Donate SIGN UP

Answers

21 to 37 of 37rss feed

First Previous 1 2

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
To be fair Fred we're not playing the game

The question was meant to be met with oputrageous indignation at 'soft touch judges' along with a number of hand-wringing liberals who could then be dismissed by the 'right thinking' majority.

A balanced and considered set of opinions based on evidence was not I think part of the plan!
Yes AP

I do think a cyclist must take *some* of the blame for that a smoker must take some of the blame for developing lung cancer.

The logic is that which is applied when the person who is killed or injured in a car when they are not wearing a seat belt. The damages are substantially reduced because their failure is regarded as contributory negligence.
As a keen cyclist who's had a few near misses with idiot motorists (one posted on here recently) I still feel it ought to be made law that cyclists wear helmets, full stop.
I'd also like to see a lot more fines handed out for those who choose to ride without lights (when conditions require them) in an oblivious manner.

You can pick up a set from Poundland, is your own life really not worth a quid?
I think that's outrageous JTP, to compare someone's scuzzy addiction to nicotine with choosing a non-polluting form of transport - what the fucknicular!
Statistically 70% of collisions involving motorists and cyclists are WHOLLY the motorists' fault. IMO crash helmets for cyclists should be subsidised by the motorist.
BTW I am a motorist and a cyclist.
I suppose you think they should pay road tax too! (?)
Arriving late I have read and re-read the BBC links from both jim360 and Tora.

Can someone please explain:

McCourt had previously been found guilty in 1986 of causing another cyclist's death by reckless driving.

He was jailed for two years after cyclist George Dalgity, 22, a student from Edinburgh, was killed while he cycled along the city's Regent Road on 18 October 1995.

Took a long time to get him to court.
Question Author
As far as I'm aware helmets are not a legal requirement for cycling. On the basis that most seem to be arguing here, if you are killed by a motorist not using due care and attention you are at fault unless you happen to be wearing suitable body protection. I went out walking yesterday without my kevlar UXB suit, still if I get squashed it's my own fault guess!
/// He said the collision between McCourt and Mrs Fyfe was caused because he had "momentarily" lost concentration. ///

Oh so it should have been causing death for driving without do care and attention?

/// Sheriff Scott said: "I take into account that the accused has repeatedly expressed genuine remorse for causing the death of Mrs Fyfe. ///

Well he would wouldn't he, he was hardly going to say he couldn't care less was he?

/// "I take into account that the accused has been ill and has suffered from depression and that he displays signs of post-traumatic stress disorder. ///

Then he should have been on the road, especially having already served a jail sentence for killing someone else.

I agree with you ToraToraTora he should have gone to jail.
True, tora, helmets are not a legal requirement but then other failures or actions are held to be contributory negligence too, regardless of any rule, law or practice.
But look at the evidence, TTT.
If you're going to use the road you may as well take as many safety precautions as you can.
When I'm on the bike I have 2 red lights at the back (one constant, one flashing) and a flashing red on the back of my helmet.
I have the same set up on the front. They're small and unobtrusive but they do the job.
It's folly to use the road but not give yourself every safety option.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu4QzAIayTU
/I went out walking yesterday without my kevlar UXB suit, still if I get squashed it's my own fault guess! /

interesting ttt. are the pavements you use renowned for being places of pedestrian squashing?

In the same way that the roads are renowned as being places where cyclists frequently crash or are knocked off in heavy traffic?

Are other pedestrians already using Kevlar to prevent squashing?

Have a lot of experts on pedestrian safety recommended it or called for it to be made universally compulsory?

If not, your analogy is poor.
aog, the man was prosecuted for causing death by driving without due care and attention. Why did you put that he should have been?
^
Lack of concentration while in charge of a keyboard?
It's a tricky one AP. If you never lock your doors are you to blame for being burgled? No of course not, the thief is always 100% to blame.
Personally I always lock my doors though, because I know there are lots of thieves about.
ludwig, we must draw a distinction between contributory negligence, failing to do what a reasonable person would do,and insurance , failing to do what an unreasonable person, the insurer, would have you do or he won't pay up !
Suppose this had been a moped rider without a helmet , what would the thoughts be then?
Negligent, Eddie, but Sikh men are exempt from the legal requirement because they have to wear turbans. Now, it is an interesting question whether a Sikh claimant would be held to have contributory negligence. It might be thought a sensitive decision to make against him, though, perhaps, logically and legally valid.

21 to 37 of 37rss feed

First Previous 1 2

Do you know the answer?

Why Is This Lowlife Not In Jail?

Answer Question >>