbing ambulance chasing lawyers who find the main party who caused the injuries has no money so the next target in their sights becomes the good Samaritan.

Firstly if person has done all they could then there could be no cause of action against them.

Secondly lawyers act on instructions from clientsnot the other way round. You are blaming the messenger for the instructions given to them

May be the GS who administered first aid never had a chance of saving the person anyway even if they were a consultant surgeon with a whole team and trick kit around them. :evil: The ambulance chasing lawyers are funded by a no win no fee system that allows them to be predatory.

Erm no win no fee means exactly that- lawyers wont take on cases they arenot going to win.

no win no fee has the opposite attraction- ie it discourages no hoper cases. Why would a lawyer take on a case he is going to get no fee out of?

Don't get me wrong I am not against suing partys that have genuinely caused injury or loss, but not this ugly distasteful scenario driven purely by lawyers and claims companies desperate to make money. Greed.

itis not driven by lawyers. It is driven by people like you and I who want to get compensation. Lawyers and claims companies are merely the vehicles to that end

Porgy

spen666 wrote:

lawyers act on instructions from clientsnot the other way round. You are blaming the messenger for the instructions given to them

That's very naive - I've seen those shi.tty ambulance chasing ads they have on during daytime tv - so after they've put it into your head right at the start that they will get you a shitload of compensation for no win no fee - then they'll take instructions to do what they advertised they would do. :?

cee

so people not qualified to administer first aid can just phone the necessary emergency service...ok

what about qualified first aiders...would they be entitled to just phone? or would they be obliged to administer first aid? and if they made a mistake and made it worse....we have already established they could be sued (in the land of eng at least....)

the mechanics of how/who and why of the suing, be it ambulance chasers etc in my mind has no bearing on this discussion. We live in that world already, whether i happen to like it or not.

greg66_tri_v2.0

simple_salmon

It's a tangent - do I get a prize?

iain_j

Is that tangent a bit skewed, or is it just my screen?

waddlie

simple_salmon wrote:

It's a tangent - do I get a prize?

Thanks Salmon, I couldn't figure it out for the life of me. If you would like a prize, you're most welome to take my scalp. Most cyclists I come across help themselves to it anyway...

greg66_tri_v2.0

It is indeed a tangent. Phone calling obligations and ambulance chasing has distracted us.

cee

Greg66

in fairness...this departed from assumed liability (strict or otherwise) about 7 pages ago!

waddlie

The irritating thing is, I actually agree in principle with much (if not all) of what Spen666 says. Unfortunately, his desire to be right all the time seems to render himself unable to back off a bit and show some humility or respect. Much like the CPS lawyers I am forced to work with...

Wallace1492

cee wrote:

Greg66

in fairness...this departed from assumed liability (strict or otherwise) about 7 pages ago!

The thread is/was not about assumed liability, but about the death of a cyclist and what we can learn, change, amend, improve, in order that this does not happen again.

Virtually everyone on here has a vested interest in cycling safely, so should have either some serious input to the debate or be very interested in what is said.

I have been dissaponted that it has nearly degenerated into point scoring and accusations by certain parties. I am sure I could hear a judge calling for order in court at one point.... however, I will try and not digress.

Any takers for getting back on topic??

simple_salmon

As one of those who was 'point scoring' I will try to get it back on track by repeating my question that I don't think was answered earlier:

Do we not have assumed liability if someone drives into the back of someone else? If so then why not if someone drives into a cyclist? If not then why is it commonly bandied around that we do?

Have I misunderstood 'assumed liability'?

greg66_tri_v2.0

simple_salmon wrote:

As one of those who was 'point scoring' I will try to get it back on track by repeating my question that I don't think was answered earlier:

Do we not have assumed liability if someone drives into the back of someone else? If so then why not if someone drives into a cyclist? If not then why is it commonly bandied around that we do?

Have I misunderstood 'assumed liability'?

AFAIK, that is a rule applied by insurance companies to apportion blame in a civil claims context. I think (but am not sure) that insurers apply it for convenience more than anything else - it leads to quick settlement of claims and over time a "fair" distribution of those claims between insurers.

Not sure that it has a deeper seated provenance than that.

simple_salmon

Greg66 wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

As one of those who was 'point scoring' I will try to get it back on track by repeating my question that I don't think was answered earlier:

Do we not have assumed liability if someone drives into the back of someone else? If so then why not if someone drives into a cyclist? If not then why is it commonly bandied around that we do?

Have I misunderstood 'assumed liability'?

AFAIK, that is a rule applied by insurance companies to apportion blame in a civil claims context. I think (but am not sure) that insurers apply it for convenience more than anything else - it leads to quick settlement of claims and over time a "fair" distribution of those claims between insurers.

Not sure that it has a deeper seated provenance than that.

OK, so civil claims for cyclists against a driver's insurance could be treated the same way? A lot of people on here has described having to wait months if not years for insurance to pay out.

spen666

Waddlie wrote:

The irritating thing is, I actually agree in principle with much (if not all) of what Spen666 says. Unfortunately, his desire to be right all the time seems to render himself unable to back off a bit and show some humility or respect. Much like the CPS lawyers I am forced to work with...

ok, I'll back off and say that allmotorists are evil,

All courts are against cyclists

The moon is madeof green cheese

Its all bullshit, but are you happy now?

I stick to my points because I only speak on whatI know. I'm sorry if my working as a lawyer means I know the points I am talking about better than someone who has read the Daily Mail

spen666

simple_salmon wrote:

As one of those who was 'point scoring' I will try to get it back on track by repeating my question that I don't think was answered earlier:

Do we not have assumed liability if someone drives into the back of someone else? If so then why not if someone drives into a cyclist? If not then why is it commonly bandied around that we do?

Have I misunderstood 'assumed liability'?

no!

waddlie

spen666 wrote:

Waddlie wrote:

The irritating thing is, I actually agree in principle with much (if not all) of what Spen666 says. Unfortunately, his desire to be right all the time seems to render himself unable to back off a bit and show some humility or respect. Much like the CPS lawyers I am forced to work with...

ok, I'll back off and say that allmotorists are evil,

All courts are against cyclists

The moon is madeof green cheese

Its all bullshit, but are you happy now?

I stick to my points because I only speak on whatI know. I'm sorry if my working as a lawyer means I know the points I am talking about better than someone who has read the Daily Mail

It's not your content I'm taking issue with, it's your tone.

spen666

simple_salmon wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

As one of those who was 'point scoring' I will try to get it back on track by repeating my question that I don't think was answered earlier:

Do we not have assumed liability if someone drives into the back of someone else? If so then why not if someone drives into a cyclist? If not then why is it commonly bandied around that we do?

Have I misunderstood 'assumed liability'?

AFAIK, that is a rule applied by insurance companies to apportion blame in a civil claims context. I think (but am not sure) that insurers apply it for convenience more than anything else - it leads to quick settlement of claims and over time a "fair" distribution of those claims between insurers.

Not sure that it has a deeper seated provenance than that.

OK, so civil claims for cyclists against a driver's insurance could be treated the same way? A lot of people on here has described having to wait months if not years for insurance to pay out.

That is usually because of medical issues- can'tsettle a medical claim without knowing the extent of injuries.

If I hadsettled my lastaccident claim immediately, I would have got damages for a bit of whiplash. Its only a few weeks later they decided I may have torn the ligament in my knee.
Once a claim is settled, you can't come back for more

spen666

Waddlie wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Waddlie wrote:

The irritating thing is, I actually agree in principle with much (if not all) of what Spen666 says. Unfortunately, his desire to be right all the time seems to render himself unable to back off a bit and show some humility or respect. Much like the CPS lawyers I am forced to work with...

ok, I'll back off and say that allmotorists are evil,

All courts are against cyclists

The moon is madeof green cheese

Its all bullshit, but are you happy now?

I stick to my points because I only speak on whatI know. I'm sorry if my working as a lawyer means I know the points I am talking about better than someone who has read the Daily Mail

It's not your content I'm taking issue with, it's your tone.

Being right is being right.

If you don't like me being right, then tough.

waddlie

spen666 wrote:

Waddlie wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Waddlie wrote:

The irritating thing is, I actually agree in principle with much (if not all) of what Spen666 says. Unfortunately, his desire to be right all the time seems to render himself unable to back off a bit and show some humility or respect. Much like the CPS lawyers I am forced to work with...

ok, I'll back off and say that allmotorists are evil,

All courts are against cyclists

The moon is madeof green cheese

Its all bullshit, but are you happy now?

I stick to my points because I only speak on whatI know. I'm sorry if my working as a lawyer means I know the points I am talking about better than someone who has read the Daily Mail

It's not your content I'm taking issue with, it's your tone.

Being right is being right.

If you don't like me being right, then tough.

I have no problem with you being right, I'm just disappointed you have to be such an arse about it. This forum used to be a fairly pleasant place, recently it seems to have become the home of table-thumping and playground-politics.

Wallace1492

spen666 wrote:

Waddlie wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Waddlie wrote:

The irritating thing is, I actually agree in principle with much (if not all) of what Spen666 says. Unfortunately, his desire to be right all the time seems to render himself unable to back off a bit and show some humility or respect. Much like the CPS lawyers I am forced to work with...

ok, I'll back off and say that allmotorists are evil,

All courts are against cyclists

The moon is madeof green cheese

Its all bullshit, but are you happy now?

I stick to my points because I only speak on whatI know. I'm sorry if my working as a lawyer means I know the points I am talking about better than someone who has read the Daily Mail

It's not your content I'm taking issue with, it's your tone.

Being right is being right.

If you don't like me being right, then tough.

Please. Some things you can be right on, other times it is a valid opinion. Some may not agree, some will. The beauty is being able to discuss in a rational and grown up way. And not being too pedantic on what other people type.