Justice at last
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Steve Firth on 19 Apr 2010 02:21 mileburner <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > Possibly for the same reason that scum on four wheels do not have action > taken against them either. If a person walks into the path of a moving > vehicle on the road, they are deemed to be responsible for any resulting > accident. I don't agree with it either, but that is the way it is. That's not true. I know that it's your fantasy that motorists have immunity from prosecution but you will find multiple news reports where the driver has been arrested and prosecuted in exactly these circumstances. The law presumes guilt on the part of the driver and there must be strong evidence that the pedestrian was the cause of the accident. Crossing the road doesn't count as the cause since we are constantly reminded that drivers should drive at such a speed that they can stop if a pedestrian steps of the kerb in front of the car. IIRC you were one of the loonies who supported the view that in any collision the driver should be regarded as guilty no matter what the circumstances. So your attempts to excuse a cyclist who, had he been riding with care, could easily have avoided a collision is laughable.
From: Steve Firth on 19 Apr 2010 02:29 mileburner <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > If a pedestrian walks out in front of you and you fail to stop in time you > will probably get away with it. <sigh> Untrue.
From: mileburner on 19 Apr 2010 10:32 "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message news:1jh6p0y.8pssqw3tmzasN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk... > mileburner <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > >> Possibly for the same reason that scum on four wheels do not have action >> taken against them either. If a person walks into the path of a moving >> vehicle on the road, they are deemed to be responsible for any resulting >> accident. I don't agree with it either, but that is the way it is. > > That's not true. I know that it's your fantasy that motorists have > immunity from prosecution but you will find multiple news reports where > the driver has been arrested and prosecuted in exactly these > circumstances. The law presumes guilt on the part of the driver and > there must be strong evidence that the pedestrian was the cause of the > accident. Crossing the road doesn't count as the cause since we are > constantly reminded that drivers should drive at such a speed that they > can stop if a pedestrian steps of the kerb in front of the car. > > IIRC you were one of the loonies who supported the view that in any > collision the driver should be regarded as guilty no matter what the > circumstances. So your attempts to excuse a cyclist who, had he been > riding with care, could easily have avoided a collision is laughable. I cannot recall excusing the cyclist. I was merely pointing out the double standards which prevail in Firth's Fantasy World.
From: Brimstone on 19 Apr 2010 10:33 "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message news:hqhp8n$4h9$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message > news:Y6WdnfzAq6byaFbWnZ2dnUVZ8g6dnZ2d(a)bt.com... >> Was etc. etc. > > According to the report > > "As they crossed Spring Street she realised a cyclist was hurtling towards > them and pulled back. Haden lost his grip on the buggy and stopped in the > cyclist's path." > > Clearly the cyclist was moving too fast, but had it been a car, so long as > it was within speed limits the driver would be deemed as being in the > clear. I can already hear the cries that speed limits are too low anyway, > but it is unlikely that the cyclists was breaking any speed limit anyway. > > Anyone who rides a bike in areas busy with peds will know that often they > just step out into your path. If cyclists are going to travel at speed, > they need to get well away from the kerb. Even then, they still need to > take extra care and be ready to slow down or stop. > > Drivers could learn something here. > As could pedestrians.
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 20 Apr 2010 11:53
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 21:52:23 +0100, Tom Crispin <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote: <snip> >Do you think that all pedestrians should have registration numbers as >they are so difficult to trace? A pedestrian is unlikely to cause an accident against another pedestrian - and is unlikely to run off in such circumstances. Unlike a cyclist: run in to a car and damage it - and ride off from the scene. run a red light and cause an accident : ride off from the scene. knock someone down on a pedestrian crossing : ride off from the scene. hit a pedestrian whilst riding on the footpath : ride off from the scene. the list is endless. -- Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws. The answer: All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered. Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest. Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed. (With thanks to KeithT for the idea) |