Paperboy hit.

Sniper8052 said:

I heard it was to be considered in this country. At the time I was dead
against it as it sounded completely unfair to assume one party was always to
be at fault. However I am coming to believe that there may be some virtue
in the idea and that it should not only cover cyclists and pedestrians but
also motorcyclists. After all when did you last see two motorcycles crash
into each other, and look at their accident / death rate.

The key point here is that what you read in the papers almost
certainly bears no relation to the true picture. As I recall from my
reading of the Directive at the time it was designed to harmonise the
position re third party cover - some countries' insurers do not cover
occupants of a vehicle whose driver is at fault, others do not cover
uninsured third parties (mainly pedestrians) hit by an at-fault
driver.

Another section was designed to make it easier to insure a car in one
country and have that cover valid in other countries, particularly
when moving new unregistered vehicles. I thought that would have made
it quite popular with the motoring press as it was particularly
intended to help personal imports, something they are very keen on.

A very small subclause of a subsection of a subparagraph covered the
presumption of fault for pedestrians and cyclists. Although the
cyclists were always singled out in the press, it is well known that
pedestrian injuries are (a) much more numerous and (b) much more
likely to be the pedestrian's own fault - but of course we are all
pedestrians, so that makes them a less attractive scapegoat.

The draft I saw specifically excluded the question of either fault or
criminal liability, and explicitly allowed for the presumption of
liability to be overriden where the pedestrian or cyclist was at
fault.

Representing the directive as being primarily about putting the blame
on drivers when cyclists did somethign stupid was mischievous,
probably deliberately so since I was able to obtain and understand the
draft quite easily.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

you know? said:

Representing the directive as being primarily about putting the blame
on drivers when cyclists did something stupid was mischievous,
probably deliberately so since I was able to obtain and understand the
draft quite easily.

I agree, if what I wrote is not correct than I am at fault and apologies for
unintentionally having posted a misleading reply. It was my understanding
that the entire purpose was to provide a redress for cyclists and
pedestrians injured in accidents without reference to the actual
circumstances of the incident. It seems incredible that some countries have
such unfair third party insurance laws, I assume they were to change to our
system and we to adopt the presumption of liability?

Could you point me to an Internet resource for this please?

Sniper8052

Quoted message said:

I heard it was to be considered in this country. At the time I was dead
against it as it sounded completely unfair to assume one party was always to
be at fault.

It was never intended to presume *fault*, no matter what the Daily Wail would
have had the public believe. It was simply making sure that the onus was on
those of us who happen to be driving to be more careful than many a motorist is
at present. If the cyclist/pedestrian was at fault, then the motorist would
still be able to claim such & persue such if wanted. What it did was ensure
that the more vulnerable road users had greater protection in the event of an
"accident"

Cheers, helen s

--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--

Thanks Helen,
Guy has pointed out I am in error but you have clarified it more succinctly.
I have asked Guy to point me in the right direction to learn more about
this. Ta anyway.

--
Sniper8052

Quoted message said:

Thanks Helen,
Guy has pointed out I am in error but you have clarified it more succinctly.
I have asked Guy to point me in the right direction to learn more about
this. Ta anyway.

Most welcome. Probably the only time in my life I'll ever be described as
putting something more succinctly ;-)

Cheers, helen s

--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--

Sniper8052 said:

Quoted message said:

Representing the directive as being primarily about putting the blame
on drivers when cyclists did something stupid was mischievous,
probably deliberately so since I was able to obtain and understand the
draft quite easily.

Quoted message said:

I agree, if what I wrote is not correct than I am at fault and apologies for
unintentionally having posted a misleading reply.

None needed. The misleading was doen by the press, and quite possibly
with deliberately mischievous intent.

Quoted message said:

It was my understanding
that the entire purpose was to provide a redress for cyclists and
pedestrians injured in accidents without reference to the actual
circumstances of the incident.

Which is what the Daily Mail wanted you to think :-)

Quoted message said:

Could you point me to an Internet resource for this please?

Um. The link I had seems to have died. EU Fifth Insurance Directive
- I'll have another look this evening.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Just zis Guy said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Was there not a bit of a hoo-har a while back about some pending
(EU?) ruling which was planned to place a presumption of fault on the
driver of a motor vehicle that was involved in an accident with
pedestrians or cyclists? What's happened to that?

Quoted message said:

One country does have a law like that - I think it's Switzerland.

I believe several do, including Holland.

France has such a law. Any accident between a car and a cyclist is the fault
of the motorist, even if the cyclist was doing something very stupid.

EFR
Ile de France
who tries not to do very stupid things but is still terrified on the road.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Elisa Francesca Roselli said:

France has such a law. Any accident between a car and a cyclist is the fault
of the motorist, even if the cyclist was doing something very stupid.

s/fault/responsibility/ and that makes sense. It may still be the
fault of the cyclist.

--
Nick Kew

you know? said:

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:48:12 +0100, Sue White <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

Quoted message said:

Was there not a bit of a hoo-har a while back about some pending
(EU?) ruling which was planned to place a presumption of fault on the
driver of a motor vehicle that was involved in an accident with
pedestrians or cyclists? What's happened to that?

Quoted message said:

One country does have a law like that - I think it's Switzerland.

I believe several do, including Holland.

Does it include France? I cycled around Dieppe in the summer and was
amazed at how well the drivers behaved themselves around cyclists
there compared to here.

Andrew Richardson [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

Does it include France? I cycled around Dieppe in the summer and was
amazed at how well the drivers behaved themselves around cyclists
there compared to here.

Something to do with having a country which respects cyclists, rather
than looking down on them as inferior for not driving cars.

Jon

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:40:24 +0100, Andrew Richardson
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Does it include France? I cycled around Dieppe in the summer and was
amazed at how well the drivers behaved themselves around cyclists
there compared to here.

I think French motorists have always regarded cyclists as having some
kind of right to be there, which distinguishes them from British
drivers :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Quoted message said:

I think French motorists have always regarded cyclists as having some
kind of right to be there, which distinguishes them from British
drivers :-)

Guy

I think so to a large extent. Everytime I've cycled in France it's been lovely.
Motorists do appear to be genuinely more courteous to cyclists, giving a wider
berth than often is the case when I cycle over here. Even the Paris rush hour
was a doddle to cycle in.

Cheers, helen s

--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--

On 22 Oct 2004 16:49:27 GMT, [email hidden]

(dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) said:

Quoted message said:

I think French motorists have always regarded cyclists as having some
kind of right to be there, which distinguishes them from British
drivers :-)

Quoted message said:

I think so to a large extent. Everytime I've cycled in France it's been lovely.
Motorists do appear to be genuinely more courteous to cyclists, giving a wider
berth than often is the case when I cycle over here. Even the Paris rush hour
was a doddle to cycle in.

Hi Helen

This reminds me a little of a programme I saw a while ago about
cancer-sufferer Jane Tomlinson and her cycle trip through several
countries in mainland Europe.

Having cycled from Rome to Calais (I think), it was only when she hit
British soil that she and her cycling partners were treated badly,
sworn at etc.

James