Stevie D said:Quoted message said:That this flagrent violation of several articles of the highway code
is not worthy of police attention (and I would be surprised it this
was not the case) is in my opinion due to the Criminal Justice System
being Institutionally Motorist.
The problem is that there is no evidence that it actually happened.
I could ring up my local police station and say that I saw a black
Mondeo reg X123ABC driving at 70mph in a residential area, but they
have no way of verifying whether it's true, a mistake on my part, or
made up with vindictive intent.
It's nothing to do with the fact that in this case, the (not) injured
party was a cyclist, and everything to do with the impossibility of
taking action.
The strange thing is that such action is not impossible. I
have first hand experience of an uncoroborated statement
resulting in a criminal conviction. What does matter is that
a cyclist's uncoroborated statement will have no value at all.
A motorists statement intrinsically has a greater value than
a non motorists statement.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Naturally I was shaken and angered by this - especially seeing as I
was left pondering my mortality and seriously questioning the wisdom
of riding a bicycle.
Small claims court?
Don't be ridiculous. If you want to sue someone because a big nasty
coach scared you then sod off to America.
So you believe that coach drivers have a right to strike
cyclists as they choose? This is the real problem here. Voters
demand the right to offer to cyclists the opportunity of death
at the voters whim. It is blatent discrimination. Such discrimination
is
outlawed in some particular cases however vulnerable road users
must still obey the rule of the masses or die. ('and die' too).
The fiction that is the highway code provides for special
care to be take of vulnerable road
users however as the recent case in Wales has eloquently illustrated,
this is a dangerous fiction. At present I do not ride a bike since the
continual indimidation has worked. I simply don't find that it is worth
it.
My understanding is that the standard of proof
required in a civil case is lower than that in a criminal case. Hence
the suggestion. I am certiain that unless a cyclist is dead
that it will be impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt
that a motorist has not behaved correctly however it may be possible
to reach the standard of proof required in a civil case. I don't
have a clue.
Quoted message said:Yes, I'm sure Danny was quite upset by the incident, but that's all it
amounts to. He was not injured, his bike was not damaged, it hasn't
cost him anything. British courts don't award punitive damages, and
quite rightly so.
I am not suggesting punitive damages, only compensation for
damage actually caused. If an individual is placed in a position of
fear of immediate harm to the extent that it affects their behaviour
then that would appear to me to be a case of actual damage.
Consider a similar situation:-
Say I was to get a crane and attach to the cable a heavy object,
say a coach. I then arranged to offer death or permanent
disability to pedestrians in some area, say Princes' Street in
Edinburgh, by skimming the object closely above the crowd at a
seperation of say 0.5 metres at a speed of say 40 mph.
Say 'unfortunately' (or inevitably?) a pedestrian was to be
struck but not visibly harmed due to some minor error such
as accidentally lowering the coach into the crowd. What then?
I believe that such a case would not be dismissed out of
hand by the police as unworthy of consideration.
To add a little spice, the crane driver could have dark
skin, a long black beard and funny accent. What then?
Motorists have today special protection from the
consequenses of their actions to the extent that others are
daily put at risk in a way that would not be acceptable in
other circumstances.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:It would seem to me that the true level of compensation required to
compensate you for the inability to ride a bicycle on the road again
would be enough to get anyone's attention.
Which orifice did you pull that one from? Danny did not say that he
was unable to ride a bike again - he just said he was very shaken.
Well I just made that up, but the thing is that it seems to
be assumed that cyclists and pedestrians just have to accept such
risks.
OK well he is tough. Should he have to be so tough? I am sure that
there are some people in the country who would find it
rather difficult to deal with being struck by a coach. I am one of
them.
Please correct me however you seem to have said that a coach
operator and driver should not be expected to follow the multiple
clauses in the highway code that should safeguard
a cyclist from being struck. The only responsibility
is to avoid actual harm.
Quoted message said:If the event had resulted in psychological trauma, that might be
different. But please note, psychological trauma, like clinical
depression, doesn't just mean that you feel a bit upset by something -
it is a very serious medical condition. I very much doubt that it
could be inflicted on anyone by being involved in a near-miss.
In other ciscumstances a near miss is sufficient. For example
if someone was to whip out a gun and playfully fire over the heads of
a crowd would you apply the same "no physical damage" rule there?
This I feel nicely highlights my point, Motorists are treated entirely
differently from other members of the population. I don't
see why that should be the case except that there are more of them.
If that is the real reason why cyclists and pedestrians
are daily intimidated and killed on the roads then surely it is time
to realise that this is the case and to remove this particular
discriminatory blight for good.
