Cycling plan to blame drivers for all crashes
Comments
-
You don't understand the point DDD.
The driver could be "at fault" but the damages awarded could be nominal (e.g. 10p) as a result of the equitable conduct of the other party (i.e. not making an effort to minimize damage).0 -
Always Tyred wrote: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.
Not a spate perhaps, but it does happen
I see it on TV
Seriously
I did“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:They hit the front of the car, bike goes over and cyclist spectacularly slides down the bonnet.
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.
How many f******* idiots do you know that deliberately run/cycle into 1 ton vehicles in the hope of
A. Not getting killed
B. Hoping there were no witnesses and they might get a few quid out of it.
.Specialized Hardrock Pro/Trek FX 7.3 Hybrid/Specialized Enduro/Specialized Tri-Cross Sport
0 -
AndyManc wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:They hit the front of the car, bike goes over and cyclist spectacularly slides down the bonnet.
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.
How many f******* idiots do you know that deliberately run/cycle into 1 ton vehicles in the hope of
A. Not getting killed
B. Hoping there were no witnesses and they might get a few quid out of it.
.
It doesnt make a cyclist doing it OK though and there are people out there mate that will, lets be honest about it.On a Mission to lose 20 stone..Get My Life Back
December 2007 - 39 Stone 05 Lbs
July 2011 - 13 Stone 12 Lbs - Cycled 17851 Miles
http://39stonecyclist.com
Now the hard work starts.0 -
...“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
Always Tyred wrote:You don't understand the point DDD
I do understand your point. You're over analysing mine. Yes, once you get into assessing whose fault it was it may or may not be proven that the cyclist was at fault. Even though they were. After all, that is what the proposed law states: the more powerful vehicle is at fault and has to prove it wasn't their fault. ('Guilty until proven innoccent' goes against the very principles of the English legal system - FACT, I've asked Girlfirend, she's a Lawyer)
However, my scenario isn't addressing that. It highlights one possible initial motivation that could come about because of the law. There are many more, there are positives and negatives.
However many, I don't agree with the proposed law.
Last post, people are getting irate.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
ignore this :arrow:Specialized Hardrock Pro/Trek FX 7.3 Hybrid/Specialized Enduro/Specialized Tri-Cross Sport0
-
gb155 wrote:
It doesnt make a cyclist doing it OK though and there are people out there mate that will, lets be honest about it.
How many ? , a handful of mentally unstable drug addicts each year .... maybe.
Compare that to the number of motorists that will deliberately risk the lives of cyclists knowing full well that the chances of them being successfully prosecuted is 'slight' at best, one of the reasons why driving standards are so appalling (particularly concerned with cyclists) is because motorists know unless the cyclists has video evidence and a long list of witnesses he won't face charges.
Don't you think that the odds should be in favour of the most vulnerable on our roads .... time to turn the tide.
.Specialized Hardrock Pro/Trek FX 7.3 Hybrid/Specialized Enduro/Specialized Tri-Cross Sport0 -
Okay. Take a step back - are you talking about criminal or civil law?DonDaddyD wrote:Always Tyred wrote:You don't understand the point DDD
I do understand your point. You're over analysing mine. Yes, once you get into assessing whose fault it was it might or might not be proven that it was the cyclist, even though it was. After all, that is what the proposed law states: the more powerful vehicle is at fault and has to prove it wasn't their fault. ('Guilty until proven innoccent' goes against the very principles of English legal system - FACT, I've asked Girlfirend, she's a Lawyer)
However, my scenario isn't addressing that. It highlights one possible initial motivation that could come about because of the law. There are many more, there are positives and negatives.
However many, I don't agree with the proposed law.
Last post, people are getting irate.
If its a criminal law thing, I'm (a) out of my depth and (b) it would indeed be one of a small number of exceptions to the general presumption of innocence.
If its a civil law thing, then "he who alleges must prove" applies, but exceptions are far more common.
What I (think I'm) saying is that the proposal isn't the start of some terrible errosion of our basic human rights, as provided by the British criminal legal system, but is instead a subtle change in civil law no more or less shocking than numerous others we take for granted.0 -
Always Tyred wrote:
Okay. Take a step back - are you talking about criminal or civil law?DonDaddyD wrote:Always Tyred wrote:You don't understand the point DDD
I do understand your point. You're over analysing mine. Yes, once you get into assessing whose fault it was it might or might not be proven that it was the cyclist, even though it was. After all, that is what the proposed law states: the more powerful vehicle is at fault and has to prove it wasn't their fault. ('Guilty until proven innoccent' goes against the very principles of English legal system - FACT, I've asked Girlfirend, she's a Lawyer)
However, my scenario isn't addressing that. It highlights one possible initial motivation that could come about because of the law. There are many more, there are positives and negatives.
However many, I don't agree with the proposed law.
Last post, people are getting irate.
If its a criminal law thing, I'm (a) out of my depth and (b) it would indeed be one of a small number of exceptions to the general presumption of innocence.
If its a civil law thing, then "he who alleges must prove" applies, but exceptions are far more common.
What I (think I'm) saying is that the proposal isn't the start of some terrible errosion of our basic human rights, as provided by the British criminal legal system, but is instead a subtle change in civil law no more or less shocking than numerous others we take for granted.
I've been told to introduce myself as Mrs DDD,
Im not sure whether the proposal is that this is incorporated into the criminal or civil legal systems (or both). Either way, it will only be a rebuttable presumption i.e. one that can be rebutted if evidence can be produced to the contrary. There are a number of these in both criminal and civil law already. It does however reverse the usual stance in criminal law that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and the position in civil actions in that the claimaint must prove his claim on the balance of probabilities, thereby giving us a starting point that the more powerful vehcile is in the wrong, unless he or she can prove otherwise.
I believe DDD's point is that it seems a little unfair to place the onus on the driver of the more powerful car to prove that they were not at fault. If there are no witnesses etc this is a heavy burden to place on the car driver. Rebuttable presumptions are a tricky area and should always be approached with caution.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Always Tyred wrote: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.
Are you sure you're not thinking of the knock-for-knock system car insurers run betweem themselves? That's nothing more than a convention they adopt to make their lives easier.
There's no presumption to that effect in a court of law (at least, one south of the border).0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:If there are no witnesses etc this is a heavy burden to place on the car driver. Rebuttable presumptions are a tricky area and should always be approached with caution.
+1. The problem is that if there is no evidence in your favour, you'e got problems. In a cyclist v pedestrian secenario, I don't want to rely on other peds to be a witness in my favour to rebut the presumption. As a driver, and seeing how bad some cyclists ride, I don't want the presumption against me. The burden should remain on the claimant to prove their case on the balance of probabilities without the benefit of a presumption.FCN 2-4.
"What happens when the hammer goes down, kids?"
"It stays down, Daddy."
"Exactly."0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:
I've been told to introduce myself as Mrs DDD,
Hello Mrs DDD!
DDD finally let you into his weird little demi-monde of virtual friends. I bet you think this makes the inside of a comic shop look positively normal, dontcha?
Now is your big opportunity to *truly* spill the beans on the real DDD. Like a genuine News of the Screws exposé, but with all the good stuff left in...0 -
Greg66 wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:
I've been told to introduce myself as Mrs DDD,
Hello Mrs DDD!
DDD finally let you into his weird little demi-monde of virtual friends. I bet you think this makes the inside of a comic shop look positively normal, dontcha?
Now is your big opportunity to *truly* spill the beans on the real DDD. Like a genuine News of the Screws exposé, but with all the good stuff left in...
hmm if i told you the half of it then u guys may never speak to him again....first there is the fascination with bondage, then the model aeroplane/stamp collection, and dont even get me started on his penchant for wearing women's clothes.
Ill teach him for always complaining on this site about me not riding a bike :-)Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Oi!
Must remember to log-out when not at desk....Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
RUMBLED!Le Cannon [98 Cannondale M400] [FCN: 8]
The Mad Monkey [2013 Hoy 003] [FCN: 4]0 -
cjcp wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:If there are no witnesses etc this is a heavy burden to place on the car driver. Rebuttable presumptions are a tricky area and should always be approached with caution.
+1. The problem is that if there is no evidence in your favour, you'e got problems. In a cyclist v pedestrian secenario, I don't want to rely on other peds to be a witness in my favour to rebut the presumption. As a driver, and seeing how bad some cyclists ride, I don't want the presumption against me. The burden should remain on the claimant to prove their case on the balance of probabilities without the benefit of a presumption.
The whole idea behind the proposals is to instigate a total change of culture, a change that is essential for a myriad of reasons.
There has been no cited evidence that this legislation has resulted in a surge of legal injustice taking place in the countries that have adopted these proposals.
http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:kvOupSb0qBwJ:www.roadpeace.org/documents/Strict%2520liability%2520discussion%2520paper.pdf+assumed+bicycle+car+liability+law+denmark&hl=en&gl=uk
.Specialized Hardrock Pro/Trek FX 7.3 Hybrid/Specialized Enduro/Specialized Tri-Cross Sport0 -
0
-
AndyManc wrote:cjcp wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:If there are no witnesses etc this is a heavy burden to place on the car driver. Rebuttable presumptions are a tricky area and should always be approached with caution.
+1. The problem is that if there is no evidence in your favour, you'e got problems. In a cyclist v pedestrian secenario, I don't want to rely on other peds to be a witness in my favour to rebut the presumption. As a driver, and seeing how bad some cyclists ride, I don't want the presumption against me. The burden should remain on the claimant to prove their case on the balance of probabilities without the benefit of a presumption.
The whole idea behind the proposals is to instigate a total change of culture, a change that is essential for a myriad of reasons.
There has been no cited evidence that this legislation has resulted in a surge of legal injustice taking place in the countries that have adopted these proposals.
http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:kvOupSb0qBwJ:www.roadpeace.org/documents/Strict%2520liability%2520discussion%2520paper.pdf+assumed+bicycle+car+liability+law+denmark&hl=en&gl=uk
.
Mr DDD, though I'm sure you can tell from the grammar....
I'm going to try one last time. At the initial moment of any vehicle accident it would be presumed that the more powerful vehicle was at fault.
Firstly: It proposes that we live in a guilty until proven innocent society and England's legal system (as I understand it - criminal or civil) isn't set up that way.
Secondly: Define more powerful? Diesel vs Petrol engine? Are we measuring bhp, acceleration or top speed? Lorry designed to haul heavy stuff or hot hatch? The circumference of my thighs and calf vs yours? :?Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Where's Weedy to really continue a argument when you want her/he/dad/pysco when you want one! :twisted:0
-
AndyManc wrote:cjcp wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:If there are no witnesses etc this is a heavy burden to place on the car driver. Rebuttable presumptions are a tricky area and should always be approached with caution.
+1. The problem is that if there is no evidence in your favour, you'e got problems. In a cyclist v pedestrian secenario, I don't want to rely on other peds to be a witness in my favour to rebut the presumption. As a driver, and seeing how bad some cyclists ride, I don't want the presumption against me. The burden should remain on the claimant to prove their case on the balance of probabilities without the benefit of a presumption.
The whole idea behind the proposals is to instigate a total change of culture, a change that is essential for a myriad of reasons.
There has been no cited evidence that this legislation has resulted in a surge of legal injustice taking place in the countries that have adopted these proposals.
http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:kvOupSb0qBwJ:www.roadpeace.org/documents/Strict%2520liability%2520discussion%2520paper.pdf+assumed+bicycle+car+liability+law+denmark&hl=en&gl=uk
.
The way I read that paper, it suggests that it is an easy way for the Govt. to shift the responsibility for certain failings onto the driver without dealing with underlying problems.
For example:
1. the Police are state-controlled. Why are they apparently dedicating insufficient resources to investigating incidents? Lack of Govt. funding or a decision by the Police not to investigate such incidentss in more detail? This is not something the driver can be blamed for. Are the police going to be encouraged to spend more on investigations if there is a strict liability regime in place? Not likely.
2. will this reduce the number of HGVs on the road? Not likely.
3. Is it going to reduce the number of t0$$ers driving through 20mph zone at 30? Not likely. Instead of strict liability, I'd rather see more money spent on prevention or policing these zones.FCN 2-4.
"What happens when the hammer goes down, kids?"
"It stays down, Daddy."
"Exactly."0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:I believe DDD's point is that it seems a little unfair to place the onus on the driver of the more powerful car to prove that they were not at fault. If there are no witnesses etc this is a heavy burden to place on the car driver.
Is it a heavier burden than for the cyclist (or the cyclist's estate) trying to prove that the driver was at fault in the absence of witnesses?0 -
This pretty much word for word what I've said.DonDaddyD wrote:I've been told to introduce myself as Mrs DDD,
Im not sure whether the proposal is that this is incorporated into the criminal or civil legal systems (or both). Either way, it will only be a rebuttable presumption i.e. one that can be rebutted if evidence can be produced to the contrary. There are a number of these in both criminal and civil law already. It does however reverse the usual stance in criminal law that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and the position in civil actions in that the claimaint must prove his claim on the balance of probabilities, thereby giving us a starting point that the more powerful vehcile is in the wrong, unless he or she can prove otherwise.
I believe DDD's point is that it seems a little unfair to place the onus on the driver of the more powerful car to prove that they were not at fault. If there are no witnesses etc this is a heavy burden to place on the car driver. Rebuttable presumptions are a tricky area and should always be approached with caution.
It comes down to whether or not one believes the benefits outweigh the compromises entailed.
As a driver, I feel that I have no great difficulty avoiding driving into cyclists, or even having near misses with cyclists driving into me. I've been driving for 20 years and i've yet to have a single incident. As a cyclist, I cannot say the same thing.
Hence, I'm very much in favour of the proposals. Not that pigs will fly or anything.0 -
I was trying to draw comparison to the mere presumption of the equal treatment of both parties, both in court or in insurance claims. You see, depending on how you spin things, even the inherently reasonable can sound unreasonable. Perhaps I didn't do this very well, but arguably your reaction makes my point.Greg66 wrote:Always Tyred wrote: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.
Are you sure you're not thinking of the knock-for-knock system car insurers run betweem themselves? That's nothing more than a convention they adopt to make their lives easier.
There's no presumption to that effect in a court of law (at least, one south of the border).
NB: I don't necessarily think too much can be read into the "power" of the respecitve vehicles. I don't think the proposals are intended to distinguish between collisions between a 2.5l V6 and a 1.8L diesel, but between classes of vehicles, e.g. HGV's with cars, cars with pedestrians, etc..0 -
As far as I can tell, the idea is for there to be a presumption in civil cases that the driver of the more powerful vehicle is to blame. Nothing to do with the "innocent until proven guilty" position in criminal law. It is what lawyers would term a rebuttable presumption, i.e. one that can be rebutted by evidence.
It is also quite distinct from a generalised, no-fault compensation scheme.0 -
It's my understanding that when a bike and larger, less vulnerable vehicle i.e. a car/van etc an involved in an accident, drivers are repsonsible for 85% of them.
Is this a law which needs to be brought out? I think it could be fair to say that 15% of accidents are caused by cyclists in some way.
Maybe just beeter education of the highway code for judges/solicitors during a legal case?What wheels...? Wheelsmith.co.uk!0 -
Dgh wrote:As far as I can tell, the idea is for there to be a presumption in civil cases that the driver of the more powerful vehicle is to blame.
How about they change the law so in any bar brawl - hell, let's extend it to a mugging - the bigger bloke is always at fault unless proved otherwise. Scenario completely breaks down. The country would be overrun by gangs of vicious, homicidal jockeys knowing they were untouchable.
Apart from anything else, the thought of giving cyclists even fewer reasons for taking responsibility for their actions fills me with dread, ditto peds. This is a horrible idea.0 -
I'd say this is a good idea. It is used in many parts of continental Europe and works well. It just gives cyclists extra protection from motorists, and would in my view stop some of the overt aggression from motorists.
That people would cynically manipulate the law to falsify insurance would no doubt happen but the instances of this would be so rare that it would be worth it for the extra protection afforded to cyclists. You would have to be pretty insane to contrive an accident with a motor vehicle in any case.
Those of you who argue against it are coming from the point of view of being both cyclist and motorist whereas 90% of motorists do not cycle (FACT). And therefore are not really aware of how to drive properly around cyclists (i.e. how much room to gibe them etc - there are far more cyclists on the roads than when most people took their test). This would avoid any doubt in their minds about who has priority / is in the right etc. I am sure that the number of cyclists killed each year would go down.0 -
If these are passed I really wouldn't want to the the captain of a ship that bumps into a suicidal bridge jumper.
What about on the railway, sorry Mr Driver, we know they were trespassing, we know you need 5 miles to stop, but civil law allows us to claim back our insurance payout from you.
If it's based on vehicle size it will probably drive more haulage companies overseas using foreign drivers who can't be traced via the DVLA.
Given that no one in the UK seems to know the rules of the road despite passing Driving tests and cycling proficiency tests it probably won't make a difference.
Insurance companies already offer cover for extra costs of an accident, I don't usually bother cos it's 20 quid extra a year and I don't intend on crashing into anyone.
(Actually I don't because it costs more, and if I wasn't needing to maintain a NCB I would only have 3rd party cover for the car as well.)Do Nellyphants count?
Commuter: FCN 9
Cheapo Roadie: FCN 5
Off Road: FCN 11
+1 when I don't get round to shaving for x days0
