CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Getting children to school

(64 posts)

No tags yet.


123

  1. minus six
    Member

    If we are to pursue this line we have to accept that in every circumstance all possibilities are reasonably foreseeable and steps can be taken to avoid those possibilities or at least to minimise their impact.

    Aye, but this only applies on a personal level of responsibility - you are unreasonably extending it to apply in law.

    A few years back i was left hooked by a boy racer at a junction on Lanark Road, and I came off the bike as he had poorly misjudged my rate of progress.

    The driver was fully at fault, but privately in my own mind i had to accept personal responsibility for allowing the situation to arise, by neglecting to take primary when approaching the junction.

    Its a common enough scenario but there can be no grounds for contributory negligence in law.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  2. gembo
    Member

    Good to see the massive drift in this thread and none of it caused by me, so far

    Posted 12 years ago #

  3. Instography
    Member

    Why would it not extend to law? There have already been a number of attempts to reduce the compensation paid to cyclists on the grounds that they contributed to the extent of their injuries by failing to take mitigating action like wearing a helmet.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  4. Blueth
    Member

    There must be hundreds of Law Reports to show that Contributory Negligence is an established principle.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  5. minus six
    Member

    Why would it not extend to law?

    We were disagreeing on whether you coming off your bike on snowy ground was an "accident".

    You kicked the can way down the road by introducing a subsequent courtroom type scenario determining who, if anyone, was responsible for that.

    I'm saying that you were responsible for that.

    I'm not saying that you'd be responsible for the motorist who then ran you over, thereafter.

    Neither would I expect a court of law to do so.

    But i concede that they probably would.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  6. minus six
    Member

    @Blueth

    i was referring specifically to contributory negligence being inappropriate with regard to my incident with the boy racer.

    anyway, can't we just get back to discussing insto's exploitation of small children for personal gain?

    i dunno, back then it just seemed like happier days..

    Posted 12 years ago #

  7. Min
    Member

    How is it "personal gain"? Small children are the ones getting disproportionally wiped out and few people seem to care as it is adults who do not want to give up the convenience of car transport. We are the ones who should be standing up for them, not keeping quiet about it.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  8. Min
    Member

    In fact it is not even a question of "just" deaths and injuries. Children are also disproportionally affected by not being allowed out to play, to not be allowed to go to school or anywhere on their own because the roads are too dangerous.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  9. minus six
    Member

    I was joking, naturally.. which seemed self-evident.

    I'm 100% in favour of "exploiting" children in this way.

    It certainly forced Fife Council to take Instography seriously in their replies.

    Its difficult having stilted discussions on a forum, as if you were engaged in banter down the pub.. the tone of it all gets lost in translation.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  10. Min
    Member

    Hmm, yes the stiltedness is what does it. I am not necessarily able to remember who said what over the last few days or to want to reread the entire thread before posting in order to put each post into context.

    As you were!

    Posted 12 years ago #

  11. SRD
    Moderator

    What min said - all three posts.

    Pretty sure I had trouble remember what you had said previously cause I don't know how to pronounce your username - any suggestions?

    Posted 12 years ago #

  12. minus six
    Member

    I don't know how to pronounce your username - any suggestions?

    the artist formerly known as bax

    Posted 12 years ago #

  13. Dave
    Member

    The important part of contributory negligence is the second word, not the first. If you happen to go to the bank and are shot by a bank robber you certainly *contributed* to your injury by going to the bank whereafter a robbery occurred (doubly so, because you could have been wearing a precautionary bulletproof vest).

    However, with respect to the activity of bank robbers, it's not *negligent* to go to the bank without body armour (or indeed, just go to the bank at all).

    The grey margin is where things get interesting. It's common knowledge that taking primary position prevents many instances of dangerous overtaking, so it's not impossible to make the argument that failure to do so is contributory negligence. On the other hand, taking primary position annoys drivers and you might be hit in a road-rage attack (in which case, adopting primary position could be argued as contributory negligence).

    Nowhere is this better illustrated than the truck drivers who turn left over the top of people who are clearly visible in basic safety mirrors. Which way around do you prefer the situation to be stated? The truck driver should have looked in the mirror VS the cyclist should not have been in such a position that they relied on the driver using those mirrors.

    etc etc.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  14. minus six
    Member

    isn't the HGV argument commonly applied at a stationary junction where the cyclist has filtered up unseen from behind

    whereas a left hook collision from an "overtaking" motorist -- open and shut case, regardless of primary, shurely?

    Posted 12 years ago #

  15. Instography
    Member

    So what was negligent about falling over in the snow?

    Posted 12 years ago #

  16. minus six
    Member

    you seem to view this as either accident or negligent.

    i say neither. you're just responsible for the action.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  17. Instography
    Member

    Responsible in what sense?

    Posted 12 years ago #

  18. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    If you're 'responsible' then it must be through an act or omission, and if it wasn't a 'deliberate' act or omission to fall then there must have been, at some level, negligence by the person so acting or omitting? Responsibility with no action seems an odd concept.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  19. Instography
    Member

    Or responsible just for being there, in the snow, on a bicycle. Which, if you'll pardon the pun, strikes me as a dangerous slippery slope to 'just asking for it'.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  20. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Indeed. Which brings us back to not wearing hi-viz or a helmet making someone partially responsible for not being seen or having a head injury (both of which, as has been mentioned, do have previous for use as contributory negligence attempts).

    "The driver was fully at fault, but privately in my own mind i had to accept personal responsibility for allowing the situation to arise, by neglecting to take primary when approaching the junction."

    So contributory negligence on your part?

    Posted 12 years ago #

  21. minus six
    Member

    You decided that your aim was to make progress through the snow on your bicycle, and you are responsible for the success or otherwise of that.

    You are also responsible for determining what success or negligence means in relation to this.

    There's no one else involved here. No outside agency. Its personal responsibility, and its up to you to decide if your bruised hip was due to your own negligence.

    This argument started over the definition of the term "accident". My contention is that people routinely use the term to avoid taking personal responsibility for their actions, because the action was "unintentional".

    Posted 12 years ago #

  22. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Something we've already agreed to disagree on.

    But as you say, the can was then kicked further down the road, and you then, you have to admit, maintained that kicking, so...

    "The driver was fully at fault, but privately in my own mind i had to accept personal responsibility for allowing the situation to arise, by neglecting to take primary when approaching the junction.

    Its a common enough scenario but there can be no grounds for contributory negligence in law."

    Given your love of semantics as professed on the first pages... You say you were partly 'responsible' and contributed to the situation having acted 'negligently', and yet claim there is no legal 'contributory negligence'. I'm not sure I follow.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  23. minus six
    Member

    contributory negligence on your part?

    absolutely not.

    i had every right to be on the road in the position i was in.

    contributory negligence is strictly a legal term. it doesn't apply to my private sense of personal responsibility.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  24. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945

    "Where any person suffers damage as the result partly of his own fault and partly of the fault of any other person or persons, a claim in respect of that damage shall not be defeated by reason of the fault of the person suffering the damage, but the damages recoverable in respect thereof shall be reduced to such extent as the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the claimant’s share in the responsibility for the damage"

    Doesn't matter if it's just a 'private sense of personal responsibility' (and indeed if you were asked in court if you thought you were personally responable you would be perjuring yourself if you then said no). If the other side were to raise this as a possibility and asked you if you thought you were partly at fault due to your road positiniong not controlling the situation...

    Posted 12 years ago #

  25. minus six
    Member

    If the other side were to raise this as a possibility and asked you if you thought you were partly at fault due to your road positiniong not controlling the situation

    well we're narrowing it down, here.. and you're closing in for the win.

    but your legal argument holds no water for me. i'd have no moral problem in denying my road positioning was at fault.

    from a third party perspective, my road positioning was not negligent. it was lawful and expected.

    my sense of responsibility here is entirely my own.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  26. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    "my sense of responsibility here is entirely my own"

    Trust me, nothing about 'narrowing' anything down to 'close in for a win'. It's just this statement is wrong in terms of any legal proceedings. It could quite easily get raised in court by an opposing side as a contributory factor. You yourself have said you 'neglected' to cycle in a way to control matters, and yet you're saying when you are asked directly if you 'neglected' in that way you would happily lie in court despite knowing you did.

    "from a third party perspective, my road positioning was not negligent"

    You can say for definite that the third party would think this?

    Posted 12 years ago #

  27. Darkerside
    Member

    I have no idea what happened to this thread, but on the previous page someone mentioned something about colour perception. xkcd did a survey where users were shown a colour (on screen) and asked to name it. 5 million colours later, you get some weird information on colour perception.

    Worth a read.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  28. minus six
    Member

    You can say for definite that the third party would think this?

    my road positioning is lawful and expected.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  29. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    This is getting nowhere. I'll politely withdraw.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  30. minus six
    Member

    It all seems very straightforward to me.

    I have private dialogue on the incident where i can ascribe personal responsibility for my road positioning, which will help me to avoid such incidents in future.

    The idea that i would do the same in a courtroom, like an innocent babe in the wood, seems preposterous.

    The law is an ass.

    Posted 12 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

123

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin