Arch
Married to Night Train
- Location
- Salford, UK
Nigeyy said:
Has anyone bothered to read Uncle Phil's explanation of the actual facts since he posted it?
your fault law
- Thread starter stephenjubb
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Has anyone bothered to read Uncle Phil's explanation of the actual facts since he posted it?
It's not blanket blaming all motorists for accidents that involve car vs something else higher up the vurnerability pecking order. It is a principle saying that if you have a collision with a vurnerable road user we're going to take this into account and the onus is on you not to have the collision and if there is one we'll be asking more questions than the (virtually zero) at the moment.
A lot of the discussions seem to focus on ninjas. If there were a more formalised arrangement such as this law I suspect what would happen would be healthy for both sides. The ninjas would get a telling off from the police and the other side instead of the ranting and raving would get told well it's not totally your fault but you must look out for these vurnerable groups. People ringing up their insurance companies and having the reply that it's their fault unless they can demonstrate otherwise would also be a big attitude changer.
I've not had a collision fortunately (a lot of near misses with cars) but I get the impression from a lot of them that had there been a collision they'd have just driven off anyway. I also find the attitude of many drivers at night a lot to be desired.
A lot of the discussions seem to focus on ninjas. If there were a more formalised arrangement such as this law I suspect what would happen would be healthy for both sides. The ninjas would get a telling off from the police and the other side instead of the ranting and raving would get told well it's not totally your fault but you must look out for these vurnerable groups. People ringing up their insurance companies and having the reply that it's their fault unless they can demonstrate otherwise would also be a big attitude changer.
I've not had a collision fortunately (a lot of near misses with cars) but I get the impression from a lot of them that had there been a collision they'd have just driven off anyway. I also find the attitude of many drivers at night a lot to be desired.
U
User169
Guest
Arch said:
Steady on Arch - facts? Whatever next.
I shall be careful on my way home tonight to avoid all of the cyclists throwing themselves under cars so that they can claim on the drivers' insurance. As you might imagine, this is oh so very common.
Arch
Married to Night Train
- Location
- Salford, UK
Delftse Post said:
Well, yes, I gather the whole continent is littered with them...
Nigeyy
Legendary Member
- Location
- Massachusetts, USA
Guilty as charged m'lud (c'mon, what are boards for anyway? 
. I went to the web site and read it, didn't read the rest of the thread. However, reading Uncle Phil's further clarification, it sounds like "guilty until proven innocent" for an automobile driver (if I'm interpreting it correctly.)
I think I'd still rather be presumed innocent first!
. I went to the web site and read it, didn't read the rest of the thread. However, reading Uncle Phil's further clarification, it sounds like "guilty until proven innocent" for an automobile driver (if I'm interpreting it correctly.)I think I'd still rather be presumed innocent first!
Arch said:
I'd be really happy for this law. If I hit a cyclist or pedestrian in the car it's absolutely right that my driving should be questioned to the nth degree even if it's not "my fault". I think it'd have the added bonus of getting rid of all the ninja whingers who just offer up excuses for their poor driving at night.
