As far as I understand the laws (in Norway) the driver of the car is always responisble, simply becuse of the fact that (s)he's the "hard" part so (s)he's the one that hurts the "most".
Not really sure though, just got a feeling i've heard it and I'm always carefull when driving past cyclists becuse I know that a crash between me and them is more dangerous for them.
That is correct. The bigger vehicle has full responsibility, unless the smaller vehicle is in direct violation. This sort of thinking makes car owners pay f'ing attention when driving.
Well, continuing the off topic, and seeing february news are over anyways:
Here in Colombia, laws are laughable. Many many cyclists get hit by car and most of the time nothing happens to the driver. Moreover, quite frequently a drunk driver kills people and if he has the contacts, he won't get arrested for long. Last year, a politician from my city was driving while drunk. He hit 2 little girls, slightly injuring one of them, but badly crippling the other one. She was in intensive care unit for about 3 months, she almost died and she was handicaped for life. The guy was in jail for less than 2 weeks. The icing on the cake: his position. He was the Director of the city sports and recreation institute.
Just this year alone, 51 people have died because alcohol related driving accident. Normally, when a driver kills somebody while drunk, he is charged for Involuntary homicide. The penalty is between 1 and 3 years and most of the times the jail penalty is conmuted to be arrested in his own house (I don't know the technical name in english). So his house instead jail, no surveillance, no control: they continue his life like nothing happened. And, in many cases, they get caught DUI when they are supposed to be arrested in their homes, for a previous DUI.
Disclaimer: The above post reflects just the personal opinion of the author and not a fact. But if you read it, you must accept it as the ultimate truth.
lluuiiggii wrote:
His lawyer says the driver acted in self defense.
Last week, I was cycling with my girlfriend. She got a little bit tired at a hill, so she told me to wait for her at the top. When I arrived I looked back and I couldn't see her, so I came back. Some way down the hill, she was by the sidewalk, her bike was kind of damaged and a male driver was yelling at her and he even pushed her. I went down and without thinking I beated up the guy. The jerk hadn't stopped at an stop light so my girlfriend hit his car. It was his fault, not hers. A few minutes later a police arrived. He told him he acted in self defense because my girlfriend smashed his car! And I got arrested 24 hours for personal injuries (note: I'm not that violent; I acted without reflecting when the guy pushed my gf and he wasn't that injuried, just a broken lip). Moreover, nothing happened to the guy because nobody could prove the light was red.
I understand you were angry and beated him (i would do the same) but from my point of view, law was on his side in this case. Because your girlfriend is probably not a police-woman and the fact that he didnt stop on red is not giving someone the right to hit his car. It is silly,but in Czech Republic your girl would pay the fine for damaging his car (if there is any damage) and he would be free if there is not a proof.
hellboy, You are right, but hitting the girl after she crashed can never be self defense. He was well protected in the car. It could only be about protecting his car from further attacks, but then Ildabaoth could also claim self defense, because he was protecting his girlfriend and her bike from further attacks.
I understand you were angry and beated him (i would do the same) but from my point of view, law was on his side in this case. Because your girlfriend is probably not a police-woman and the fact that he didnt stop on red is not giving someone the right to hit his car. It is silly,but in Czech Republic your girl would pay the fine for damaging his car (if there is any damage) and he would be free if there is not a proof.
Perhaps I didn't explain it clearly; my english isn't very good. She didn't hit the car intentionally but because she couldn't brake in time as her light was green, so she wasn't supposed to stop. It wasn't about her right to hit the car but her right to continue at a green light.
Disclaimer: The above post reflects just the personal opinion of the author and not a fact. But if you read it, you must accept it as the ultimate truth.
I understand you were angry and beated him (i would do the same) but from my point of view, law was on his side in this case. Because your girlfriend is probably not a police-woman and the fact that he didnt stop on red is not giving someone the right to hit his car. It is silly,but in Czech Republic your girl would pay the fine for damaging his car (if there is any damage) and he would be free if there is not a proof.
Perhaps I didn't explain it clearly; my english isn't very good. She didn't hit the car intentionally but because she couldn't brake in time as her light was green, so she wasn't supposed to stop. It wasn't about her right to hit the car but her right to continue at a green light.
Sorry for misunderstanding, you should broke his nose then
So, Leopard - Trek apparently tricked journalists into showing up at their press conference yesterday with the following invite:
“At this occasion, Brian Nygaard, General Manager of Leopard Trek, Fränk Schleck and Andy Schleck will present the official jersey of the team,” it stated in a press release. It added that general manager Brian Nygaard plus the Schleck brothers will speak about the squad.
Turns out it was just a matter of Enovos, a Luxembourg-based energy company, upping their sponsorship and thus getting their logo on the shirt.
