Driver copping out

bigmat

The lowlanders seem to have a completely different attitude to cycling - when I commuted in Belgium I'd just wear my regular gear, never any question of having to get changed, going clipless etc. etc. Cycling is seen, on one level at least, as just a means of getting from A to B. Cyclists are generally given a lot more respect (and room) and there didn't seem to be any of the cyclist sub-culture on display. I think that probably has more to do with their better cycle-safety statistics, but I haven't done any research on the subject. Still not sure why anyone thinks a law arbitrarily displacing the burden of proof can be justified on the basis that somebody is driving a car, and cars can be dangerous. Like the poster above points out, does that mean any collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian should be considered the fault of the cyclist unless he/she can prove otherwise? That'd be like salt in the wounds next time one of us gets taken out by a ped...

Porgy

AllTheGear wrote:

Porgy wrote:

...If it's much safer to ride a bike in the Netherlands then they've got it right.

Not if drivers are being convicted of an offence, from just being in the wrong place at the wrong time when I cyclist decided to throw themselves under the wheels?

I suspect that drivers are not being convicted because of poor cycling behaviour, but are correctly anticipating the idiots (and the inevitable mistakes we all make occasionally) and not having collisions in the first place.

rolf_f

Porgy wrote:

Whether the Dutch have got it right or not is surely indicated in their cyclist casualty statistics. If it's much safer to ride a bike in the Netherlands then they've got it right.

Probably won't be that simple - for a start, the stats will be better because there are so many segregated cycle ways (as such, it will be much safer in the Netherlands but for other reasons). Also traffic tends to be relatively quiet in city centres as most people cycle.

I think they do have it right - the presumption that an accident between a car and a bike means the car is in the wrong is, I think, an assumption that can be proved otherwise (clearly, if a drunk on a cycle chooses to veer across a road head on into a car, the car cannot be at fault).

nwallace

Determining blame based on the series of events involved in the incident is much better than automatically deciding that the car driver is guilty. It completley goes agaisnt the Innocent until proven Guilty system.

If I T-Boned another road user while walking, cycling, driving or sledging it should be me in the shit not the other Ped/Cyclist/Driver/Sledger.

The UK rules for junction collisions which assume that if you crash into the back of them then it's your fault I think are a bit iffy though.

The Chingford Skinhead

ATG, Underscore and MatH - you have absolutely nothing to worry about. We do not have a "presumed innocent until proven guilty" approach to road traffic collisions in the UK. Car supremacy means that the bigger the vehicle the bigger your rights on the road. As evidenced from the letter in the paper, hitting a cyclist gets you a measily £43 fine and 3 points.

The police put considerably more resources into car crime (by which they mean stealing, damage etc to cars) than they do to what I consider car crime - wreckless driving, use of mobiles, amber gambling and the endless deaths and serious injuries that motorists cause. The fact that the police have picked the case up is exceedingly rare and therefore suggests that the cyclist's case must have been pretty darn strong.

Accidents in the UK usually involve the police asking if you have an independent witness. No. Too bad, no case to answer.

Underscore - your change of wording of the dutch law doesn't work. Bicycles are not "a lethal piece of machinery" as cyclists are equally likely to die or get injured in a collision with a pedestrian - something not true of motor vehicle drivers hitting cyclists or peds.

Eau Rouge

nwallace wrote:

Determining blame based on the series of events involved in the incident is much better than automatically deciding that the car driver is guilty. It completley goes agaisnt the Innocent until proven Guilty system.

It doesn't have to. You make it illegal to be involved in an accident with a bicycle and you are no longer going against that principle. You can have, as a defence, that you were not at all to blame for the accident, just as a legal defence to a murder charge is that you were acting in self defence or that a legal defence to the crime of not having your driving licence with you when asked for it is to produce it within a week at a police station.

AllTheGear

Self defense is legal, murder is not. If you make 'being involved in an accident with a bicycle' illegal, there can be no defense!

Are we going to make it illegal to be involved with an accident with a pedestrian (if you're a cyclist)?

Underscore

The Chingford Skinhead wrote:

Underscore - your change of wording of the dutch law doesn't work. Bicycles are not "a lethal piece of machinery" as cyclists are equally likely to die or get injured in a collision with a pedestrian - something not true of motor vehicle drivers hitting cyclists or peds.

I beg to differ; according to this article (in which a pedestrian died after being hit by a cyclist):

Last year there were more than 200 accidents involving pedestrians and cyclists in Britain, three of them fatal

According to the dicitonary:

lethal (comparative more lethal, superlative most lethal)
1. deadly; mortal; fatal

Based on that, I suggest that you are incorrect in stating that "Bicycles are not "a lethal piece of machinery"".

Of course, I am not saying that cyclists kill as many peds as motor vehicle drivers kill cyclists. However, when there was the high court case recently where a cyclist was being prosecuted over an incident when a pedestrian was killed, a number of people here seemed as happy to jump to the defence of the cyclist as they are to start shouting "Burn him! Burn him!" when a cyclist is killed by a driver - without full knowledge of the facts. I fully support that people should be held accountable for their actions (whether riding a bike, driving a car or doing anything else) but this two-wheels-good-four-wheels-bad blind dogma, to which some seem to adhere, is simply wrong.

_

Porgy

Rolf F wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Whether the Dutch have got it right or not is surely indicated in their cyclist casualty statistics. If it's much safer to ride a bike in the Netherlands then they've got it right.

Probably won't be that simple - for a start, the stats will be better because there are so many segregated cycle ways (as such, it will be much safer in the Netherlands but for other reasons). Also traffic tends to be relatively quiet in city centres as most people cycle.

I think they do have it right - the presumption that an accident between a car and a bike means the car is in the wrong is, I think, an assumption that can be proved otherwise (clearly, if a drunk on a cycle chooses to veer across a road head on into a car, the car cannot be at fault).

Well although cycling is seperated in parts of Amsterdam, generally it isn't - bikes, cars and trams - even pedestrians - all share the same space

My small experience of living in amsterdam a few years ago - I didn;t cycle - but did notice that Dutch motorists don;t do what English motorists do - cut cyclists up trying to get to the junction first, or fail to anticipate at pinch points. This to me indicates that the Dutch have got it about right.

I only saw one motorist-cyclist clash in all the time I was in Amsterdam and that was the fault of a car with German plates, and driven by a Turk.

Porgy

nwallace wrote:

Determining blame based on the series of events involved in the incident is much better than automatically deciding that the car driver is guilty. It completley goes agaisnt the Innocent until proven Guilty system.

I don't think so. It's a change in emphasis, but noone's presuming guilt. They are bringing a charge. If someone is in court for assault, then there is no presumption of guilt, and due process still occurs. Same if a motorist is charged with assault/ dangerous driving or whatever, there is still due process - and a weighing up of the evidence.

The way things are now is a bit like the defendent up for assault being let off becasue the person attcked had their wallet sticking out of their pocket, or were considered foolish for walking into a "bad area", didn;t defend themselves effectively, etc.

The Rookie

el_presidente wrote:

If the summons has the wrong road on it, then I imagine he will get off scot-free as how can any other evidence be trusted? I once succesfully appealed a parking ticket which was dated 31 June.

Decrim parking tickets and criminal driving offences are handled very differently!

The so called 'slip rule' from the magistrates court act allows minor typos' to be corrected as long as the defendant is not disadvantged, now as he was part of the incident he isn't disadvanteged in any way as he clearly knows the incident it relates to.

Having said that, its easy to jump on the band wagon and blame the driver without knowing ANY of the actual facts of the case (just glad you lot aren't jurors!), just using the tone of his letter to assume he is guilty, the magistrates court is a pot luck crap shoot all to often with guilt or innocence being somewhat arbitrary and maybe that is reflected in his letter.

Simon

spen666

lost_in_thought wrote:

...

Mind you, saying that, the '3 points and £43' penalty if he pleads guilty means it's a less serious offence than a speeding ticket - I'm sure I had to pay a £60 fine for the one I got last year...

This idea of a £43 penalty seems to be interesting as the court costs and the £15 victim surcharge will be more than £43.

I think he has been listening to his mate down the pub for legal advice.



What intrigued me was the idea by the driver and HJ that somehow the cyclist not wearing flourescent clothing could be mitigation. It is a load of nonsense. Flourescent clothing has nothing to do with cycling. If it is dark, then cyclist needs lights by law, not flourescent clothing.

The breathalyser is nonsense as for motorists there are 2 alcohol offences:
1. Driving whilst under the influence of alcohol - it is what it says on the tin- no breathalyser is used.

2. Driving whilst the proportion of alcohol in blood/ breath/ urine is over prescribed limit - this requires breathalyser/ blood test/ urine test.


There isa a cycling equivalent of 1 but not of 2, so there is no poewr to brerathalyse cyclist even if they are clearly under the influence of alcohol

cee

hey spen...

I was thinking about another thread where it was talked about a cyclist not wearing a helmet could have mitigated his own injuries....I think in that case the judge decided that wearing a helmet would not have lessened his injuries, so didn't take it into account....do you remeber something like that...I think a phrase used was 'take your victim as you find them'...

It strikes me as quite similar to the high vis thing......maybe you could clarify (with your legal eyes) what the case actually is...

For me anyway..the message seems mixed at the moment.

biondino

Pretty sure the judge DID take the lack of helmet into account, cee, and adjudicated accordingly. Not good.

cee

biondino wrote:

Pretty sure the judge DID take the lack of helmet into account, cee, and adjudicated accordingly. Not good.

ah...couldn't remember the details.....

wait found the thread...http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12612611&highlight=victim+helmet+judge

always_tyred

biondino wrote:

Pretty sure the judge DID take the lack of helmet into account, cee, and adjudicated accordingly. Not good.

We went over this several times in that thread. The judge did NOT take it into accout as a mitigating factor, since the accident was so severe. He merely pointed out that it could, in principle, be taken into account.

tailwindhome

spen666 wrote:

so there is no poewr to brerathalyse cyclist even if they are clearly under the influence of alcohol

Not sure that is correct.

I recently was involved in an accident (while driving) which was clearly not my fault. A lorry shed a load of scaffolding onto my car, and two others, as it exited a roundabout. I called the police who breathalysed me, the driver of the lorry and the drivers of the other two cars.

When I returned home I queried this with my wife, a solicitor, who informed me that the police have the right to breathalyse anyone involved in an RTA, indeed this could even be extended to witnesses not directly involved. Also my refusal to allow the test would have been an offence.


*Disclaimer - this may possibly be specific to Northern Ireland, I'm not sure.


I was also asked to produce my documents at the station within 7 days. I was at this point I discovered that my drivers license was out of date and was given an 'informed warning' for dirving with no license

Porgy

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

a solicitor, who informed me that the police have the right to breathalyse anyone involved in an RTA, indeed this could even be extended to witnesses not directly involved. Also my refusal to allow the test would have been an offence.

There is no legal limit on alcohol consumption wrt cycling - i think the law says something really vague about being fit to cycle - and this is down to the judgement of the police officer.

As I understand it - the reading on a breathalyser cannot be evidence in the way it is for a motorist - without a limit they'd have to use it to support their case that the cyclist appeared to be unfit due to alcohol, I guess.

A friend of mine was once breathalysed rding a bike - was drunk - got arrested and held in a loce cell overnight. Can't remember if he got charged. Lawyer friends of mine reckoned at the time that the police had no right to breathalyse him, and whatever the breathalysier says has no bearing - legally - on fitness to ride a bike. To be stopped for being drunk on a bike an officer would have to have reasonable suspicion you were drunk or they wouldn;t stop you.

I would always refuse a breathalyser at a road accident - as a cyclist - until i could speak to a lawyer.

As for witnesses uninvloved with the crash - why would they need to be breathalysed? Do people become less reliable witnesses if they've had a couple of pints?

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

[*Disclaimer - this may possibly be specific to Northern Ireland, I'm not sure.

just saw this - i think it probably is.

biondino

Porgy wrote:

As for witnesses uninvloved with the crash - why would they need to be breathalysed? Do people become less reliable witnesses if they've had a couple of pints?

Are you serious? They totally become less reliable witnesses once they're intoxicated, whether it's bad memory, bias, missing key things...

I thought the police can ask you to take a breathalyser test but you don't have to take it, and the test itself does not prove guilt. Obviously it could be a big advantage in a prosecution if you were over the limit, though.

rolf_f

Porgy wrote:

Well although cycling is seperated in parts of Amsterdam, generally it isn't - bikes, cars and trams - even pedestrians - all share the same space

My small experience of living in amsterdam a few years ago - I didn;t cycle - but did notice that Dutch motorists don;t do what English motorists do - cut cyclists up trying to get to the junction first, or fail to anticipate at pinch points. This to me indicates that the Dutch have got it about right.

I only saw one motorist-cyclist clash in all the time I was in Amsterdam and that was the fault of a car with German plates, and driven by a Turk.

Don't know so much about Amsterdam but around Delft and Haarlem, even in rural areas there are often off road cycle lanes. They probably aren't so well segregated from pedestrians and you don't notice how many segregated cycle lanes there are until you actually get on a bike but they really are all over the place!

vorsprung

Underscore wrote:

Do we really need to get all holier-than-thou just because he had the temerity to be driving a car at the time?

Yes

Because if a car hits a cyclist then the cyclist ends up in traction or worse
The driver complains about scratches to his paint. This simple fact effects the attitude that riders and drivers have towards safety.

That's why motorists have to have insurance. They are driving a deadly weapon.

spen666

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

spen666 wrote:

so there is no poewr to brerathalyse cyclist even if they are clearly under the influence of alcohol

Not sure that is correct.

I recently was involved in an accident (while driving) which was clearly not my fault. A lorry shed a load of scaffolding onto my car, and two others, as it exited a roundabout. I called the police who breathalysed me, the driver of the lorry and the drivers of the other two cars.

When I returned home I queried this with my wife, a solicitor, who informed me that the police have the right to breathalyse anyone involved in an RTA, indeed this could even be extended to witnesses not directly involved. Also my refusal to allow the test would have been an offence.


*Disclaimer - this may possibly be specific to Northern Ireland, I'm not sure.


I was also asked to produce my documents at the station within 7 days. I was at this point I discovered that my drivers license was out of date and was given an 'informed warning' for dirving with no license

Police have the power to breathalyse anyone they reasonably suspect may have committed the offence of driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle whilst being over the prescribed limit. As it only applies to those driving a motor vehicle, there is no power to breathalyse someone they do not suspect of driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle.

You were driving a motor vehicle by your owen admission, so police had power to breathalyse you.

If you had been on your bike and police had no reason to believe you were driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle whilst being over the prescribed limit, then you coul;d not have legally been breathalysed.

The power to breathalyse is nothing to do with fault in an accident

Underscore

vorsprung wrote:

Underscore wrote:

Do we really need to get all holier-than-thou just because he had the temerity to be driving a car at the time?

Yes

Because if a car hits a cyclist then the cyclist ends up in traction or worse
The driver complains about scratches to his paint. This simple fact effects the attitude that riders and drivers have towards safety.

That's why motorists have to have insurance. They are driving a deadly weapon.

But AllTheGear didn't hit the cyclist; he took evasive action which was necessary because the cyclist was riding like a donkey. My point was that shouldn't the response (if any were needed) have been "Yeah, some cyclist do seem to have a death wish" rather than a sarcastic "Oh dear, did you have to brake?".

_