Cycling plan to blame drivers for all crashes

AndyManc

MINISTERS are considering making motorists legally responsible for accidents involving cyclists or pedestrians, even if they are not at fault.

Government advisers are pushing for changes in the civil law that will make the most powerful vehicle involved in a collision automatically liable for insurance and compensation purposes.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6841326.ece


.

devoninbred

would be a brilliant law if it were to be introduced, sadly i think the death wagon lobby groups would stop it before it even got off the table, if i recall this law is already in place in Germany, Holland and possibly Denmark and it did make a positive improvement to the survival odds for cyclists, but it is many years since i have been to any of these countries.


Fingers crossed it makes it though.

pastryboy

devoninbred wrote:

would be a brilliant law if it were to be introduced,

Until a pedestrian strolls out in front of you without looking and sues the shit out of you.

gb155

I gotta say I dont like the idea, I dont drive BUT the amount of idiots on bikes that causes accident and peds that walk out into the road without looking is crazy and for the driver to be blamed seems STUPID

tailwindhome

MINISTERS are considering making motorists legally responsible for accidents involving cyclists or pedestrians, when they are at fault.
Government advisers are pushing for changes in the civil law that will make the party responsibe for a collision automatically liable for insurance and compensation purposes.

They have decided to enforce current laws instead of ignoring the carnage

A better proposal?

devoninbred

Until a pedestrian strolls out in front of you without looking and sues the shoot out of you

that can already happen but in principle it is a good idea.

AndyManc

I fully support the proposal, it will make motorists think twice about their behaviour and attitude if they face being hit hard in their pocket, rising insurance premiums and civil action.

This was introduced in Holland in the 70's (they had similar carnage on their roads and a disgraceful attitude towards cyclists) , virtually overnight there was a change in culture.

The sooner the better ASFAIC, and that includes the 20mph limit ..... but not for cyclists obviously :P



.

Aidy

I think that's quite insane.

I mean, surely others can see how ludicrous it is to automatically assume that the person in the more powerful vehicle is at fault?

I'm quite speechless as to how idiotic this proposal seems.

AndyManc

Aidy wrote:

I think that's quite insane.

I mean, surely others can see how ludicrous it is to automatically assume that the person in the more powerful vehicle is at fault?

I'm quite speechless as to how idiotic this proposal seems.

It wouldn't work like that, the onus would be on the motorist to prove they weren't at fault, .... if a cyclist deliberately drove at a car for instance, a motorist would have to prove they had absolutely no chance of avoiding a collision.

What it would do, is make motorists obey the highway code and give vulnerable road users special consideration , and that includes not overtaking 2" from your right shoulder like many motorists ( inc numerous HGV's) do at present.

Under this law, if a motorist didn't make sure they kept clear of a cyclist to avoid collision they would be liable.

ride_whenever

Some people are idiots, and the journalism is inflamatory. the actually useful part is the 7th from end paragraph :roll:

It isn't actually automatic liability they're planning for, it is presumed liability, i.e. you have to prove it wasn't your fault when driving.

c.f. innocent until proven guilty and overcrowded prisons.

greg66_tri_v2.0

(another) stupid idea from the Gov. It will simply encourage hit and runs.

AndyManc

Greg66 wrote:

(another) stupid idea from the Gov. It will simply encourage hit and runs.

We have enough hit and runs in Manchester as it is, p issed drivers and the unlicensed and uninsured commit hit and runs.

Your average housewife in an SUV will not decide to run on the spur of the moment after a collision in case her premiums might go up.


Similar policies — which would not extend to criminal law — have already been adopted by Germany and Holland, where transport campaigners say they have had a significant influence in changing attitudes towards cycling.


.

cjcp

Agree with RW's comment about the journalism, so, without seeing the whole report, will reserve judgment on the depth of the Govt. advisers' stupidity. But, it's a stupid idea.

DonDaddyD

Of all the car-hating fanatical ideas.

This won't encourage motorists to take more responsiblity for their actions it will make all others pedestrians, cyclists et al take less responsibility for theirs.

Then there is this:
"I need a new bike, find a Porsche, stop a little too sharp, let him hit me... sue the kunt..."

I'm actually glad that their are pro-cyclists that think this is idiocy at its absolute

ride_whenever

DDD that is interesting, but on the other hand.

Those who already take care are unlikely to stop, and those who don't already still wont.

prj45

"Such scheme would place the PRESUMPTION of blame against whoever was driving the most powerful vehicle involved in an accident."

So the headline is utter nonsense

greg66_tri_v2.0

I'm pretty well convinced this will change attitudes to cyclists, if not cycling. Just not in the way hoped for.

prj45

haang, on, if it say teh owner of the more powerful vehicle is presumed to be to blame, does a Tricross pwn a road bike, or does the road boke pwn the tricross?

DonDaddyD

ride_whenever wrote:

DDD that is interesting, but on the other hand.

Those who already take care are unlikely to stop, and those who don't already still wont.

I disagree, in the long term we aren't just alking about us who have grown up with taking resposibilty for our own safety and that others on the road (because this is what this proposed law amounts to).

Think of the next generation growing up with the view that if a car crashes into them the car has to prove that it wasn't that fault. I'm sure there are those who would take advantage of that situation - if not just to bully their way around the streets.

gb155

prj45 wrote:

haang, on, if it say teh owner of the more powerful vehicle is presumed to be to blame, does a Tricross pwn a road bike, or does the road boke pwn the tricross?

Depends on rider ?

DonDaddyD

Will they measure thighs to determine power... mine are huge!

ride_whenever

oh no, whatever next, cyclist bullying car drivers on the road...


That's a good point, DDD, but at the end of the day, i think you've got to have pretty big balls to cause a car to crash into you, the liability is still only going to be the value of the damage.

DonDaddyD

Tooting Broadway. Car comes out of side road, now cyclist could swerve but their wheel looks slightly out of true and they really want those Ksyrium Elites.... for the nice bike they aren't ridding that day. They hit the front of the car, bike goes over and cyclist spectacularly slides down the bonnet.

This would be the cars fault as it was the more powerful vehicle even though they were just peeping and creeping and the cyclist could have braked or ridden around the car.....

The reason why I'm saying from is because this happens (only it's pedestrians deliberately crossing the road too closely to cars so if they're hit they sue) in a country that is dear to me.

gb155

DonDaddyD wrote:

Tooting Broadway. Car comes out of side road, now cyclist could swerve but their wheel looks slightly out of true and they really want those Ksyrium Elites.... for the nice bike they aren't ridding that day. They hit the front of the car, bike goes over and cyclist spectacularly slides down the bonnet.

This would be the cars fault as it was the more powerful vehicle even though they were just peeping and creeping and the cyclist could have braked or ridden around the car.....

Well put DdD


End of Topic !!!!!

always_tyred

The proposed changes are essentially no different from the rebuttable presumption that if you run into the back of someone, it was your fault. This has not lead to a spate of people deliberately jamming their brakes on and then claiming on the other party's insurance.

EdZed

What utter garbage!

Why should anyone who is not at fault be blamed?? Irrespective of whether they are a vehicle driver or a cyclist. Surely whoever is at fault should bear the responsibility, this is an incredibly dangerous and stupid suggestion. Yet another crackpot idea. :roll:

always_tyred

gb155 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Tooting Broadway. Car comes out of side road, now cyclist could swerve but their wheel looks slightly out of true and they really want those Ksyrium Elites.... for the nice bike they aren't ridding that day. They hit the front of the car, bike goes over and cyclist spectacularly slides down the bonnet.

This would be the cars fault as it was the more powerful vehicle even though they were just peeping and creeping and the cyclist could have braked or ridden around the car.....

Well put DdD


End of Topic !!!!!

In your simply scenario, arguably, the fault would lie with the driver, but the relief available would reflect the damage which would have occurred had you attempted to brake.

Basically, though, you are both being quite imaginative. I challenge you to try cycling into a few walls in a controlled manner. I look forward to pictures of your efforts.

always_tyred

DonDaddyD wrote:

The reason why I'm saying from is because this happens (only it's pedestrians deliberately crossing the road too closely to cars so if they're hit they sue) in a country that is dear to me.

This happens all the time.

Pretty short career, though.

You read too many comics, DDD.

gb155

Always Tyred wrote:

gb155 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Tooting Broadway. Car comes out of side road, now cyclist could swerve but their wheel looks slightly out of true and they really want those Ksyrium Elites.... for the nice bike they aren't ridding that day. They hit the front of the car, bike goes over and cyclist spectacularly slides down the bonnet.

This would be the cars fault as it was the more powerful vehicle even though they were just peeping and creeping and the cyclist could have braked or ridden around the car.....

Well put DdD


End of Topic !!!!!

In your simply scenario, arguably, the fault would lie with the driver, but the relief available would reflect the damage which would have occurred had you attempted to brake.

Basically, though, you are both being quite imaginative. I challenge you to try cycling into a few walls in a controlled manner. I look forward to pictures of your efforts.

DDD you first

always_tyred

EdZed wrote:

What utter garbage!

Why should anyone who is not at fault be blamed?? Irrespective of whether they are a vehicle driver or a cyclist. Surely whoever is at fault should bear the responsibility, this is an incredibly dangerous and stupid suggestion. Yet another crackpot idea. :roll:

Once you've calmed down, set out the differences in principle to the presumption that the following motorist is to blame for a collision.

Its merely a starting point.

Indeed, in some places, there is a presumed equal fault between all road users - in that case even if you are entirely to blame, the law presumes that you are equally as culpable as the other party, and even if you aren't to blame, the law presumes that you are equally to blame. How crazy is that?

Where is that stupid system? The UK.

DonDaddyD

gb155 wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

gb155 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Tooting Broadway. Car comes out of side road, now cyclist could swerve but their wheel looks slightly out of true and they really want those Ksyrium Elites.... for the nice bike they aren't ridding that day. They hit the front of the car, bike goes over and cyclist spectacularly slides down the bonnet.

This would be the cars fault as it was the more powerful vehicle even though they were just peeping and creeping and the cyclist could have braked or ridden around the car.....

Well put DdD


End of Topic !!!!!

In your simply scenario, arguably, the fault would lie with the driver, but the relief available would reflect the damage which would have occurred had you attempted to brake.

Basically, though, you are both being quite imaginative. I challenge you to try cycling into a few walls in a controlled manner. I look forward to pictures of your efforts.

DDD you first

Always Tyred

Your bit in bold, confirms that the scenario - all it was ever intended to be - has proven its point.