Web directory, archive
Search web-archive-uk.com:

Find domain in archive system:
web-archive-uk.com » UK » C » CYCLECRAFT.CO.UK

Total: 47

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Liverpool
    claimant failed to wear a cycle helmet and failed to wear fluorescent or conspicuous clothing Each side obtained expert evidence which was served in the early part of 1999 pursuant to the directions order The claimant relied on Dr Nigel Mills who has vast experience in helmets having been amongst other things the chairman of the British Standards Institution committee for motorcycle helmets in January 1994 and a member of the umbrella committee which oversees all helmet committees He concluded that there is no legal requirement to wear a helmet helmets are less effective when a cyclist hits a vehicle than when he simply hits the road and helmets do not eliminate injury serious brain injury is quite common when cyclists are hit a glancing blow by a vehicle as distinct from a direct collision the site of the impact on the right side of the face would not have been protected by a helmet the claimant s head injury was due to the right side of his face hitting the road and a helmet would not have reduced his injuries a report in 1994 found that most cyclists do not wear helmets The defendant obtained a report from Mr Kevin Clinton a project manager in the road safety department of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents RoSPA His 26 page report which dealt with the background history in relation to helmets and cycling clothing appeared to support the proposition that in 1996 it was negligent not to wear a helmet when cycling and that it was also negligent to wear inconspicuous clothing In June 1999 the defendant s solicitors offered to settle the claim which is likely to be very substantial at 80 of full liability on the basis that the claimant was himself 20 to blame We rejected the offer and it was followed by a Part 36 offer in August 1999 that the defendant would accept 90 the claimant being responsible to the extent of 10 That offer also was rejected As cyclists helmets and cyclists clothing are potentially contentious and difficult issues many people might have been persuaded to settle particularly bearing in mind the financial pressures on privately paying clients involved in substantial litigation Two days before trial in a skeleton argument which was not received by anyone on the claimant s side until the morning of trial the defendant abandoned the allegation of failure to wear conspicuous clothing At 10 25am on the morning of trial the Judge having expressed the view that he wanted to start promptly at 10 30am the defendant abandoned the helmet issue The Judge His Honour Judge Rogers QC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge commented that it was not surprising that those allegations should be abandoned However the claimant s wife his litigation friend was Like most claimants who have never before been exposed to the process of civil justice she had no idea that brinkmanship operated to such an extent in litigation concerning the

    Original URL path: http://cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/liverpool.html (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Cycle helmets: other references
    concerning a bicycle helmet law La Commission de l aménagement et des équipements de l Assemblée nationale de Québec j1027 Increasing bicycle helmet effectiveness what changes are needed j1003 Web sites Sites actively promoting helmet use Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute USA Sites sceptical about helmet benefits Cyclists Rights Action Group Australia European Cyclists Federation International Pro Choice Bicycle Helmet Coalition includes long list of references Ontario Coalition for Better Cycling Canada Miscellaneous papers Three lessons for a better cycling future Malcolm Wardlaw BMJ 23 December 2000 The following papers can be accessed via the CRAG web site Bicycle helmets and the mechanics of head injuries j988 Discouragement of cycling and effects on welfare j1018 Helmet law results j1017 Helmets law beaten in the Australian Capital Territory j1019 Medical doctors and the compulsory helmets law j1020 Review of evidence of the efficacy of helmets for cyclists j989 Helmets for cars would save lives j978 The following papers can be accessed via the OCBC web site 1989 Ontario health survey relative risk of cycling injuries j1015 Bicycle helmets frequently asked questions j990 Coroner report on Toronto cyclist fatalities 1986 1996 j1010 Helmet propaganda reviewed February 1996 j995 No to helmet legislation j1011

    Original URL path: http://cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/other.html (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Crashes to be recorded by the Police
    g where a vehicle runs out of control while on the highway and causes casualties elsewhere b Accidents involving the boarding and alighting of buses or coaches and accidents in which passengers already aboard a bus coach are injured whether or not another vehicle or a pedestrian is involved c Accidents to pedal cyclists including where the pedal cyclists injure themselves or a pedestrian d Accidents resulting from deliberate acts

    Original URL path: http://cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/stats19.html (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Sec 170 RTA 1988
    on fixed to growing in or otherwise forming part of the land on which the road in question is situated or land adjacent to such land 2 The driver of the mechanically propelled vehicle must stop and if required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring give his name and address and also the name and address of the owner and the identification marks of the vehicle 3 If for any reason the driver of the mechanically propelled vehicle does not give his name and address under subsection 2 above he must report the accident 4 A person who fails to comply with subsection 2 or 3 above is guilty of an offence 5 If in a case where this section applies by virtue of subsection 1 a above the driver of a motor vehicle does not at the time of the accident produce such a certificate of insurance or security or other evidence as is mentioned in section 165 2 of this Act a to a constable or b to some person who having reasonable grounds for so doing has required him to produce it the driver must report the accident and produce such a certificate or other evidence This subjection does not apply to the driver of an invalid carriage 6 To comply with a duty under this section to report an accident or to produce such a certificate of insurance or security or other evidence as is mentioned in section 165 2 a of certificate of insurance or security or other evidence as is mentioned in section 165 2 a of this Act the driver a must do so at a police station or to a constable and b must do so as soon as is reasonably practicable and in any case

    Original URL path: http://cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/rta170.html (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Pushing bicycles on public footpaths
    the offence would therefore be if someone pushing a bicycle were deemed to be riding it More significantly there is clear authority for the proposition that section 72 of the Highways Act 1835 only applies to footpaths which run along the side of a road R v Pratt 1867 3 QBD 64 followed in Selby v DPP 1994 RTR 157 In his judgment in Pratt Mellor J states It is clear what the object of this enactment i e Section 72 Highways Act 1835 was it was intended not to protect footpaths simpliciter but only footpaths or causeways by the side of a road This interpretation was accepted by the Court of Appeal in Selby a case which concerned a motorcyclist sitting astride a motorcycle and freewheeling down an alleyway which linked two roads but did not itself run alongside a road In delivering judgment in the Court of Appeal Henry J said It is clear from R v Pratt that they i e the Magistrates in this case were bound to find that the alleyway in question did not constitute a footpath and their finding on that point was quite right Finally there is clear judicial authority for the proposition that anyone pushing a bicycle is a foot passenger Crank v Brooks 1980 RTR 441 and is not riding it Selby In his judgment in the Court of Appeal in Crank v Brooks Waller LJ stated In my judgment a person who is walking across a pedestrian crossing pushing a bicycle having started on the pavement on one side on her feet and not on the bicycle and going across pushing the bicycle with both feet on the ground so to speak is clearly a foot passenger If for example she had been using it as a scooter by

    Original URL path: http://cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/pushing.html (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Blank
    cycle paths accompanied by adults Cyclists without helmets were more often black or other races riding alone on city streets D Robinson M McCarthy The control population had a helmet wearing rate nearly 7 times greater than that confirmed by a concurrent study for children in the Seattle area as a whole See Head Injuries and Bicycle Helmet Laws D Robinson The same methodology can be used on other data

    Original URL path: http://cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/seattle.html (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • International Classification of Disease ninth edition ICD9 and are selected using ICD9 codes E810 E825 E800 E807 E8261 Head injuries have been selected using ICD9 codes for secondary cause of death N800 N804 N850 N854 N870 N873 Year Number of deaths 1979 177 1980 169 1981 103 1982 157 1983 160 1984 186 1985 154 1986 148 1987 156 1988 131 1989 132 1990 127 1991 120 1992 98 1993

    Original URL path: http://cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/headfatals.html (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive

web-archive-uk.com, 2016-10-23