Cycling plan to blame drivers for all crashes
Comments
-
kingrollo wrote:Don't forget, if as a motorist, you go into the back of someone (another car ) its automatically, your fault. Lets say this wasn't presently law, but was mooted as an idea - it would be branded, barmy, or loony,
Is this "presumption" a law though? Or is it more the case that common sense dictates that there is a presumption that if car A collides with car B then it is likely to be car A's fault, given that car A was under an obligation to maintain such a distance that it could stop safely in any foreseeable circumstance.
I honestly don't know the answer so would appreciate it if somebody could clarify.
Cheers.0 -
MatHammond wrote:kingrollo wrote:Don't forget, if as a motorist, you go into the back of someone (another car ) its automatically, your fault. Lets say this wasn't presently law, but was mooted as an idea - it would be branded, barmy, or loony,
Is this "presumption" a law though? Or is it more the case that common sense dictates that there is a presumption that if car A collides with car B then it is likely to be car A's fault, given that car A was under an obligation to maintain such a distance that it could stop safely in any foreseeable circumstance.
I honestly don't know the answer so would appreciate it if somebody could clarify.
Cheers.
Its the Highway code.0 -
Both, that's the point that's been made about a dozen times. The rebuttable presumption already exists in certain circumstances.MatHammond wrote:kingrollo wrote:Don't forget, if as a motorist, you go into the back of someone (another car ) its automatically, your fault. Lets say this wasn't presently law, but was mooted as an idea - it would be branded, barmy, or loony,
Is this "presumption" a law though? Or is it more the case that common sense dictates that there is a presumption that if car A collides with car B then it is likely to be car A's fault, given that car A was under an obligation to maintain such a distance that it could stop safely in any foreseeable circumstance.
I honestly don't know the answer so would appreciate it if somebody could clarify.
Cheers.
I have been thinking though, that arguably the "following vehicle to blame" presumption presently DOESN'T seem to apply to cyclists, since SMIDSY appears to be an acceptable excuse.0 -
This works in Holland very well where they have this law. When introduced they clamped down on bicycle users who do not follow the road rules. So you could expect tighter use of the laws on the road rules .Making cyclists ride safer and car drives Win win.0
-
Three near miss SMIDSYs in the space of a week (well two SMIDSYs and one "what the f**k do you f**king think you're f**king doing, getting in my f**king way while I'm trying to f**king join the traffic, you stupid f**king b***stard)!
I don't know what it is, but something needs to change. We all pay tax, but increasingly one of the main facilities we pay tax for is becoming a no-go area for everyone not in a car. If this helps, I'm all for it.0 -
Mmm, I'm amazed that "sorry mate, I didn't see you" is considered OK.
How about they said "sorry mate, I didn't bother to look first"? Doesn't sound quite so friendly now.
0 -
So, excuse my ignorance, but is SMIDSY acceptable for cars crashing into bikes, but not for cars crashing into other cars? I cannot believe that could be the case.
Each accident should be measured on their own merits as to who is culpable.
However, always blaming the vehicle (until proven otherwise) may well improve a lot of the attitudes of vehicle drivers, but could also raise the animosity against cyclists. Tough call."Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"0 -
Sometimes difficult to see how the animosity against cyclists could be raised! Of course most drivers are fine, but it doesn't take long on the roads to encounter a few who aren't. And the spleen vented in the comments section in response to any article which features cyclists is fundamentally depressing.
Bottom line for me is that if you're in charge of a ton of metal moving at 30+MPH you should be paying attention, obeying the law, and making allowances for other humans who are just as entitled to use the space as you are. It's not OK to make it up as you go along because you're a genuinely decent chap who grudgingly pays vehicle excise duty and who can be trusted to judge what's safe and what's not. And if people won't do that because it's the right thing to do, then we have to look at other means.0 -
This is what the European Commission said about the proposal to put this into the 4th Motor Insurance Directive:
"While pedestrians and cyclists cause some accidents, motor vehicles cause most accidents. Whoever is responsible, pedestrians and cyclists usually suffer more in accidents involving motor vehicles.
In cases where accidents are not caused by the driver, the situation of pedestrians and cyclists differs a good deal from one Member State to another. In some Member States no insurance cover is provided and the courts often try to establish driver liability in such a way as to permit inclusion of the victim within the motor insurance cover. In other Member States, the legislation provides that pedestrians and cyclists are covered by the insurance for the vehicle involved in the accident, irrespective of whether the driver is at fault, although the particular circumstances in which the civil liability of the pedestrian or cyclist is involved varies according to the national legislation. As far as the Commission is aware, such inclusion of pedestrians and cyclists in some Member States’ legislation has not had a significant impact on the cost of insurance.
The proposal adopted by the Commission in this regard aims to ensure that pedestrians and cyclists are covered by the compulsory insurance of the vehicle involved in the accident. This enhances their protection, as the weakest parties in traffic. This insurance coverage does not prejudge the civil liability which the pedestrian or cyclist may incur, or the level of compensation which is determined by the Member States’ national legislation."0 -
My parents live in Germany and I have seen first-hand how well this system seems to work. The great thing about it is that it doesn't rely on any fluffy notions of fairness, justice and goodwill towards all men, but simply on the assumption that most people are pretty selfish creatures at heart. If the repecussions of hitting a cyclist include a hefty blow to the wallet and points off your license then motorists are much more likely to give cyclists time and space - it is in their best interests to do so.
How to avoid the injustice of having to pay out for an accident when it was blatently the stupid cyclist's fault? Easy. Stay the hell away from the stupid cyclist!
Of course, it would be naive to think that such a system would work as well in the UK without adopting a better cyling infrastucture to go with it. In Germany/Holland cars and cyclists are generally separated on main roads or at dangerous junctions; there is far more use of shared pavements and pedestrians are far more tolerant of cyclists. There is also no culture of red-light jumping and weaving in and out of moving traffic on a bike like we have here. Jay-walking is also illegal, which goes a long way towards protecting cyclists/drivers from errant peds.
All that said, I do think that the main reason for accidents involving cyclists is that drivers simply aren't looking out for or don't notice cyclists. Anything that brings us more to their attention can only be a good thing!0 -
ketka82 wrote:All that said, I do think that the main reason for accidents involving cyclists is that drivers simply aren't looking out for or don't notice cyclists. Anything that brings us more to their attention can only be a good thing!
This is one of the significant differences between mainland Europe and the UK - cycling is a much bigger part of the former's culture. I think the first thing to do in the UK is to make tangible changes to try to make it safer for cyclists and drivers more aware of us/accept us a little more at the same time.FCN 2-4.
"What happens when the hammer goes down, kids?"
"It stays down, Daddy."
"Exactly."0 -
I'm just uncomfortable with making unfair laws to achieve a desirable end.0
-
biondino wrote:I'm just uncomfortable with making unfair laws to achieve a desirable end.
Not stopped the government of the day doing it for years and years!!"Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"0 -
biondino wrote:I'm just uncomfortable with making unfair laws to achieve a desirable end.
Sadly I think the attitude of some car drivers leaves them no choice.
A driver admitted to moving his car towards me in richmond on sunday because I was "taking his space"
Go figure what that mean't.Training is like fighting with a gorilla. You don’t stop when you’re tired. You stop when the gorilla is tired.0 -
Laws don't have to be fair. They just have to be for the general good of society and proportionate in the sense that they don't infringe individual freedom for negligible gain.0
-
Wallace1492 wrote:biondino wrote:I'm just uncomfortable with making unfair laws to achieve a desirable end.
Not stopped the government of the day doing it for years and years!!
It's not unfair - just different. The emphasis changes and effectively you're giving motorists a duty of care, which considering their potential for wrecking people's lives with a moment's carelessness seems perfectly fair to me.0 -
AndyManc wrote:
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
.
And our country is run by these people? God Help Us All !0 -
turnerjohn wrote:AndyManc wrote:
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
.
And our country is run by these people? God Help Us All !
What people? The journalists who write biased, inaccurate scare stories, or Government Ministers?
Not that it matters, while both groups think they do run the country, neither of them in fact does. We all saved! Hallelujah.0 -
Roadpeace has a page and PDF about strict liability and why it's A Good thing.
http://www.roadpeace.org/index.asp?PageID=1570 -
I don't think this sort of legsilation will win us any friends in the Jeremy Clarkson view of the world and I wish it wasn't necessary to even consider it but I'm at a loss as to how else to redress the huge imbalance of physical and psychological power and the grossly unfair advantage that driving a car gives one road user over their supposed equals.
to those that argue we should educate motorists to be kinder and more altruistic to more vulnerable road users when there is no reward or punishment imperitive imposed on them.
great idea but how do we do that in practice?
you might like to start off with something a little easier: introduce a starving fox into a chicken coop and educate it (without reward or punishment) not to kill and eat everything it possibly could.
why do we think there is a phenomenon called road rage and why is that phenomenon so vastly more prevalant in car drivers than any other form of travel. its the mentality of the car that makes us all that little bit more invincible and aggressive when we're the ones in control of it. Sane reasonable people turn into snarling foul mouthed monsters driving cars. I do - I'm as meek as you like when walking, cycling (until in real danger) or a passenger, but put me behind the wheel and captain angry pops up, traffic lights, queues, people stopping 3 feet over the give way line, not indicating (should be punishable by death) full beams or fog lights when not necessary - they all turn me into a snappy snarling arsehole.
If I wasn't a cyclist first and foremost, my frustration would be directed at something that I can bully and get away from in safety - guess who's going to get victimised, just because I can in my suit of Nissan armour, between the cyclist approaching the left turn junction I want to take or the white van making for the same place as me when the road narrows to a single carriageway? anyway its alright to cut the bike up, that f***ing cyclist deserves it because they all jump the lights and ride on the pavement.
The best abuse I ever got was whilst on the road waiting at some red lights - some bloke in a Rover wound down his window and yelled at me "I hate you c**ts, always riding on the pavement and ignoring the lights" (whilst pointing to the set of traffic lights we were side by side at).
How do you educate that sort of blinkered insane prejudice out of a population that already feels victimised by fuel prices and gatsos? any more than we can educate the prick on the pavement who is sailing merrily through the red light and is deliberately antagonising car drivers.
sadly in this motorist v the world stand off, the only thing that will work as education is some sort of presumption of 'might is wrong' until proven different or significant punitive sanction such as adjusting the legal status of the car to that of an offensive weapon and sentancing car hurts/ kills person as murder in the same way as you'd treat bullet hurts/kills person.
or we could always lobby for a 12 inch razor sharp spike to be placed in the middle of every car steering wheel :twisted: :twisted:0 -
The corresponding article in Sunday Times about this change states: "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."Eau Rouge wrote:turnerjohn wrote:AndyManc wrote:
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
.
The principle has been applied in German law for well over 60 years, not sure how they establish the "changing attitudes". German law presumes liability for anyone who operates any device, a machine, fire, knife, ... However, there is no "automatic blame" on motorists in Germany and this legal principal has nothing to do with cyclists as such. All German (Dutch, Danish, Austrian, etc) law does is to take into account that a person who decides to operate an intrinsically dangerous machine will be accountable, even if he/she follows the rulebook. Operating a combustion engine with 50+ bhp to move a tonne of metal on the public highway carries certainly much more risk to others than if the person decided to walk. If an accident happens, this risk will be taken into account, resulting almost always in partially blaming the driver.
If a pedestrian has been negligent and the motorist has been very careful this partial blame may be low (e.g. 20% to 80%). However, driving within the speed limit on a residential road will be no excuse in Germany, if the ton of metal flattens a child. A pedestrian can be seriously injured due to a little oversight, like not noticing an approaching car. Would a crash take place with a pedestrian or bicycle instead, major injuries would be extremely unlikely. It is time that British motor insurances pay out on this intrinsic risk of motoring.
I think this is a very sensible and very important change. If this change also leads to enforcing liability insurance on cars (the problem of uninsured cars does not exist on German or Dutch roads). In addition, it may help to prevent drivers from invading cycle lanes and advanced stop lines and may even make motorist respect urban speed limits as the "upper limit".
If only a few more of the accidents with cars that lead to permanent disability or death every year will result in the car insurance having to pay damages and maintenance for a lifetime, instead of leaving the vulnerable road user impoverished and sub-maintained by social services / the tax payer (i.e. YOU) than it will be worth it!0 -
Catapa wrote:may even make motorist respect urban speed limits as the "upper limit".
Aye. As my driving instructor used to tell me; it's a limit, not a target. So many people seem to think it's mandatory to drive at the speed limit as a minimum. :wall:0 -
shouldbeinbed wrote:I don't think this sort of legsilation will win us any friends in the Jeremy Clarkson view of the world
Oh boo hoo! :P0 -
Absolutely disgusting, i can't believe the narrowed minded fools on this forum actually support this idea.0
-
If you are being ironic . . . . ha ha.Vivid wrote:Absolutely disgusting, i can't believe the narrowed minded fools on this forum actually support this idea.
If not:-
How so?
Now that you've joined the debate with such a well thought out comment, how about you have a stab at explaining why (a) people who consider this are narrow minded and (b) why people who dismiss the idea out of hand aren't narrow minded.
Should be entertaining to hear your carefully reasoned arguments.0 -
shouldbeinbed wrote:I don't think this sort of legsilation will win us any friends in the Jeremy Clarkson view of the world and I wish it wasn't necessary to even consider it but I'm at a loss as to how else to redress the huge imbalance of physical and psychological power and the grossly unfair advantage that driving a car gives one road user over their supposed equals.
to those that argue we should educate motorists to be kinder and more altruistic to more vulnerable road users when there is no reward or punishment imperitive imposed on them.
great idea but how do we do that in practice?
you might like to start off with something a little easier: introduce a starving fox into a chicken coop and educate it (without reward or punishment) not to kill and eat everything it possibly could.
why do we think there is a phenomenon called road rage and why is that phenomenon so vastly more prevalant in car drivers than any other form of travel. its the mentality of the car that makes us all that little bit more invincible and aggressive when we're the ones in control of it. Sane reasonable people turn into snarling foul mouthed monsters driving cars. I do - I'm as meek as you like when walking, cycling (until in real danger) or a passenger, but put me behind the wheel and captain angry pops up, traffic lights, queues, people stopping 3 feet over the give way line, not indicating (should be punishable by death) full beams or fog lights when not necessary - they all turn me into a snappy snarling arsehole.
If I wasn't a cyclist first and foremost, my frustration would be directed at something that I can bully and get away from in safety - guess who's going to get victimised, just because I can in my suit of Nissan armour, between the cyclist approaching the left turn junction I want to take or the white van making for the same place as me when the road narrows to a single carriageway? anyway its alright to cut the bike up, that f***ing cyclist deserves it because they all jump the lights and ride on the pavement.
The best abuse I ever got was whilst on the road waiting at some red lights - some bloke in a Rover wound down his window and yelled at me "I hate you c**ts, always riding on the pavement and ignoring the lights" (whilst pointing to the set of traffic lights we were side by side at).
How do you educate that sort of blinkered insane prejudice out of a population that already feels victimised by fuel prices and gatsos? any more than we can educate the prick on the pavement who is sailing merrily through the red light and is deliberately antagonising car drivers.
sadly in this motorist v the world stand off, the only thing that will work as education is some sort of presumption of 'might is wrong' until proven different or significant punitive sanction such as adjusting the legal status of the car to that of an offensive weapon and sentancing car hurts/ kills person as murder in the same way as you'd treat bullet hurts/kills person.
or we could always lobby for a 12 inch razor sharp spike to be placed in the middle of every car steering wheel :twisted: :twisted:
I 100% agree with the above post.
But in order to not to alienate the motorist camp too much I think the best idea would be to also introduce some kind of cycling test/license or similar. At the end of the day if we are going to use the roads like motorised vehicles do we might as well learn all the rules properly. I see so many cyclist disobeying the rules of the road that it actually makes me sick sometimes being part of the cycling community.x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
Commuting / Winter rides - Jamis Renegade Expert
Pootling / Offroad - All-City Macho Man Disc
Fast rides Cannondale SuperSix Ultegra0 -
The proposal is a sensible, workable suggestion. It would save lives, reduce premiums and prevent senseless deaths and injuries.
If a motor vehicle hits a pedestrian, cyclist, equestrian or disabled person, the non-motorised user is far more likely to be injured. This ought to mean that drivers have a greater duty of care for non-motorised users’ safety. However, this is not currently recognised in law.
Although the current civil liability system requires negligence to be proven, this creates an inherent balance against pedestrians and cyclists who, due to their greater vulnerability, are far less likely to recall how the collision occurred with the clarity needed to be a “good witness” in court.
Hence non-motorised crash victims often find it very difficult to obtain compensation for damages. This current situation regularly leads to grave injustice, far more serious than anything that could possibly result if the burden of proof were reversed in such cases.
The law on driver insurance schemes should therefore be amended so that non-motorised road users will be able to claim injury damages from drivers who hit them, unless it can be shown that the non-motorised road user behaved recklessly.
In deciding whether a person has acted recklessly, their mental and physical characterisitics should be taken into account, so that groups such as children, people with learning difficulties and disabled people who may not have appreciated the outcomes of their actions would be able to claim damages.
Drivers would not be criminalised under these proposals, which are in line with laws already in place in other European countries. They would merely be required to drive safely, and to take the requisite care around children and other people who can be expected to act unpredictably.
http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4686
At present, in a car - bike/pedestrian collision, the cyclist
or pedestrian (probably the worst injured) has to prove the
motorist was reckless.
We want that burden of proof switched so the motorist –
choosing to use a ton of metal at speed – has to prove the
cyclist or pedestrian was at fault.
This only applies to insurance claims. In criminal law, drivers
in collisions remain innocent until proven guilty.
This rule exists in many EU countries with more walking and
cycling, and a better child road safety record, Let’s raise
driving standards and create better road user attitudes.
Look at the Tony Spink case:
http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/t ... ged/page/3
So if you happen to drive into a cyclist, who then clings on to your windscreen wipers to stop from being killed, all you have to do is keep driving until he does fall off. Once you've successfully driven over him with your HGV, killing him in the process, simply drive 30 miles and dispose of the mangled bike in a hedge.
The court won't charge you with murder, or manslaughter, or death by dangerous driving. No. All you'll be charged with is careless driving and get a 2 year sentence.
Oops. I drove over someone. How terribly careless of me.0 -
This is what the European Commission said about the proposal to put this into the 4th Motor Insurance Directive:
"While pedestrians and cyclists cause some accidents, motor vehicles cause most accidents. Whoever is responsible, pedestrians and cyclists usually suffer more in accidents involving motor vehicles.
In cases where accidents are not caused by the driver, the situation of pedestrians and cyclists differs a good deal from one Member State to another. In some Member States no insurance cover is provided and the courts often try to establish driver liability in such a way as to permit inclusion of the victim within the motor insurance cover. In other Member States, the legislation provides that pedestrians and cyclists are covered by the insurance for the vehicle involved in the accident, irrespective of whether the driver is at fault, although the particular circumstances in which the civil liability of the pedestrian or cyclist is involved varies according to the national legislation. As far as the Commission is aware, such inclusion of pedestrians and cyclists in some Member States’ legislation has not had a significant impact on the cost of insurance.
The proposal adopted by the Commission in this regard aims to ensure that pedestrians and cyclists are covered by the compulsory insurance of the vehicle involved in the accident. This enhances their protection, as the weakest parties in traffic. This insurance coverage does not prejudge the civil liability which the pedestrian or cyclist may incur, or the level of compensation which is determined by the Member States’ national legislation."
NO, MOTORISTS WILL NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR ANY ACCIDENT INVOLVING CYCLISTS.!!
Sorry for shouting, I hope this helps.
It is not always the motorist's fault. The thread title, and media reaction, is utterly dishonest.
If A sues B for libel, English law currently requires B to prove that did not say anything libellous. The are not automatically found to have done so but it is up to them to prove that they didn't, rather than for A to prove that they did.
In a similar way, the proposal is that if there is an accident between a cyclist and a car driver, if the cyclist sues the car driver it will be up to the car driver to prove they were not at fault. If the cyclist did something stupid like pulling out of a junction without looking or jumping a red light then the car driver would be able to do so quite easily. I's not being suggested that the car driver is always found liable for damages regardless. As I've said eleventy million times now!0 -
I doubt it - he seems pretty bright. I'd be fascinated to have a passionate discussion with Clarkson about something of this nature. I wonder if he'd just be a bully?0
