Actions & Consequences?

TheCrow

TheCrow

TheCrow

Associate
Joined
12 Mar 2005
Posts
2,021
Location
Scotland
In reference to: BBC Link should your consequences void you of responsibilities of you actions?

I think if it was a car (had insurance) they would still have pursued for damages, just because he is a cyclist I dont see why he isn't responsible for the damages? (looks like he is getting used to playing that disability card quick enough)

Obv the story dont mention if he was 100% responsible for the crash but there is no indication of another party being involved. Maybe I just in a mean mood and lacking sympathy?
 
I think it sounds unfair that other council tax payers should pay for repairs that one man necessitated - he should pay for repairs in my view. I don't care whether he's injured or not, he still did it - why does injury negate responsibility? I don't think it should.

That is, of course, assuming that it was his fault - If it turns out the council had sprayed ice on the road in front of them, or he had to swerve to avoid a car or something then it's less clear cut. Ultimately, whoever caused the damage needs to pay - be that unobservant cyclist, or dangerous car driver. I don't care if they're injured or not, and why should I?
 
TheCrow said:
just because he is a cyclist I dont see why he isn't responsible for the damages? (looks like he is getting used to playing that disability card quick enough)
Click to expand...

yes, ok. he's lost the ability to walk because of a tragic accident, let's bill him for the damaged he caused, shall we? that will make him feel on top of the world!

someone has to pay but it shouldn't be him, it should be from the maintenance pot of the council tax fund that his parents have probably paid into for decades.
 
Isn't the point of councils and tax to pay for incidents like this (aswell as the obvious, schools hotpitals etc etc) If it was delibarate then fair enough someone should fork out, but judging by the article it was accidental, so I think the council should be responsible.
 
Council wasn't at fault, why shouldn't he pay? :confused:

If I got into a car accident that was my fault, was paralysed as a result and killed the other driver, should the family of the other driver not be able to sue me because 'I've paid enough'?
 
Theophany said:
Council wasn't at fault, why shouldn't he pay? :confused:

If I got into a car accident that was my fault, was paralysed as a result and killed the other driver, should the family of the other driver not be able to sue me because 'I've paid enough'?
Click to expand...

As long as you and the other driver are insured then technically you have already paid

**edit** and i just merged two posts together somehow, misread sorry :P
 
Theophany said:
Council wasn't at fault, why shouldn't he pay? :confused:

If I got into a car accident that was my fault, was paralysed as a result and killed the other driver, should the family of the other driver not be able to sue me because 'I've paid enough'?
Click to expand...

I guess it is compulsory insurance for riding a bike then. I can see that being popular.
 
Seriously assuming it was a accident , then that's what it is a ACCIDENT! Councils budget for this sort of thing. Good grief the councils make enough mistakes themselves and they don't pay!:p

Sorry got a bit political there :rolleyes:
 
meghatronic said:
Of course he should pay. Assuming a car driver would be expected to.
Click to expand...

TheCrow said:
So you(we) should pay instead?
Click to expand...

Theophany said:
Council wasn't at fault, why shouldn't he pay? :confused:

If I got into a car accident that was my fault, was paralysed as a result and killed the other driver, should the family of the other driver not be able to sue me because 'I've paid enough'?
Click to expand...

Jesus H christ!

Are we so bereft of sympathy for our fellow man and have turned into a nation of bean counters that we aren't even willing to cut someone who is permanently disabled some slack!

I mean, cmon, how much would it cost each person in that council to fix the railing - probably not even 5p?

Some people make me ***** sick.
 
How many pedestrians have you heard of being prosecuted after being the cause of an accident involving a motor car?
For that matter, how many pedestrians ( other than maybe young men) have you heard of being prosected for walking on roads in a way that causes danger to other road users?

The law is very strict with motorists but allows pedestrians and cyclists to behave irresponsibly anmd get away without paying when they cause damage, injury and motor accidents and as usual, the tax payer or insurance company are the losers!
 
Theophany said:
Council wasn't at fault, why shouldn't he pay? :confused:

If I got into a car accident that was my fault, was paralysed as a result and killed the other driver, should the family of the other driver not be able to sue me because 'I've paid enough'?
Click to expand...

totally different scenario mate. no one else was involved, no other person got hurt or killed, some railings got damaged as a result of what seems to be an accident and the guy who caused the accident ended up paralysed. so in this instance no1 with an ounce of common sense or fair play should expect a guy who ends up paralysed to pay for accidental damage.

as already said, the poor ****** has paid the price already
 
If it was an accident he shouldnt have to pay
If it was someone elses fault he shouldnt have to pay
If it was his fault he MUST pay.

Lets say he was drunk, should we pay for damage he did? If he tried to scale the wall of a prison and got paralysed whilst drunk he should have to pay for damage done to barbed wire etc. It was his own fault he was drunk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom