"drivers to be blamed for all cyclist collisions" proposal

[Diamond]

This is a monumentally stupid idea.

First, our current roads are unsuitable for cars, let alone cycles. Motorists would suffer from local government's reluctance to introduce a safe, integrated cycle network and that is clearly unjust.

Second, cyclists are not currently required to undertake any sort of road training and those of us who live in London see the obnoxious results of this on a daily basis. Motorists would consequently again shoulder the government's reluctance to do something - i.e. introduce minimum compulsory standards for cycling.

And that's even before you get onto the issue of motorists effectively insuring all cyclists on their policy.

 

[newbie]

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



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

Bear in mind I didn't see it, you did, so I don't really know how reckless she was. But in the general case, if the police attend and conclude she wasn't in compliance then sfaics the situation doesn't change from what it is now: her non-compliance was the cause of the accident and there may have been little or nothing the driver could realistically do to prevent it.

If, otoh, her behaviour was essentially correct- she waited for what, in her view, was a 'safe gap'- but her judgement was poor or something unexpected happened (chain falls off, gust of wind, pothole) the oncoming driver has to slow. There are plenty of occasions where the oncoming driver could prevent the accident by allowing for the cyclist to behave unexpectedly rather than maintaining their speed.

If a lorry pulls out, safely, into the road ahead while you're pootling along in your car, you slow down a bit because you anticipate it'll take a while to accelerate away. When a cyclist pulls out, apparently equally safely, too many drivers ignore them and carry on without making any adjustment for their presence. This proposal is about rectifying that.

 

[scifisam]

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.

Someone could be more severely injured than just getting bruises, which is what you claimed would be all that happened at 15mph.

Yes, some roads are suitable for 30mph, and some aren't. That's why I said 'some.' Why are you disagreeing with me by restating what I just said? And why do you want a 10mph speed limit when you reckon people would only get bruised by being knocked down at 15mph?

 

[goldenecitrone]

It's an eminently good idea. In fairness we'd also have to have cyclists blamed for a pedestrian collisions and tank drivers blamed for all cars squashed to a pulp.

 

[Fuchs66]

Seems like a daft idea to me too. I'm afraid I see far too many cyclists and pedestrians dicing with junctions.

Therefore: approach ALL junctions with care

 

[Idaho]

Someone could be more severely injured than just getting bruises, which is what you claimed would be all that happened at 15mph.

Yes, some roads are suitable for 30mph, and some aren't. That's why I said 'some.' Why are you disagreeing with me by restating what I just said? And why do you want a 10mph speed limit when you reckon people would only get bruised by being knocked down at 15mph?

Up to about 4 months ago I would have happily argued the toss for pages and pages

 

[Spymaster]

Too much bollocks on this thread to deal with point by point. But:

One of the absolutes new drivers are taught is that if they drive into the back of someone it's automatically their fault. Concentrates the mind, that, and gives little or no wriggle room for excuses along the lines of 'they did something unexpected'.

That's simply because if you hit a vehicle in the rear while driving it is your fault.

Surely the principle is the same. If a powerful vehicle collides with a pedestrian or cyclist behaving unexpectedly it's because they didn't give them enough room to do so.

Absolute nonsense.

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.

Guilty until proven innocent is always bad and contrary to our justice system. One of the main reasons why this attention seeking crap will never see the light of day.

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

Indeed.

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.

Well apart from the fact that this proposal is not 'going through' as it's not even under serious consideration, this is not at all easy for the cyclist if there are no witnesses.

 

[fredfelt]

This proposal has got nothing to do with guilty until proven innocent.

 

[Spymaster]

This proposal has got nothing to do with guilty until proven innocent.

What?????

If a driver/cyclist is going to be automatically considered "at fault" unless he proves himself not to be, this is absolutely the principle of 'guilty unless proven innocent' by definition!

 

[scifisam]

Up to about 4 months ago I would have happily argued the toss for pages and pages

And now you've realised how poor your debating skills are, and given up. Good for you.

 

[cybertect]

This proposal has got nothing to do with guilty until proven innocent.

Strictly, yes. AFAIK only criminal courts pronounce on guilt or innocence and this relates to civil law of tort.

However, what it proposes to do is effectively to reverse the burden of proof.

Standard procedure in English courts is that the plaintiff must prove (on a balance of probability) that the defendant caused him some loss (usually through negligence in this type of case) for which the defendant is liable to provide recompense, or damages. Strict liability, which is what the proposal is about, suggests that the defendant must provide restitution unless he can prove that he was not responsible for the loss.


As I understand it:

Accident happens between a car and a bicycle. Cyclist is injured. Cyclist makes claim against the motorist's insurance for damages (loss of earnings, repairs to/replacement of the bicycle, etc.).

Current situation
Insurance company refuses to pay. Cyclist takes the issue to court and has to prove that the driver's negligence caused his injuries.

Proposed situation
The insurance company is required to pay out. Insurance company takes the cyclist to court to prove that the cyclist's negligence caused the accident, not the motorist's.

The court then apportions liability and damages on that basis.

Especially in the absence of witnesses, the defendant is in a stronger position in either situation as there may not be sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim of the plaintiff. Moreover, since court cases are expensive, Insurance companies would probably be more likely to not pursue legal action to defend their clients and simply pay the claim, with a knock on effect on premiums for the motorist.

Where the bar is set for the liability of the injured party (cyclist) would be in the detail of any legislation. It might be that the motorist would have to prove that the cyclist was extremely reckless and the sole cause of the accident before they could avoid the claim.

In some jurisdictions even this may not be enough. I believe in Belgium, persons under 14 are specially protected as victims and there is no way for the driver to avoid the claim, however little they contributed to the accident. In France this encompasses those under sixteen and over seventy years of age and those at least 80% disabled.*

In Greece, the owner of the vehicle is ultimately liable, even if he was not driving the car at the time of the collision. As mentioned earlier, in France, it seems that only a determined suicide by the victim will avoid liability.

[source: The Common European Law of Torts by Christian Von Bar]

How this would pan out if it were a claim between an uninsured cyclist and pedestrian would be interesting to see.

e2a: Also mentioned up the page: English Common Law does operate in a rather different manner to the Civil Codes of many other European countries - which are highly regulated by Statute from first principles. Shoe-horning approaches from different legal systems could pose difficulties in our framework.

* maybe this is a case for compulsory carrying of RFID enabled ID cards so that motorists will know which people to avoid by scanning the road ahead

 

[newbie]

interesting, thanks for that.

There may be circumstances in which any motorist would be unable to avoid hitting someone over 70 or with severe disabilities, but they're very few and far between. It's reasonable and pertinent for courts to ask if a different motorist, approaching from the same starting point, would have been able to avoid the collision by different driving behaviour. If so then the motorist is at fault, unless the law is to adopt the notion that the elderly or infirm should simply evaporate if a vehicle approaches. They are at fault because their driving was not responsible enough, even if it wasn't so far below the standard expected as to be careless.

Recognising that does not imply guilt until proven innocent, it merely demonstrates that society expects very high standards from those wielding the power a ton of metal provides.

The same principle can be extended to other accidents where there is a power imbalance. If different, better, driving by the person with the most power could have altered the outcome then their duty of care was not being properly performed. Within the context of the accident and the events leading to it they bear a greater responsibility than the more vulnerable, simply because they are capable of causing more damage and thus need to take greater care.

 

[fredfelt]

What?????

If a driver/cyclist is going to be automatically considered "at fault" unless he proves himself not to be, this is absolutely the principle of 'guilty unless proven innocent' by definition!

The proposal is based on the principle that those who bring the danger to the environment pay the cost of insuring against the outcome.

This moves away from the injured and usually more vulnerable party bearing that cost.

 

[Idaho]

And now you've realised how poor your debating skills are, and given up. Good for you.

Ooh! Saucer of milk for post 9725543

 

[pengaleng]

Cunt cyclists should stop going through red lights, I've had one of these cunts shout at me as I was crossing on foot at a red light as they went past it, they are all up their own arses. Maybe if they stopped going through reds there would be less fatalities.

 

[cybertect]

Unfortunately, even as a regular cyclist, I have a lot of sympathy with TP's point of view.

One of the things I don't understand about the strict liability is how to protect against abuse by the 'victim'. It would be easy enough to manufacture a claim. The liable individual then has to prove that the incident didn't happen (and go to court to prove it).

 

[scifisam]

Surely the number of CCTV cameras around will help fight false claims, and deter such false claims in the first case?

 

[deadringer]

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.”

and we know that politicians always, always tell the truth, and never say things then change their minds later.

not having a dig, just saying.

 

[deadringer]

Cunt cyclists should stop going through red lights, I've had one of these cunts shout at me as I was crossing on foot at a red light as they went past it, they are all up their own arses. Maybe if they stopped going through reds there would be less fatalities.

this. i cycle, the sheer numbers flying thru red lights is amazing. then they have the audacity to wax lyrical about how car/van/bus/taxi drivers are cunts. works both ways im afraid. probably the most common thing drivers do is speed, cyclists running red lights, both moaning about the other.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

In Holland, parents do crazy things like cycle their kids to school instead of driving half a mile in polluting, oil-guzzling cars.

Aren't they bonkers!

they also put number plates on bikes

 

[Agent Sparrow]

I do remember seeing a ped cross on a red man, and a cyclist go through a red light (it must have been on the change I suppose), and the ped shouted and swore at the cyclist. I wasn't quite sure what the moral highground was in that case, given the cyclist, from their perspective, knew they were far away not to hit the ped. I know it feels different from the perspective of a ped though.

 

[Pingu]

it will all be accademic when my teleportation machine (pat pending) goes into production

 

[insomniak]

As a driver and cyclist I think this is a great idea. As usual, the Dutch model is what we should be aiming for.

In the last week and a half there's been one cyclist killed (51 yr old bloke) and one hospitalised (30 yr old woman I think) because of collisions with HGVs in my city.

Have to agree though, there'll have to be some quid pro quo. Totally ignoring red lights and dodging crossing pedestrians isn't on.

 

[scifisam]

this. i cycle, the sheer numbers flying thru red lights is amazing. then they have the audacity to wax lyrical about how car/van/bus/taxi drivers are cunts. works both ways im afraid. probably the most common thing drivers do is speed, cyclists running red lights, both moaning about the other.

Car drivers run red lights fairly often round my way and pretty much every pedestrian crossing is impassable for pushchairs and wheelchairs due to cars running red lights to inch forward in heavy traffic. There don't seem to be many road users - of any kind - who follow all the rules all the time.

 

[T & P]

Car drivers run red lights fairly often round my way and pretty much every pedestrian crossing is impassable for pushchairs and wheelchairs due to cars running red lights to inch forward in heavy traffic. There don't seem to be many road users - of any kind - who follow all the rules all the time.

There are varying degrees of jumping a red light though. Going through a red light that has turned red 0.5 seconds ago in front of you is not acceptable, but is certainly less dangerous than jumping a red light that has been on for a long while to cut across or join the already travelling 'across traffic'.

I have seen cars being guilty of the former offence, but never of the latter. Those cyclists who choose to jump red lights however are very often guilty of the latter.

 

[deadringer]

There are varying degrees of jumping a red light though. Going through a red light that has turned red 0.5 seconds ago in front of you is not acceptable, but is certainly less dangerous than jumping a red light that has been on for a long while to cut across or join the already travelling 'across traffic'.

I have seen cars being guilty of the former offence, but never of the latter. Those cyclists who choose to jump red lights however are very often guilty of the latter.

agreed, i never see drivers thinking fuck it, im going! after stopping at a red light, no matter how long they are waiting or if there is nothing coming. cyclists, self included, do this all the time.

 

[insomniak]

There are varying degrees of jumping a red light though. Going through a red light that has turned red 0.5 seconds ago in front of you is not acceptable, but is certainly less dangerous than jumping a red light that has been on for a long while to cut across or join the already travelling 'across traffic'.

I have seen cars being guilty of the former offence, but never of the latter. Those cyclists who choose to jump red lights however are very often guilty of the latter.

Don't see a problem breaking a red at any time if there's nothing coming, you can argue it's safer as a cyclist to do this to get a jump on traffic stopped at the lights and get up to speed. Think there's a US state law somewhere that even allows this.

It's the cahnts that approach a red light without slowing, dodge pedestrians and then try and get through the crossing traffic I hate.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

One of the absolutes new drivers are taught is that if they drive into the back of someone it's automatically their fault. .

Yes, that's because the law requires maintaining a proper lookout, and if you run into an object in front of you, then you haven't been maintaining a proper lookout.

That is a different situation from that of a cyclist who, let's say, runs a stop sign at a blind intersection, and is struck by a car that had the right of way.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

this is about civil liability for compensation and insurance. In your scenario the cyclist is committing a criminal offence, but let's not pretend that's the case in all collisions. The vast majority of 'accidents' occur when neither party is doing anything criminal, or even in significant breach of the Highway Code.

Disobeying road rules on its own, like, failure to stop at a stop sign, is not a criminal offence, at least not in this country.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

although if your being technical the green light means proceed if it is safe to do so. If someone jumps a red light they are doing something wrong but it is also up to the person going through green to check that its safe for them !

Again, I can't speak for UK, but here, drivers are entitled to assume that others on the road will obey the law in the usual course.