"drivers to be blamed for all cyclist collisions" proposal

[gosub]

From the article quoted in OP :
"a spokesman for the Department of Transport said the proposals were not being considered by ministers and added: “Cyclists are traffic and are subject to the same laws as other traffic. They are responsible for their own actions and whether insured or not are liable for the consequences of their actions.”

Also made the Times , though there without any quotes from the relevant departments, Ministers ARE considering it.
so by the time it hits Iain Dales blog (voted second best political blog by himself and his readers) Labour ministers are intending to...

Headline grabbing idea by special interest group that is going nowhere, and only got in the papers coz its the tail end of silly season.- does more to highlight media standards than it impacts on road use

 

[newbie]

yes, and points the way towards more shared use pavements, though it won't change the serious practical issues of the cyclist riding off immediately afterwards and not being insured anyway.

 

[newme]

The proposal also suggests that when a cyclist runs into a pedestrian that it should be up to the cyclist to prove that they were not at fault - rather than the pedestrian having to prove the cyclist was at fault. This seems fair to me.

Well other than if it was clearly the pedestrians fault, for whatever reason and there were no witnesses. Making it cyclists words versus the pedestrians, with the pedestrian being assumed to be correct despite what actually occurred.

 

[newbie]

if a moving cycle collides with a walking or stationary pedestrian when is it not the fault of the cyclist? They didn't give the ped enough room.

the same is true if a running ped collides with a stationary or slow moving cyclist, but in that case the runner is momentarily the more powerful.

 

[fredfelt]

Well other than if it was clearly the pedestrians fault, for whatever reason and there were no witnesses. Making it cyclists words versus the pedestrians, with the pedestrian being assumed to be correct despite what actually occurred.

I would say that the duty of care should be on the person capable of doing most damage. In this case the cyclist.

This suggestion only applies to civil cases so in the case you outline the pedestrian would want to be claiming for damages when they are hurt. IMO You would have to be careless to hurt a pedestrian on your bike.

To avoid the risk of paying out in these circumstances as a cyclist you could get insurance.

 

[T & P]

From the article quoted in OP :
"a spokesman for the Department of Transport said the proposals were not being considered by ministers and added: “Cyclists are traffic and are subject to the same laws as other traffic"

If only!

 

[cybertect]

Let us suppose the truck hit her. Both were, we presume, behaving in a way which complies with the Highway Code, so she was entitled to turn and entitled to expect that oncoming traffic would slow to allow her to do so, as they would with any other vehicle.

She's not entitled to that expectation. It's illegal for her to do so.

The approach to a junction may have a ‘Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road. You MUST give way to traffic on the main road when emerging from a junction with broken white lines across the road.

[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10(1),16(1) & 25]

Rule 170 also states

look all around before emerging. Do not cross or join a road until there is a gap large enough for you to do so safely

My recollection of my training is that "a large enough gap" means that other vehicles should not need to slow down or swerve to avoid you if you pull out from a side road into a main road. If you're expecting other traffic to do that when you're riding or driving, then you're a dangerous road user and I hope I don't encounter you on the roads.

Anecdotal evidence: A couple of years ago, a friend of mine pulled out from a junction in his Ford Focus into the path of a vehicle doing nearly 60 mph in a 30 mph zone. Fortunately, the other car struck the front offside of his Ford and span it 360° so he escaped being hit directly at the driver's position and serious injury. The speeding driver got away with miraculously light injuries.

My friend was liable for the collision because he had not ensured a safe gap, regardless of how fast the other driver was going, whether proceeding legally or not.

 

[Spark]

if a moving cycle collides with a walking or stationary pedestrian when is it not the fault of the cyclist? They didn't give the ped enough room.

the same is true if a running ped collides with a stationary or slow moving cyclist, but in that case the runner is momentarily the more powerful.

very frequently - when a walking pedestrian steps off the pavement into the road without the slightest glance to see if there is any traffic coming so walks straight into a path of a cyclist.

The only accident I've been involved in happened this way. I managed not to hit the pedestrian but went flying myself. She admitted it was her fault because she had just been looking the other way and just listening for traffic. (I wasn't cycling in the gutter either, she came out from behind a parked car)

In my experience this type of situation isn't uncommon. I frequently see pedestrians drifting off the pavement, eg to overtake other pedestrians, potentially into the paths of bikes without looking.

 

[T & P]

very frequently - when a walking pedestrian steps off the pavement into the road without the slightest glance to see if there is any traffic coming so walks straight into a path of a cyclist.

The only accident I've been involved in happened this way. I managed not to hit the pedestrian but went flying myself. She admitted it was her fault because she had just been looking the other way and just listening for traffic. (I wasn't cycling in the gutter either, she came out from behind a parked car)

In my experience this type of situation isn't uncommon. I frequently see pedestrians drifting off the pavement, eg to overtake other pedestrians, potentially into the paths of bikes without looking.

Quite. I was involved in an accident when a pedestrian emerged suddenly between two stationary buses and without checking for traffic at all, right in front of me. I was on a scooter. I could have been on a car, or driving a lorry.

My fault? The flying fuck it was.

 

[fredfelt]

Quite. I was involved in an accident when a pedestrian emerged suddenly between two stationary buses and without checking for traffic at all, right in front of me. I was on a scooter. I could have been on a car, or driving a lorry.

My fault? The flying fuck it was.

If this proposal goes through you would still be able to get compensation though. The only thing changing is that it would be up to you to prove you were not at fault - easy in the situation you describe.

 

[Idaho]

The proposal also suggests that when a cyclist runs into a pedestrian that it should be up to the cyclist to prove that they were not at fault - rather than the pedestrian having to prove the cyclist was at fault. This seems fair to me.

I agree with this too.

We live in a small lazy country with a jam packed road infrastructure, pollution, traffic noise, dangerous roads, divided communities. We need to sort it out. I'm happy for all the Clarkson types to play with their toys and zoom about on main roads - but we need to push cars out of residential areas, only allowed in if they go very slow and stop for anything and everything.

 

[Idaho]

Quite. I was involved in an accident when a pedestrian emerged suddenly between two stationary buses and without checking for traffic at all, right in front of me. I was on a scooter. I could have been on a car, or driving a lorry.

My fault? The flying fuck it was.

Not your fault, but the fault of the laws and culture than expect roads to be high-speed thoroughfares that pedestrians enter at their peril. That a human on/in a machine has more right of way that one not in/on a machine.

 

[newbie]

She's not entitled to that expectation. It's illegal for her to do so.

not if she was complying with the HC, which is what I said. Point being that if she's not then she takes liability, there's no argument about that. But if she is, ie if her interpretation of "a large enough gap" is within the bounds of reasonability, then she has a reasonable expectation that the truck driver will comply with the very first bit of 170

170

Take extra care at junctions. You should

* watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, powered wheelchairs/mobility scooters and pedestrians as they are not always easy to see.

If a car pulls across to turn right the truck will slow, just in case the car doesn't clear the junction in time. Even now the same should be true for cyclists but too often drivers don't create the necessary space and some simply lean on their horn to clear their way. The proposal makes it that much more obvious that they should.

My recollection of my training is that "a large enough gap" means that other vehicles should not need to slow down or swerve to avoid you if you pull out from a side road into a main road. If you're expecting other traffic to do that when you're riding or driving, then you're a dangerous road user and I hope I don't encounter you on the roads.

that sounds right to me (the first bit as well as the second- I actively encourage you to not drive on roads I want to use ) certainly causing someone to swerve cannot be right, but there are times when it's perfectly reasonable to pull out even though that may, or may not, mean others have to slow. Otherwise junctions simply wouldn't work in thick traffic.

 

[newbie]

very frequently - when a walking pedestrian steps off the pavement into the road without the slightest glance to see if there is any traffic coming so walks straight into a path of a cyclist.

it's interesting that almost all examples people are coming up with involve the least powerful/most vulnerable participant doing something wrong!

Rules for Pedestrians, number one

Pavements (including any path along the side of a road) should be used if provided. Where possible, avoid being next to the kerb with your back to the traffic. If you have to step into the road, look both ways first. Always show due care and consideration for others.

If a ped steps off the pavement in front of a cyclist without looking they're at fault, of course they are, just as if a cyclist hits a ped on zebra, they're at fault. But if a pedestrian is legitimately walking in or across the road and a cyclist hits them then it's because the cyclist did not give them enough room, not because the pedestrian didn't jump out of the way fast enough.

 

[scifisam]

Not your fault, but the fault of the laws and culture than expect roads to be high-speed thoroughfares that pedestrians enter at their peril. That a human on/in a machine has more right of way that one not in/on a machine.

Actually, I do expect roads to be high-speed thoroughfares, or at least far higher than walking speed, how much higher depending on the type of road. That's kinda the point of roads.

 

[scifisam]

it's interesting that almost all examples people are coming up with involve the least powerful/most vulnerable participant doing something wrong!

That's because you said it was always the fault of cyclist, so people are coming up with examples where it's not the fault of the cyclist - or driver, either. Nobody disputes that drivers and cyclists have a responsibility to do their very best to avoid injuring pedestrians.

 

[newbie]

but I've also said that the vast majority of accidents are between people who are in reasonable compliance with the HC and that responsibility is seldom 100% one way or the other.

 

[Idaho]

Actually, I do expect roads to be high-speed thoroughfares, or at least far higher than walking speed, how much higher depending on the type of road. That's kinda the point of roads.

I expect main routes, trunk roads, ring roads and motorways to be high speed. I think the small roads around my house and the school should be dead slow. You crawl through them on the way to the main roads, or you get out and walk.

 

[fredfelt]

That's because you said it was always the fault of cyclist, so people are coming up with examples where it's not the fault of the cyclist - or driver, either. Nobody disputes that drivers and cyclists have a responsibility to do their very best to avoid injuring pedestrians.

And this proposal puts that into law - rather than the onus being on the injured party to prove their innocence when making a claim. Seems fair and straight forward enough to me.

 

[scifisam]

but I've also said that the vast majority of accidents are between people who are in reasonable compliance with the HC and that responsibility is seldom 100% one way or the other.

Agreed about responsibility usually being shared, but are you sure about people acting in compliance with the highway code? Given that, even when there aren't accidents, I see loads of pedestrians, cyclists and drivers going against the highway code, I'd be surprised if those involved in accidents were more law-abiding.

 

[scifisam]

I expect main routes, trunk roads, ring roads and motorways to be high speed. I think the small roads around my house and the school should be dead slow. You crawl through them on the way to the main roads, or you get out and walk.

You'd still be going faster than walking pace and capable of hurting a pedestrian if they stepped out in front of you in a way that you really couldn't avoid.

And this proposal puts that into law - rather than the onus being on the injured party to prove their innocence when making a claim. Seems fair and straight forward enough to me.

Well, it depends on what the actual proposal is. The article in the OP doesn't make it clear.

 

[newbie]

Agreed about responsibility usually being shared, but are you sure about people acting in compliance with the highway code? Given that, even when there aren't accidents, I see loads of pedestrians, cyclists and drivers going against the highway code, I'd be surprised if those involved in accidents were more law-abiding.

Of course people disobey it, all of us.

But we continually make judgements about how to proceed and sometimes those judgements are wrong so we do something someone else doesn't expect.That's why responsibility should lie with the more powerful to give the least powerful space.

 

[scifisam]

Of course people disobey it, all of us.

But we continually make judgements about how to proceed and sometimes those judgements are wrong so we do something someone else doesn't expect.That's why responsibility should lie with the more powerful to give the least powerful space.

Yeah ... who's disagreeing with that? You asked when it could possibly be the ped's fault, and people told you when, that's all.

 

[newbie]

Perhaps there are two sorts of 'accidents'

1 those which involve the police
2 those which don't and the participants sort it out between themselves.

This proposal will provide clear guidance for liability in the second case and give a presumption for the first. If a police investigation shows someone behaved recklessly outside the HC then blame can be attributed.

 

[cybertect]

not if she was complying with the HC, which is what I said.

But she can't be compliant if she causes a hazard by pulling out abruptly across a junction.

certainly causing someone to swerve cannot be right, but there are times when it's perfectly reasonable to pull out even though that may, or may not, mean others have to slow. Otherwise junctions simply wouldn't work in thick traffic.

What part of 'Give Way' do you not understand?

Simply put, there are no circumstances when this is reasonable within the current legal framework that I can envision.

The closest would be those situations where the driver on the main road slows or stops deliberately and generously to let the other person out before (most important) they exit the side road, not after and in reaction to the manoeuvre. This creates the safe gap, thus allowing the person to turn out. You can't unilaterally impose it from a Give Way line by pulling out.

Wait for a safe gap. End of. The same applies to cars pulling out into the path of an oncoming bicycle and there are no end of complaints about precisely this kind of situation on cycling forums, with much justification when it occurs.

You're balancing a statutory requirement to give way to oncoming traffic against a common law duty of care to other road users. Statue trumps tort. In Highway Code terms, 'MUST' vs 'should'.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070236

 

[Idaho]

You'd still be going faster than walking pace and capable of hurting a pedestrian if they stepped out in front of you in a way that you really couldn't avoid.

Being hit by a car going 15 mph is going to give someone a nasty shock and perhaps a bruise or two. Punishment = Crime.

Being hit by a car going 30 mph is going to give someone a nasty injury and perhaps death.
Punishment =/= Crime.

 

[fredfelt]

Well, it depends on what the actual proposal is. The article in the OP doesn't make it clear.

I'm assuming it's similar to Dutch law. IMO this is the main reason why their roads are far safer for pedestrians and cyclists.

 

[scifisam]

Being hit by a car going 15 mph is going to give someone a nasty shock and perhaps a bruise or two. Punishment = Crime.

Being hit by a car going 30 mph is going to give someone a nasty injury and perhaps death.
Punishment =/= Crime.

Someone could be more severely injured even at 15mph, and some roads are suitable for 30mph even though they have pavements next to nthem.

I'm assuming it's similar to Dutch law. IMO this is the main reason why their roads are far safer for pedestrians and cyclists.

Well, the article says that too, but doesn't say what the law actually is in Holland.

 

[Spark]

I'm assuming it's similar to Dutch law. IMO this is the main reason why their roads are far safer for pedestrians and cyclists.

But it probably can't be like the dutch law because our legal system is very different.

The general way that liability is established in civil cases in the UK is different to that in the Netherlands (and other countries which may have laws such as these). This doesn't mean that this idea could not be introduced but it would have to be done in a way which meshes with the current UK system.

 

[Idaho]

Someone could be more severely injured even at 15mph, and some roads are suitable for 30mph even though they have pavements next to nthem.

Yeah going slower is more likely to severly injure someone

Some are, most aren't. I think it should be 20mph for urban areas, and down to 10mph for residential streets.