zenie said:
What if the accident isn't your fault?
the thing is if you don't use the faculities it will be assumed that you are at fault by default as you had an alternative which would have caused no action.
In essence this is correct i mean if i stab myself in the leg with a knife i should accept that it's my fault for misusing the knife not the manicafuters for make a product which was capable of implaing my leg... however the concern is i assume that this will be used as a get out clause not only for insurence compaines (and let's face it they hardley need the advantage or further get out clauses) or by negligent and careless drivers as a way of excusing the poor driving habits which were a greater contributory factor.
However, as usual the more reactionary cycling lobby, are being sanctimonious and also knee jerk in their reaction. the simple fact of the matter is that previous cases under current law show that the "contributory negligence" ascpets are already enforced in a manner which is applicable to the situation. In the case they use to justify their hysteria the parents were being negligent in allowing a 9 year old child out on the road on a bike with out a helmet, few, other than it appears the hysterical, would disagree with this; therefore there was contributory negligence involved in the accident. sadly of course this doesn't help the boy but compensation is not about financal reward or betterment, nor should it be seen as such.
in reality in terms of contributory negligence you rarely get cases of other forms of motoring claims which is exucsed by the insurence compaines which says well if the driver of the vechial our client crashed into had been more enviromentally friendly then they would have been ona bus and our client wouldn't have hit their car...
what you do get is split negligence claims and attributed negligence where there is a case of it being 6 of one and half a dozen of the other, which in fairness if most road traffic accidents...
Cycleists are more vunerable and therefore will normally come off worse in accidents as a result regardless of the culpability; drivers are painfully unaware of things on two wheels or even on why other drivers who do notice things on two wheels move out to allow them some room; this new legislation does nothing to reduce the responsiblity for all road users to beaware of the enviroment they find themselves in.
It does however, place responsiblity on cyclists shoulders for their actions, something which previously has not been addressed except by the legislation of darwin.
put simply if you are hit by and arsehole driver on the road next to a cycle lane minding your own beeswax the driver will still pay, if you run a red light or pop a wheelie of the pavement into oncoming traffic and get swiped then you will be held liable when you are hit...
I would have thoguht this appeals to all sensible car drivers and cyclists, and will only affect the minority of poor cycleists and the increaseing majority of bad drivers...
I see it as a benifit....
I didnt see a link or anything?
