3 cheers for Kris Holm and Bell helmets

Re: 3 cheers for Kris Holm and Bell helmets

On Mon, 16 May 2005, Loosemoose <> wrote:
>
> > You’re wrong.
>
> Well thanks for being so concise. On being told I was wrong however, I
> decided to google for it.

And found that you were indeed wrong?

> > No. There is no such law in teh UK.
>
> Maybe not at the moment, this is what confused me however: I had assumed
> this was already the case, but it seems it may have been repealed before
> coming into force: ‘Euro Cycle Laws Fury’ (http://tinyurl.com/dw88b)
> Same Story, BBC News: ‘Blame it on the driver’
> (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2097872.stm)

Nope. That was all idiot journalists whipping up ‘fury’ about
something that simply wasn’t true. The amendment to europe-wide
insurance laws was to establish an initial liability for purposes of
initial payment of claims, before fault was decided.

There never was any proposal that fault would always be judged to lie
with the car driver - it was still within the rights of the car driver
(or his insurance company) to sue the cyclist to demonstrate fault and
recover all costs from teh cyclist if teh courts agreed that teh
cyclist really was at fault. This was no change - since very few
cyclists are insured my motor insurers (obviously), that’s exactly
what they would have done before anyway - they’d have had to sue teh
cyclist to recover teh costs arising from teh incident. All the law
amendment proposed was that in teh meantime, before fault was
determined, teh insurance company should pay immediately arising
costs.

The reason you haven’t heard anything further is not because that part
of teh law was repealed, but because the law never said what the
(predominantly tabloid) press claimed it did. If they’d explained it
properly, it wouldn’t have sold newspapers.

regards, Ian SMith

Re: 3 cheers for Kris Holm and Bell helmets

On Mon, 16 May, GILD <> wrote:
>
> interesting, the last ‘Ian Smith’ (http://tinyurl.com/arpy9) i knew of
> also didn’t like the UK-laws all that much either…

It’s not that I don’t like UK law, it’s that teh reported UK law
simply isn’t. It does not exist.

regards, Ian SMith

Thanks Ian, Its always nice to have something explained to you properly. And yes, I admit I was wrong.

Loose.

wow.

Just one thing,is a “windscreen” a window?

I believe the Americanism is ‘windshield’ i.e the window at the front of the car.

Dave

Windshield…thats sorta what I figured.

I lent my Coker to my mate the other day, and the fucker broke it!!! he said he got hit by a car doing 30. At this point i said “how come my uni’s broken and you’re not?” he said it was his helmet, but that seemed to be in one piece as well! it’s a crying shame, but i’ve still got my Schlumpf so i’m happy.
Cheers Kit A.K.A MrBoogiejuice

Pete.

sorry i was on as Mrcokerbraker in the last post.
Pete.

Not so. Cyclists may be deemed to have been at fault- either totaly or partly. When I got squashed by a lorry some years back the level of compensation the drivers insurance co paid me was not very high because it was deemed 40% my fault. I had overtaken on the inside, and the driver turned left with out indicating.

1 broken and permently crooked pelvis, 3 weeks in hospital, one squashed bike, one ruined A level. Partly my own fault.

Sarah

what exactly is the damage to the Coker?

sarah, it sounds as tho u got a bit of a raw deal
passing on the inside seems par for the course for b*cycles in an urban environement
and his not indicating entirely caused the accident
even if u weren’t overtaking but were simply riding there, u would still have been squashed since u had no indication that he was about to turn

But that doesn’t work. Having no indication that the lorry would turn also means no indication that it would not turn. Being unable to see the indicators puts the cyclist in the position of assuming the lorry will continue to go straight.

In other words, being much smaller and not-armored, it is necessary from a survival point of view to assume the worst when possible. This is in conflict with getting places in good time, hence carries risks.

That said, 40% seems a bit lame with the extent of your injuries. I’m sure the lorry wasn’t very damaged…

wouldn’t riding next to the lorry still put u in a position from where u can see the front indicator?

anyway, it’s after the fact and your comment about being the smaller, unarmoured part of the equation is pretty much the final word on the issue

Glad you’re okay. Falling sucks. It seems to me that neither person is to blame in your case, in which I see no reason for either of you to pay for the other’s expenses.

I just thought I’d mention I too am glad to have a helmet. Yesterday I was riding my bike and me feet slipped off the pedals as I upshifted to speed up. My wheel hit a pothole while I had no feet on the pedals and one hand on the handlebars. Needless to say I ate it. Lucky for me I was a block from the UCSF emergency room and the car behind me stopped. It struck me how happy all the doctors were to see that I had a helmet on at the time. Made me wonder how many they see who weren’t wearing helmets…