From: MLOM on
On Sep 21, 7:00 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2009-09-21, Nate Nagel <njna...(a)roosters.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> >>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6841326.ece
>
> >> September 20, 2009
> >> Cycling plan to blame drivers for all crashes
>
> >> MINISTERS are considering making motorists legally responsible for
> >> accidents involving cyclists or pedestrians, even if they are not at fault.
>
> >> Government advisers are pushing for changes in the civil law that will make
> >> the most powerful vehicle involved in a collision automatically liable for
> >> insurance and compensation purposes.
>
> >> The move, intended to encourage greater take-up of environmentally friendly
> >> modes of transport, is likely to anger some drivers, many of whom already
> >> perceive themselves to be the victims of moneyspinning speed cameras and
> >> overzealous traffic wardens.
>
> >> Many will argue that it is the risky behaviour of some cyclists —
> >> particularly those who jump red lights and ride the wrong way along one-way
> >> streets — that is to blame for a significant number of crashes.
> >> Related Links
>
> >> Last week James Martin, the television celebrity chef, described in a
> >> newspaper his joy at running a group of cyclists off the road and into a
> >> hedge while test-driving a sports car. Martin was forced to apologise after
> >> thousands of angry cyclists protested.
>
> >> Matthew Parris, a columnist for The Times, was similarly forced to
> >> backtrack last year after suggesting that piano wire should be strung
> >> across roads to decapitate cyclists. Parris said he was joking, but
> >> statistics show that cyclists are actually among the most vulnerable road
> >> users, with 115 deaths last year alone.
>
> >> Last week lobbyists for cycling and walking groups met Jessica Matthew, the
> >> DfT official in charge of sustainable transport who is drafting the
> >> National Cycling Plan. Placing the onus of responsibility on motorists is
> >> perhaps the most controversial move under consideration.
>
> >> Such scheme would place the presumption of blame against whoever was
> >> driving the most powerful vehicle involved in an accident, so they or their
> >> insurers would be liable for costs or damages.
>
> >> Similar policies — which would not extend to criminal law — have already
> >> been adopted by Germany and Holland, where transport campaigners say they
> >> have had a significant influence in changing attitudes towards cycling..
>
> >> Matthew, who has been briefing Lord Adonis, the transport secretary, also
> >> confirmed that ministers want to slash speed limits in urban areas.
>
> >> Her report is expected to recommend that councils should introduce 20mph
> >> zones in all residential streets and on other roads with high numbers of
> >> cyclists or pedestrians. This would include roads around schools, markets
> >> and shopping areas, as long as they are not major through routes.
>
> >> (snip)
>
> >> -------------------------------------
>
> >> Article says this policy would not extend to criminal law and that's a big
> >> failing. Reckless drivers need to be treated like the deadly criminals they
> >> are. I don't believe in coddling killers.
>
> > What about reckless cyclists?  My admittedly unscientific observations
> > show a far greater percentage of road-riding (or worse, sidewalk-riding
> > but road-crossing) cyclists to be reckless than the percentage of
> > drivers that appear to be reckless.
>
> The point is to stop people from driving. By saying it's always the
> driver's fault the number of collisions will go way up. This will
> greatly increase insurance rates for drivers. Less people will be able
> to afford to drive.  It's social engineering.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'd love to see how they enforce that mess if the car is parked and
unoccupied.
From: Brent on
On 2009-09-22, Nate Nagel <njnagel(a)roosters.net> wrote:
> Brent wrote:
>> On 2009-09-21, Nate Nagel <njnagel(a)roosters.net> wrote:
>>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6841326.ece
>>>>
>>>> September 20, 2009
>>>> Cycling plan to blame drivers for all crashes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> MINISTERS are considering making motorists legally responsible for
>>>> accidents involving cyclists or pedestrians, even if they are not at fault.
>>>>
>>>> Government advisers are pushing for changes in the civil law that will make
>>>> the most powerful vehicle involved in a collision automatically liable for
>>>> insurance and compensation purposes.
>>>>
>>>> The move, intended to encourage greater take-up of environmentally friendly
>>>> modes of transport, is likely to anger some drivers, many of whom already
>>>> perceive themselves to be the victims of moneyspinning speed cameras and
>>>> overzealous traffic wardens.
>>>>
>>>> Many will argue that it is the risky behaviour of some cyclists �
>>>> particularly those who jump red lights and ride the wrong way along one-way
>>>> streets � that is to blame for a significant number of crashes.
>>>> Related Links
>>>>
>>>> Last week James Martin, the television celebrity chef, described in a
>>>> newspaper his joy at running a group of cyclists off the road and into a
>>>> hedge while test-driving a sports car. Martin was forced to apologise after
>>>> thousands of angry cyclists protested.
>>>>
>>>> Matthew Parris, a columnist for The Times, was similarly forced to
>>>> backtrack last year after suggesting that piano wire should be strung
>>>> across roads to decapitate cyclists. Parris said he was joking, but
>>>> statistics show that cyclists are actually among the most vulnerable road
>>>> users, with 115 deaths last year alone.
>>>>
>>>> Last week lobbyists for cycling and walking groups met Jessica Matthew, the
>>>> DfT official in charge of sustainable transport who is drafting the
>>>> National Cycling Plan. Placing the onus of responsibility on motorists is
>>>> perhaps the most controversial move under consideration.
>>>>
>>>> Such scheme would place the presumption of blame against whoever was
>>>> driving the most powerful vehicle involved in an accident, so they or their
>>>> insurers would be liable for costs or damages.
>>>>
>>>> Similar policies � which would not extend to criminal law � have already
>>>> been adopted by Germany and Holland, where transport campaigners say they
>>>> have had a significant influence in changing attitudes towards cycling.
>>>>
>>>> Matthew, who has been briefing Lord Adonis, the transport secretary, also
>>>> confirmed that ministers want to slash speed limits in urban areas.
>>>>
>>>> Her report is expected to recommend that councils should introduce 20mph
>>>> zones in all residential streets and on other roads with high numbers of
>>>> cyclists or pedestrians. This would include roads around schools, markets
>>>> and shopping areas, as long as they are not major through routes.
>>>>
>>>> (snip)
>>>>
>>>> -------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Article says this policy would not extend to criminal law and that's a big
>>>> failing. Reckless drivers need to be treated like the deadly criminals they
>>>> are. I don't believe in coddling killers.
>>>>
>>> What about reckless cyclists? My admittedly unscientific observations
>>> show a far greater percentage of road-riding (or worse, sidewalk-riding
>>> but road-crossing) cyclists to be reckless than the percentage of
>>> drivers that appear to be reckless.
>>
>> The point is to stop people from driving. By saying it's always the
>> driver's fault the number of collisions will go way up. This will
>> greatly increase insurance rates for drivers. Less people will be able
>> to afford to drive. It's social engineering.
>
> Wouldn't it be better to raise fuel taxes or registration fees or
> something?

No. Being that direct means people will resist. When people's insurance
rates get jacked up the government will blame the insurance companies
and then demand more control over insurance. (It's worked quite well in
the USA for medical insurance)

> I mean, it may sound old-fashioned, but to me it only seems
> fair to assess things on a case by case basis and assign blame to the
> party that was actually negligent, reckless, careless, whatever.

But central control and social engineers really don't care about it
being fair. It's about achieving their goal.

> I know, quaint and amusing, but still.

Personal responsibility and such is rather quaint these days.

From: Brent on
On 2009-09-22, MLOM <grvan(a)netzero.net> wrote:
> On Sep 21, 7:00?pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-09-21, Nate Nagel <njna...(a)roosters.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>> >>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6841326.ece
>>
>> >> September 20, 2009
>> >> Cycling plan to blame drivers for all crashes
>>
>> >> MINISTERS are considering making motorists legally responsible for
>> >> accidents involving cyclists or pedestrians, even if they are not at fault.
>>
>> >> Government advisers are pushing for changes in the civil law that will make
>> >> the most powerful vehicle involved in a collision automatically liable for
>> >> insurance and compensation purposes.
>>
>> >> The move, intended to encourage greater take-up of environmentally friendly
>> >> modes of transport, is likely to anger some drivers, many of whom already
>> >> perceive themselves to be the victims of moneyspinning speed cameras and
>> >> overzealous traffic wardens.
>>
>> >> Many will argue that it is the risky behaviour of some cyclists ?
>> >> particularly those who jump red lights and ride the wrong way along one-way
>> >> streets ? that is to blame for a significant number of crashes.
>> >> Related Links
>>
>> >> Last week James Martin, the television celebrity chef, described in a
>> >> newspaper his joy at running a group of cyclists off the road and into a
>> >> hedge while test-driving a sports car. Martin was forced to apologise after
>> >> thousands of angry cyclists protested.
>>
>> >> Matthew Parris, a columnist for The Times, was similarly forced to
>> >> backtrack last year after suggesting that piano wire should be strung
>> >> across roads to decapitate cyclists. Parris said he was joking, but
>> >> statistics show that cyclists are actually among the most vulnerable road
>> >> users, with 115 deaths last year alone.
>>
>> >> Last week lobbyists for cycling and walking groups met Jessica Matthew, the
>> >> DfT official in charge of sustainable transport who is drafting the
>> >> National Cycling Plan. Placing the onus of responsibility on motorists is
>> >> perhaps the most controversial move under consideration.
>>
>> >> Such scheme would place the presumption of blame against whoever was
>> >> driving the most powerful vehicle involved in an accident, so they or their
>> >> insurers would be liable for costs or damages.
>>
>> >> Similar policies ? which would not extend to criminal law ? have already
>> >> been adopted by Germany and Holland, where transport campaigners say they
>> >> have had a significant influence in changing attitudes towards cycling.
>>
>> >> Matthew, who has been briefing Lord Adonis, the transport secretary, also
>> >> confirmed that ministers want to slash speed limits in urban areas.
>>
>> >> Her report is expected to recommend that councils should introduce 20mph
>> >> zones in all residential streets and on other roads with high numbers of
>> >> cyclists or pedestrians. This would include roads around schools, markets
>> >> and shopping areas, as long as they are not major through routes.
>>
>> >> (snip)
>>
>> >> -------------------------------------
>>
>> >> Article says this policy would not extend to criminal law and that's a big
>> >> failing. Reckless drivers need to be treated like the deadly criminals they
>> >> are. I don't believe in coddling killers.
>>
>> > What about reckless cyclists? ?My admittedly unscientific observations
>> > show a far greater percentage of road-riding (or worse, sidewalk-riding
>> > but road-crossing) cyclists to be reckless than the percentage of
>> > drivers that appear to be reckless.
>>
>> The point is to stop people from driving. By saying it's always the
>> driver's fault the number of collisions will go way up. This will
>> greatly increase insurance rates for drivers. Less people will be able
>> to afford to drive. ?It's social engineering.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I'd love to see how they enforce that mess if the car is parked and
> unoccupied.

You mean if someone runs into a parked car? That's not a problem at
all. Just blame the owner. Government has no trouble issuing speeding
tickets to parked cars:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/29/2905.asp


From: Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS on
Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote in
news:h99420$48f$1(a)news.eternal-september.org:


>
> The point is to stop people from driving. By saying it's always the
> driver's fault the number of collisions will go way up.

Oh yeah - that makes sense. People stop driving but there are more
collisions???
From: XR650L_Dave on
On Sep 21, 8:00 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2009-09-21, Nate Nagel <njna...(a)roosters.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> >>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6841326.ece
>
> >> September 20, 2009
> >> Cycling plan to blame drivers for all crashes
>
> >> MINISTERS are considering making motorists legally responsible for
> >> accidents involving cyclists or pedestrians, even if they are not at fault.
>
> >> Government advisers are pushing for changes in the civil law that will make
> >> the most powerful vehicle involved in a collision automatically liable for
> >> insurance and compensation purposes.
>
> >> The move, intended to encourage greater take-up of environmentally friendly
> >> modes of transport, is likely to anger some drivers, many of whom already
> >> perceive themselves to be the victims of moneyspinning speed cameras and
> >> overzealous traffic wardens.
>
> >> Many will argue that it is the risky behaviour of some cyclists —
> >> particularly those who jump red lights and ride the wrong way along one-way
> >> streets — that is to blame for a significant number of crashes.
> >> Related Links
>
> >> Last week James Martin, the television celebrity chef, described in a
> >> newspaper his joy at running a group of cyclists off the road and into a
> >> hedge while test-driving a sports car. Martin was forced to apologise after
> >> thousands of angry cyclists protested.
>
> >> Matthew Parris, a columnist for The Times, was similarly forced to
> >> backtrack last year after suggesting that piano wire should be strung
> >> across roads to decapitate cyclists. Parris said he was joking, but
> >> statistics show that cyclists are actually among the most vulnerable road
> >> users, with 115 deaths last year alone.
>
> >> Last week lobbyists for cycling and walking groups met Jessica Matthew, the
> >> DfT official in charge of sustainable transport who is drafting the
> >> National Cycling Plan. Placing the onus of responsibility on motorists is
> >> perhaps the most controversial move under consideration.
>
> >> Such scheme would place the presumption of blame against whoever was
> >> driving the most powerful vehicle involved in an accident, so they or their
> >> insurers would be liable for costs or damages.
>
> >> Similar policies — which would not extend to criminal law — have already
> >> been adopted by Germany and Holland, where transport campaigners say they
> >> have had a significant influence in changing attitudes towards cycling..
>
> >> Matthew, who has been briefing Lord Adonis, the transport secretary, also
> >> confirmed that ministers want to slash speed limits in urban areas.
>
> >> Her report is expected to recommend that councils should introduce 20mph
> >> zones in all residential streets and on other roads with high numbers of
> >> cyclists or pedestrians. This would include roads around schools, markets
> >> and shopping areas, as long as they are not major through routes.
>
> >> (snip)
>
> >> -------------------------------------
>
> >> Article says this policy would not extend to criminal law and that's a big
> >> failing. Reckless drivers need to be treated like the deadly criminals they
> >> are. I don't believe in coddling killers.
>
> > What about reckless cyclists?  My admittedly unscientific observations
> > show a far greater percentage of road-riding (or worse, sidewalk-riding
> > but road-crossing) cyclists to be reckless than the percentage of
> > drivers that appear to be reckless.
>
> The point is to stop people from driving. By saying it's always the
> driver's fault the number of collisions will go way up. This will
> greatly increase insurance rates for drivers. Less people will be able
> to afford to drive.  It's social engineering.

I foresee a jump in sales for vehicles large enough to fit a bicycle
and a body in the boot.


Dave