Under presumed liability, you would be liable.
But, we are not under presumed liability in the UK.
Under presumed liability, you would be liable.
Would you? I though in absence of evidence to show otherwise you are liable. The OP could potentially provide evidence to prove otherwise (eg a witness).But, we are not under presumed liability in the UK.
I understand . but in al those tens of thousands of miles how many times has a pedestrian ran out in front of you
I understand. If a pedestrian runs ten feet into the road then I may collide with them. In several dozens of thousands of miles it's never happened.
But, we are not under presumed liability in the UK.
How do you know if your speeding? also there are no speed restrictions for non motorised vehiclesif she jumped out then im sure it would be her fault, if you were speeding or not well illuminated however im sure it would be your fault.
How do you know if your speeding? also there are no speed restrictions for non motorised vehicles
Only if you couldn't demonstrate why you're not! In a scenario like this, with multiple witnesses, that shouldn't be too difficult if so.Under presumed liability, you would be liable.
This sort of thing has been written at least twice but simply isn't true: those chain store discounts hurt local bike shops and often hurt cycling projects (because some of the chain stores don't pay into the Bike Hub project fund), plus BC rules force cyclists to wear helmets for more and more simple charity rides where they never used to, contrary to what its figurehead Chris Boardman says. If you really are pro-choice and don't have insurance as part of your household insurance, then LCC or CTC are much better choices as well as giving insurance.BC membership costs nothing and if you are anything like me you will more than get your money back with some of the discounts you get from Chain Reaction Evans etc.
Only if you couldn't demonstrate why you're not! In a scenario like this, with multiple witnesses, that shouldn't be too difficult if so.
That said, I treat stopped vans like blind corners and try to keep well away from them. Not a 100% solution, I know.
This sort of thing has been written at least twice but simply isn't true: those chain store discounts hurt local bike shops and often hurt cycling projects (because some of the chain stores don't pay into the Bike Hub project fund), plus BC rules force cyclists to wear helmets for more and more simple charity rides where they never used to, contrary to what its figurehead Chris Boardman says. If you really are pro-choice and don't have insurance as part of your household insurance, then LCC or CTC are much better choices as well as giving insurance.
So what have I written that's not true?Only if you couldn't demonstrate why you're not! In a scenario like this, with multiple witnesses, that shouldn't be too difficult if so.
That said, I treat stopped vans like blind corners and try to keep well away from them. Not a 100% solution, I know.
This sort of thing has been written at least twice but simply isn't true: those chain store discounts hurt local bike shops and often hurt cycling projects (because some of the chain stores don't pay into the Bike Hub project fund), plus BC rules force cyclists to wear helmets for more and more simple charity rides where they never used to, contrary to what its figurehead Chris Boardman says. If you really are pro-choice and don't have insurance as part of your household insurance, then LCC or CTC are much better choices as well as giving insurance.
I didn't say otherwise. However, BC's main discount is with a certain overpriced underserviced chain store.Chain Reaction aren't a chain store, an LBS with an online operation
But often they are and people don't bother to check because the above legend is repeated by BC members. My last two purchases were a kickstand that was 15% cheaper at the LBS than BC's preferred chain store (I checked afterwards) and a freewheel that was as cheap as online but I could pick it up today.LBSs aren't often competitively priced
Even so, I'm surprised you're pro-compulsion for everyone. Most people claim to be pro-choice.I wear a helmet so that ruling doesn't bother me.
Why are you sure of that? The BC officer responsible had ample chance to make that claim to me and did not do so. Some other BC events and events from other organisers have insurance without that. Anyway, let's stop dragging this too far off-topic: hopefully now everyone is aware of some drawbacks of BC membership.I'm sure it's a insurance criteria imposed on the organisers
This bit:So what have I written that's not true?
It costs us a lot - just maybe not money.BC membership costs nothing
I'm m not pro compulsion. I am pro choice, you can choose whether or not to take part in an event that requires a helmetI didn't say otherwise. However, BC's main discount is with a certain overpriced underserviced chain store.
But often they are and people don't bother to check because the above legend is repeated by BC members. My last two purchases were a kickstand that was 15% cheaper at the LBS than BC's preferred chain store (I checked afterwards) and a freewheel that was as cheap as online but I could pick it up today.
Even so, I'm surprised you're pro-compulsion for everyone. Most people claim to be pro-choice.
Why are you sure of that? The BC officer responsible had ample chance to make that claim to me and did not do so. Some other BC events and events from other organisers have insurance without that. Anyway, let's stop dragging this too far off-topic: hopefully now everyone is aware of some drawbacks of BC membership.