new jacket invented

Marc Brett said:

http://www.fga.fr/Guide%20anglaisF%20081104.doc

In short, non-driver victims are fully compensated for their injuries,
unless they are guilty of gross negligence which was the sole cause of
the accident or they caused it deliberately, in which case they get
nothing.

Interesting stuff, thanks.

But it's solely concerned with the concept of compensation, as
provided through motor insurance, which doesn't really address the
original point under discussion, which was the premise that drivers in
France were more law-abiding because of some increased level of
liability. I'd suggest that this would only be the case if they were
significantly more likely than other nationalities to be penalised in
the event of an accident, which I still don'e believe is the case.

--
Ace in Alsace - brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom

Ace said:

Marc Brett said:

In short, non-driver victims are fully compensated for their injuries,
unless they are guilty of gross negligence which was the sole cause of
the accident or they caused it deliberately, in which case they get
nothing.

But it's solely concerned with the concept of compensation, as
provided through motor insurance,

Yes. It's what's known as "risk liability", which means that the party
posing the greatest risked is assumed liable for damages unless there is
evidence of wrongdoing.

Quoted message said:

which doesn't really address the
original point under discussion, which was the premise that drivers in
France were more law-abiding because of some increased level of
liability.

Exactly. It is nothing to do with law or regulation breaking. They
still require proof, as we do, to bring any charges.

He's had this pointed out to him over and again.

Quoted message said:

I'd suggest that this would only be the case if they were
significantly more likely than other nationalities to be penalised in
the event of an accident, which I still don'e believe is the case.

Precisely. It is the compensation liability only which it covers.

--
Matt B

" What we really need is a
law that forces people to drive considerately, and always put other
road
users before themselves."

When a cyclist ahead of a motor vehicle are both approaching a
bollard, traffic island, chicane or other build-out and the car races
the cyclist, overtakes and squeezes thru the gap, sideswiping the
cyclist, is this not being intimidated by speed?

Any vehicle that passes me on a thirty mph road at a speed higher than
30 terrifies me unless they leave an adequate width , which they
rarely do. If a car's coming the other way the gap is inches, and
I'm yet to be convinced that being passed by a ton of steel within
arms length at 30mph plus is not intimidatory.

"I'd suggest that this would only be the case if they were
significantly more likely than other nationalities to be penalised in
the event of an accident, which I still don'e believe is the case. "

The evidence is that premiums have not risen in countries that adopt
strict liabaility, but IMO the law with regard to compensation is one
of the reasons that cycling is so much safer in France. Ten times
safer in Denmark, which also has this law.

spindrift said:

Any vehicle that passes me on a thirty mph road at a speed higher than
30 terrifies me unless they leave an adequate width , which they
rarely do.

Are you equally terrified by a speed greater than 30 mph on, say, a 40
mph road?

Quoted message said:

If a car's coming the other way the gap is inches, and
I'm yet to be convinced that being passed by a ton of steel within
arms length at 30mph plus is not intimidatory.

Do you ever cycle outside of areas with lampposts?

--
Matt B

spindrift said:

"I'd suggest that this would only be the case if they were
significantly more likely than other nationalities to be penalised in
the event of an accident, which I still don'e believe is the case. "

The evidence is that premiums have not risen in countries that adopt
strict liabaility,

What evidence?

Quoted message said:

but IMO the law with regard to compensation is one
of the reasons that cycling is so much safer in France.

Do you have figures?

Quoted message said:

Ten times
safer in Denmark, which also has this law.

So why do you think it's 10 times safer in Denmark than in France? Is
it the increased segregation perhaps?

--
Matt B

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as spindrift
<[email hidden]> gently breathed:

Quoted message said:

" What we really need is a
law that forces people to drive considerately, and always put other
road
users before themselves."

When a cyclist ahead of a motor vehicle are both approaching a
bollard, traffic island, chicane or other build-out and the car races
the cyclist, overtakes and squeezes thru the gap, sideswiping the
cyclist, is this not being intimidated by speed?

No, as unless it's a powerful sports car it's unlikely to be speeding.
That's being intimidated by aggressive and bullying driving, something
that would need continuously monitored CCTV, or actual police officers
present to witness, to catch.

Quoted message said:

Any vehicle that passes me on a thirty mph road at a speed higher than
30 terrifies me unless they leave an adequate width , which they
rarely do. If a car's coming the other way the gap is inches, and
I'm yet to be convinced that being passed by a ton of steel within
arms length at 30mph plus is not intimidatory.

Any vehicle at any speed which doesn't leave enough room is
intimidating. Speed is largely irrelevant, I'd rather be passed at 50
by someone who leaves plenty of space than at 20 by someone who thinks
bikes belong in the gutter and refuses to move over at all.

Speeding is a problem, but it's not the be all and end all of road
safety. Someone who usually does 90 on a motorway but always slows to
the limit or below in towns, and drives gently and considerately, is
must safer than someone who rigidly sticks to the limit everywhere
regardless of conditions.

NP: The Rolling Stones - Satisfaction
--
- DJ Pyromancer, Black Sheep, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>
Hard Rock, Leeds <http://www.hard-rock.org.uk>
Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>

"No, as unless it's a powerful sports car it's unlikely to be
speeding.
That's being intimidated by aggressive and bullying driving,
something
that would need continuously monitored CCTV, or actual police
officers
present to witness, to catch."

Sure, and the point I'm trying to make is that an unnecessary,
aggressive overtaking manoever would be discouraged by the strict
liability law common in Europe. That's what I think anyway, if
motorists in the UK can kill four cyclists and get fined less than the
cost of a bike it's hardly an incentive to drive cautiously. And that
incident was "an accident", cases of cars deliberately driven at
cyclists are getting more and more common. No cops or intrusive CCTV
necessary, just a mind shift in drivers who see cyclists as scum
brought about by the law change.

"Any vehicle at any speed which doesn't leave enough room is
intimidating. Speed is largely irrelevant, I'd rather be passed at
50
by someone who leaves plenty of space than at 20 by someone who
thinks
bikes belong in the gutter and refuses to move over at all."

London's bridges are the most dangerous areas for cyclists ( London
itself, and The City in particular being the most dangerous places in
England in which to cycle)-:

In 2004 a quarter of London's cyclist fatalities took place in the
City, despite the Square Mile making up just a thousandth of the total
area of Greater London.

http://www.citycyclists.org.uk/

IMO when drivers can see an horizon in London they put their foot
down, and this increased speed increases the risk. Why do village and
town residents up and down the country lobby and protest at drivers
using their roads as personal race tracks if speeding is not
threatening, aggressive and anti-social behaviour?

"Someone who usually does 90 on a motorway but always slows to
the limit or below in towns, and drives gently and considerately, is
must safer than someone who rigidly sticks to the limit everywhere
regardless of conditions. "

Motorways, who cares, raise the limit to a ton, at least then speeders
usually only kill themselves.

I don't cycle on motorways but the amazing success of the Hull traffic
calming suggests 20mph blanket limits in all urban areas would be a
major step forward:

Road safety: 20mph zones make Hull the road safety capital of Britain

A recent report by the Institute of Public Policy Research called Hull
"a beacon of good practice" in its attitude to traffic calming and
speed reduction. Since 1994, Hull has been implementing a series of
20mph zones; by August 2002, there were 115 different 20mph zones,
covering 26 per cent or 191 kilometres of the city's roads. Julia
Thomas reports.

Hull is setting the pace in implementation of 20mph zones. [Picture by
Hull City Council.]

Hull City Council's 20mph zone programme is thought to have prevented
over 200 deaths and serious injuries and 1000 casualties in total over
the years. The total number of crashes within the 20mph zones, has
fallen by 56 per cent, the number of crashes with deaths or serious
injuries has been cut by 90 per cent and the number of child
pedestrian casualties is down by 74 per cent.

Overall, the cost of implementing the zones has been £4.5 million,
with another £5.4 million required to zone other areas of the city.
The financial savings from the zones already implemented (in terms of
injury costs) have been estimated at well over £40 million, giving a
10:1 value for money ratio.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/walking/success/encouragingwalkingandcycling5794?page=6

spindrift said:

"No, as unless it's a powerful sports car it's unlikely to be
speeding.
That's being intimidated by aggressive and bullying driving,
something
that would need continuously monitored CCTV, or actual police
officers
present to witness, to catch."

Sure, and the point I'm trying to make is that an unnecessary,
aggressive overtaking manoever would be discouraged by the strict
liability law common in Europe.

Your view, but there is no evidence to support it. There are countries
without it which are safer than countries with it.

Quoted message said:

That's what I think anyway, if
motorists in the UK can kill four cyclists and get fined less than the
cost of a bike it's hardly an incentive to drive cautiously.

You demonstrate your ignorance again. Even in that tragic incident,
"risk liability" would have made no difference to the outcome. The
driver would still have only been charged with a technical offence, and
still got the same fine. There was no evidence, found or presented, to
prove a more serious offence had occurred. "Risk liability" only
guarantees an insurance payout - which will occur anyway unless the
victims were themselves liable for the collision.

Quoted message said:

And that
incident was "an accident", cases of cars deliberately driven at
cyclists are getting more and more common. No cops or intrusive CCTV
necessary, just a mind shift in drivers who see cyclists as scum
brought about by the law change.

You'd accept them getting-off scott-free - so long as compensation was
paid???

--
Matt B

spindrift said:

"Someone who usually does 90 on a motorway but always slows to
the limit or below in towns, and drives gently and considerately, is
must safer than someone who rigidly sticks to the limit everywhere
regardless of conditions. "

Motorways, who cares, raise the limit to a ton, at least then speeders
usually only kill themselves.

But they don't, do they. The recently published figures[1] state that:
"On motorways, 53 per cent of cars were travelling at a speed that
exceeded the limit of 70 mph." Yet 53% of drivers on motorways do not
kill themselves. In fact motorways are the safest roads we have. Now
where does that leave your tenuous link between speeding and crashes?

Quoted message said:

I don't cycle on motorways but the amazing success of the Hull traffic
calming suggests 20mph blanket limits in all urban areas would be a
major step forward:

Notice though that it isn't the limit itself, but the "traffic calming"
(humps, tables, etc.) which are credited with reducing traffic speeds.

As I've said for a long time (and you amongst others has ridiculed the
idea) - what we need is blanket and sustainable traffic calming - not
speed limits.

--
Matt B

In article <[email hidden]>,

Brian G said:

And anyway, it's all the cyclists' own fault:- "According to the latest
official statistics, 148 cyclists were killed on roads in the UK in 2005
- up ten per cent on the previous year - and thousands more were injured.

The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety blamed the
increase on more inexperienced cyclists taking to the roads. "

Reading the PACTS website doesn't suggest that they're that stupid,
although I can't find anything specifically related to these figures.

I imagine that the PACTS spokesman said something like "the increase
in accidents is more than explained by the rise in numbers of
cyclists; it does not reflect a real-terms rise in risk" which was
mangled by the Daily Maul into the nonsense you quote above.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <[email hidden]>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

spindrift said:

The number of road accidents in France has decreased more that 85
percent since the installation of automatic traffic radars
last year,

Did you get a chance to look-up your source for that yet - or are we to
assume that is is unsupportable, as a lot (most?) of other stuff you
post seems to be.

--
Matt B

"I imagine that the PACTS spokesman said something like "the increase
in accidents is more than explained by the rise in numbers of
cyclists"

I sincerely hope so, but I doubt it. Many papers carries similar scare
stories that gave a completely false impression- that cycling is
getting more dangerous!

It's so flipping annoying!

Hang on , I'll check.

Correction- I am wrong and you are right:

Cyclist casualties have fallen significantly over the past few years.
The30% reduction in cycle casualties since the 1994-1998 baseline aver-
age has been an important area of success in progress towards the 2010
road safety targets. This has occurred at the same time as a 9%
increase in cycling rates, which is consistent with a growing body of
evidence that suggests a correlation between higher levels of cycling
and improved cyclist safety (DfT 2004).

http://www.pacts.org.uk/parliament/briefings/cyclehelmets.pdf

Which makes those scum-sucking Mail liars even more reprehensible.

So to recap:

The more cyclists there are the safer the roads become.

and

Traffic speed brings noise and pollution. It restricts children's
ability to play and disproportionately hinders cyclists, pedestrians,
the disabled and the elderly.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmtlgr/557/557ap33.htm

CRASH STATISTICS

A hostile traffic environment discourages cycling; cycling has
subsequently decreased. Consequently road casualty statistics can
mislead as the growth of motor traffic has not led to more safety but
more danger.

Increasing levels of cycling need not lead to more cyclist
casualties as the experience in Edinburgh, York and in other European
countries has shown. Examples are contained within the National
Cycling Forum leaflet A Safety Framework for Cycling (April 1999).

The relative risks of motorised transport and cycling, when measured
over vehicle-kilometres travelled are distorted by the growth of
motorway travel. Motorways have lower crash rates than built up areas-
primarily because of junctions and speed differential between
different users. Three quarters of cycling takes place in built up
areas.

Crash statistics should be measured on a per trip basis rather than
per vehicle kilometre to more accurately reflect the fact that most
trips and most transport is local. A trip is a means to an end, rather
than an end in itself. The benefit to the individual making a trip is
in its end purpose, which can often be satisfied at a local
destination, rather its distance.

TACKLING SPEED

Speed management can improve cycling conditions, if it does not
introduce new hazards. At lower speeds, cyclists can mix with motor
vehicles in relative safety. Restraining motor vehicle speed is a
major factor in establishing better conditions for cycle use.

Ibid.

spindrift said:

"bbish. I don't believe for a second that French would-be cyclists
were ever put off by sorries about speeding. "

Yes, I believe the statistics show that you are 5 times safer on the
road, on a bike, in France, compared to UK. And there are two simple
reasons for that:

1: France has more roads and fewer people, so there's less congestion,
hence less impatience, and it's easier to find roads with little
traffic.

It's also easier for a motorist to be stuck behind a slow moving driver
for dozens of miles at a time. Driving to Langres last week I made the
mistake of avoiding the toll motorway and became stuck behind the sort
of infuriating driver who travels at a constant 70 km/h: significantly
below the speed limit for the open road and significantly above the
limit for built-up areas. To be fair, he did slow down for any of the
well-signed speed cameras.

I was astonished, in Germany on the other hand, at how cyclists seemed
to be given less road space than in Britain.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

"I was astonished, in Germany on the other hand, at how cyclists
seemed
to be given less road space than in Britain. "

Cycling rates are five times higher in Germany than the UK:

http://www.bized.co.uk/current/leisure/2004_5/170105.htm

Can't find a UK comparison but:

Per kilometer and per trip cycled, American bicyclists are twice as
likely to get killed as German cyclists and over 3 times as likely as
Dutch cyclists.

spindrift said:

Traffic speed brings noise and pollution. It restricts children's
ability to play and disproportionately hinders cyclists, pedestrians,
the disabled and the elderly.

Yes, this is /why/ we don't want speed limits. What we want, speed
limits are incapable of delivering - considerate and appropriate speeds.

Unless you are telling me that in a given lamppost zone the speed limit
can be set to 5 mph outside a school at busy times, 30 mph on a quiet
wide boulevard in the afternoon, 10 mph through the shops, but only if
people are about, 15 mph past the park, reducing to 5 mph if kid is
chasing a ball about...

Don't you see it? Obviously not. You are from the school of thought
that believes that 30.0 mph is /always/ OK, because it is within the
speed limit, and that 30.1 mph is always anti-social.

Quoted message said:

A hostile traffic environment discourages cycling; cycling has
subsequently decreased. Consequently road casualty statistics can
mislead as the growth of motor traffic has not led to more safety but
more danger.

No mention of speed limits then, just stuff we can tackle more
effectively without them.

Quoted message said:

TACKLING SPEED

Speed management can improve cycling conditions,

Ah! Not speed limits then.

Quoted message said:

if it does not introduce new hazards.

Like chicanes and speed humps, they mean.

Quoted message said:

At lower speeds, cyclists can mix with motor
vehicles in relative safety.

I couldn't have put it better myself :-) Roll-on the introduction of
intelligent measures which are actually designed to deliver appropriate
speeds, rather than _cap_ speeds at a speed which, for most of the time,
is _inappropriate_.

Quoted message said:

Restraining motor vehicle speed is a
major factor in establishing better conditions for cycle use.

Notice, no mention of speed limits again. Could it be because they
don't "restrain motor vehicle speed"? Surely not. I didn't see speed
cameras extolled either.

Face it, what we need is "appropriate speed". Can speed limits be
dynamic enough to advise the appropriate speed for all situations in
their domain? Well, no. So what should they be set at? The maximum
likely appropriate speed? The minimum likely appropriate speed? The
average likely appropriate speed? In the dry? In the rain? At school
closing time? For attentive drivers? For inattentive drivers? For
HGVs? For motorcycles? For push-bikes?

There is /definitely/ a better way.

--
Matt B

spindrift said:

"I was astonished, in Germany on the other hand, at how cyclists
seemed
to be given less road space than in Britain. "

Cycling rates are five times higher in Germany than the UK:

http://www.bized.co.uk/current/leisure/2004_5/170105.htm

Can't find a UK comparison but:

Per kilometer and per trip cycled, American bicyclists are twice as
likely to get killed as German cyclists and over 3 times as likely as
Dutch cyclists.

Found it:

The UK sees less than half the cycling fatalities per 100,000 people
than in Germany. However, Germans make five times as many journeys by
bike as Britons.

Hugh McClintock, one of the academics behind Achieving Cycle-Friendly
Infrastructure, says bicycles and motor vehicles can share the same
roads - provided they are designed with bikes in mind.

"Most roads and streets are laid out for cars. Some of these layouts
positively encourage cars to speed up," he says.

Given this design bias towards fast motor traffic, it is little wonder
that - per kilometre travelled - cyclists are 14 times more likely to
meet with a serious or fatal accident than car drivers.

Mr McClintock says that slowing cars would help cut cycling deaths
(put at 127 in 2000, according to the Royal Society for the Prevention
of Accidents).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/1930961.stm

spindrift said:

Hugh McClintock, one of the academics behind Achieving Cycle-Friendly
Infrastructure, says bicycles and motor vehicles can share the same
roads - provided they are designed with bikes in mind.

Good man!

Quoted message said:

"Most roads and streets are laid out for cars. Some of these layouts
positively encourage cars to speed up," he says.

How does that differ from what I've been saying for years, and that you
have been dismissive of???

Quoted message said:

Given this design bias towards fast motor traffic, it is little wonder
that - per kilometre travelled - cyclists are 14 times more likely to
meet with a serious or fatal accident than car drivers.

Ah, we're getting somewhere now. Try and remember that for more than 30
seconds, and bear it in mind next time you post drivel about "speeding",
and next time you dismiss the notion that cars and bikes can share the
roads in harmony.

Quoted message said:

Mr McClintock says that slowing cars would help cut cycling deaths

A revelation to you? How does that square with your often spouted
assertion that it is the unrelated, and arbitrary offence of "speeding"
that is the problem.

--
Matt B

spindrift said:

spindrift said:

"I was astonished, in Germany on the other hand, at how cyclists
seemed
to be given less road space than in Britain. "

Quoted message said:

Cycling rates are five times higher in Germany than the UK:

Quoted message said:

http://www.bized.co.uk/current/leisure/2004_5/170105.htm

Quoted message said:

Can't find a UK comparison but:

Quoted message said:

Per kilometer and per trip cycled, American bicyclists are twice as
likely to get killed as German cyclists and over 3 times as likely as
Dutch cyclists.

Found it:

The UK sees less than half the cycling fatalities per 100,000 people
than in Germany. However, Germans make five times as many journeys by
bike as Britons.

Hugh McClintock, one of the academics behind Achieving Cycle-Friendly
Infrastructure, says bicycles and motor vehicles can share the same
roads - provided they are designed with bikes in mind.

"Most roads and streets are laid out for cars. Some of these layouts
positively encourage cars to speed up," he says.

Given this design bias towards fast motor traffic, it is little wonder
that - per kilometre travelled - cyclists are 14 times more likely to
meet with a serious or fatal accident than car drivers.

Mr McClintock says that slowing cars would help cut cycling deaths
(put at 127 in 2000, according to the Royal Society for the Prevention
of Accidents).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/1930961.stm

So German cyclists are 2.5 times safer?