http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6841326.ece


                                         Bill Smith

"There are four kinds of homicide; felonious, excusable, justifiable,
and praiseworthy"

                                    Ambrose Bierce

"Bill Smith"  wrote in message 
news:18cib5hkm2kkgi3efh485jcme1d4tdafc1@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6841326.ece

Are the people who dream up these ideas completely braindead?
So all I have to do is jump on my bike, ram it into a car stopped at traffic 
lights and hold out my hand for the £5,000 insurance money as I go crashing 
to the pavement?
Do these people actually think AT ALL?

"Steve O" <nospam@here.thanks> wrote in message 
news:7ht51cF2uv1tlU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Bill Smith"  wrote in message 
> news:18cib5hkm2kkgi3efh485jcme1d4tdafc1@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6841326.ece
>
> Are the people who dream up these ideas completely braindead?
> So all I have to do is jump on my bike, ram it into a car stopped at 
> traffic lights and hold out my hand for the £5,000 insurance money as I go 
> crashing to the pavement?
> Do these people actually think AT ALL?

I doubt it

"The move, intended to encourage greater take-up of environmentally friendly 
modes of transport"

Personally, I think that such a change in the law will make absolutely no 
difference whatsoever to the conclusion that a person comes to when deciding 
whether to cycle somewhere (or indeed whether to even own a bicycle).

It will not change the answers to:
How long will the journey take?
How difficult/inconvenient will it be?

so why should the answer to "Shall I go by bicycle?" change?

tim

tim..... wrote:

>
> "Steve O" <nospam@here.thanks> wrote in message 
> news:7ht51cF2uv1tlU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Bill Smith"  wrote in message 
>> news:18cib5hkm2kkgi3efh485jcme1d4tdafc1@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6841326.ece
>>
>> Are the people who dream up these ideas completely braindead?
>> So all I have to do is jump on my bike, ram it into a car stopped at 
>> traffic lights and hold out my hand for the £5,000 insurance money as I go 
>> crashing to the pavement?
>> Do these people actually think AT ALL?
>
> I doubt it
>
> "The move, intended to encourage greater take-up of environmentally friendly 
> modes of transport"
>
> Personally, I think that such a change in the law will make absolutely no 
> difference whatsoever to the conclusion that a person comes to when deciding 
> whether to cycle somewhere (or indeed whether to even own a bicycle).
>
> It will not change the answers to:
> How long will the journey take?
> How difficult/inconvenient will it be?
>
> so why should the answer to "Shall I go by bicycle?" change?
>
> tim

Plus, if you are cycling and are hit by a car at 40 mph, I doubt it
would matter who was to blame because you would still be dead!

I do agree that this will lead to a slew of extra claims against car
drivers, purely on the basis cyclist will be able to cycle willy-nilly
and carelessly, knowing it the driver who will be prosecuted in the
event of a collision!
-- 
MCR
www.pleasuredome.org.uk - ROMs, Retro, Community
Linux - Humanity in computing

"MCR"  wrote in message 
news:00ffd910$0$1530$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> tim..... wrote:
>
>>
>> "Steve O" <nospam@here.thanks> wrote in message
>> news:7ht51cF2uv1tlU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> "Bill Smith"  wrote in message
>>> news:18cib5hkm2kkgi3efh485jcme1d4tdafc1@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6841326.ece
>>>
>>> Are the people who dream up these ideas completely braindead?
>>> So all I have to do is jump on my bike, ram it into a car stopped at
>>> traffic lights and hold out my hand for the £5,000 insurance money as I 
>>> go
>>> crashing to the pavement?
>>> Do these people actually think AT ALL?
>>
>> I doubt it
>>
>> "The move, intended to encourage greater take-up of environmentally 
>> friendly
>> modes of transport"
>>
>> Personally, I think that such a change in the law will make absolutely no
>> difference whatsoever to the conclusion that a person comes to when 
>> deciding
>> whether to cycle somewhere (or indeed whether to even own a bicycle).
>>
>> It will not change the answers to:
>> How long will the journey take?
>> How difficult/inconvenient will it be?
>>
>> so why should the answer to "Shall I go by bicycle?" change?
>>
>> tim
>
> Plus, if you are cycling and are hit by a car at 40 mph, I doubt it
> would matter who was to blame because you would still be dead!
>
> I do agree that this will lead to a slew of extra claims against car
> drivers, purely on the basis cyclist will be able to cycle willy-nilly
> and carelessly, knowing it the driver who will be prosecuted in the
> event of a collision!

To nitpick a little, the article was about who would be to blame for 
insurance purposes, not prosection.
Still, the result would be much the same as you describe.

Will this also apply to pedestrians they hit when riding on the pavement?

"Bill Smith"  wrote in message 
news:18cib5hkm2kkgi3efh485jcme1d4tdafc1@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6841326.ece
>
>
>                                         Bill Smith
>
> "There are four kinds of homicide; felonious, excusable, justifiable,
> and praiseworthy"
>
>                                    Ambrose Bierce

"R. Mark Clayton"  wrote in message 
news:X6GdnaLzxvSB0CfXnZ2dnUVZ8oudnZ2d@bt.com...
> Will this also apply to pedestrians they hit when riding on the pavement?

Yes.
According to the article, it is the person in possession of the higher 
powered vehicle which is automatically to blame, therefore, the cyclist will 
be responsible for hitting the pedestrian, and the motorist is responsible 
for hitting the cyclist..
...It might cause a bit of a quandrary for them if a cyclist collided with 
someone in a wheelchair.

Steve O wrote:

>
> "R. Mark Clayton"  wrote in message 
> news:X6GdnaLzxvSB0CfXnZ2dnUVZ8oudnZ2d@bt.com...
>> Will this also apply to pedestrians they hit when riding on the pavement?
>
> Yes.
> According to the article, it is the person in possession of the higher 
> powered vehicle which is automatically to blame, therefore, the cyclist will 
> be responsible for hitting the pedestrian, and the motorist is responsible 
> for hitting the cyclist..
> ...It might cause a bit of a quandrary for them if a cyclist collided with 
> someone in a wheelchair. 

Which brings me on to my pet peeve.  Disabled/Old people in powered
scooters on the pavement that think they have right of way over
pedestrians.  Beeping the horn and weaving around.  I think they are the
menace, not cyclist. 
-- 
MCR
www.pleasuredome.org.uk - ROMs, Retro, Community
Linux - Humanity in computing

On 23 Sep, 12:48, MCR  wrote:
> tim..... wrote:
>
> > "Steve O" <nos...@here.thanks> wrote in message
> >news:7ht51cF2uv1tlU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> >> "Bill Smith"  wrote in message
> >>news:18cib5hkm2kkgi3efh485jcme1d4tdafc1@4ax.com...
>
> >>>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6841326.ece
>
> >> Are the people who dream up these ideas completely braindead?
> >> So all I have to do is jump on my bike, ram it into a car stopped at
> >> traffic lights and hold out my hand for the £5,000 insurance money as I go
> >> crashing to the pavement?
> >> Do these people actually think AT ALL?
>
> > I doubt it
>
> > "The move, intended to encourage greater take-up of environmentally friendly
> > modes of transport"
>
> > Personally, I think that such a change in the law will make absolutely no
> > difference whatsoever to the conclusion that a person comes to when deciding
> > whether to cycle somewhere (or indeed whether to even own a bicycle).
>
> > It will not change the answers to:
> > How long will the journey take?
> > How difficult/inconvenient will it be?
>
> > so why should the answer to "Shall I go by bicycle?" change?
>
> > tim
>
> Plus, if you are cycling and are hit by a car at 40 mph, I doubt it
> would matter who was to blame because you would still be dead!
>
> I do agree that this will lead to a slew of extra claims against car
> drivers, purely on the basis cyclist will be able to cycle willy-nilly
> and carelessly, knowing it the driver who will be prosecuted in the
> event of a collision!
> --
> MCRwww.pleasuredome.org.uk- ROMs, Retro, Community
> Linux - Humanity in computing

That does completely ignore contributory negligence. You can cycle
willy nilly if you want but you'll get your contribution taken off
when someone hits you. It could be a lot.