Cycling and the Justice System - public inquiry

veronese68

Copied from Road General, thought it might interest a few over here.

yaya wrote:

Fellow cyclists and friends. The UK government has finally taken notice of the increased number of car vs cycle road collisions and has opened a public inquiry in view to investigate the 'Cycling and the Justice System' and to improve/ fix what needs fixing. If you have something to say and if you would like to be involved, the deadline for submitting evidence is January 16th 2017. More details on how to get involved are here: https://allpartycycling.org/inquiries/justice/
Please share!!!

Crazyjenkins01

Great news

smokey_bacon

Sounds like a good idea. Looking forward to seeing the results if it leads to a proper review with a very specific scope. Anyone "off here" thinking of giving evidence?

Crazyjenkins01

Already pointed them in the direction of some analytical work by a columnist who posts on another mag website I frequent named after that most heavenly of mountain bike trail.....

Crazyjenkins01

Also, why is BR and other websites not headlining this on their front page/news page?!?!

Surely this sort of thing should be shouted about to get those who frequent the websites to become involved with the process if they have evidence that would be beneficial? The number of posts I've seen about videoed nearmisses and incidents being under investigated or ignored are a cause for concern?!?!

smoggysteve

Crazyjenkins01 wrote:

Also, why is BR and other websites not headlining this on their front page/news page?!?!

Ever been to road.cc ? Its a 24/7 misery and condemnation of motor vehicles and accidents involving cyclists. There is a point to where people stop listening.

Every week there is a story about cycling injustices on road or paths and predominantly in London. As though the rest of the UK doesn't exist. Its the old familiar story of a topic being bludgeoned to death through overexposure.

Crazyjenkins01

I get that, but surely this is more than just that?

If the UK Gov is looking into this then the cycling community needs to give them the tools to change things for the better for ALL road users.
I don't road ride, but if I did I'd want to know that something like this is happening.

N0bodyOfTheGoat

I do hope that victims like that bloke who was knocked off his bike by the car where the two hire passengers refused to diverge who was driving, got off scott free, despite the rear camera footage see this review.

It does seem to be getting very little coverage by bike websites, despite the deadline to get in touch being in five days time! :evil:

thistle_

Justice (lack of) is only part of the problem, but it's a good start.

smoggysteve

This week alone I have read of stories involving:

changing the Highway Code to benefit cyclists and cut out accidents at junctions i.e. Left hookers

A change in the law to make it harder for anyone trying to claim damages under 5000.

More p!ssing and moaning about Londons cycling superhighway causing congestion etc etc

Now this. Its getting tedious that the govt is reported to be doing something. Until anything actually happens is another thing. Right now the powers that be have far bigger fish to fry like brexit, the NHS, rail strikes etc. A lot of these stories are distraction snippets of other stuff the govt is looking into but will probably do SFA about in the near future. Sounds cynical but it's the truth

Crazyjenkins01

I hope you are wrong Steve, but you're right about bigger fish to an extent.
The main problem with everything I have read is that "drivers" (not all of them) don't understand their responsibilities. Just look at the number of small vans with the cyclists beware stickers, I thought that as a driver I was responsible for checking my mirrors prior to any maneuver, including blind spots. i can understand HGVs to a point as they have massive blindspots and are much higher than cyclists, but they should still be happy there is nothing along them before maneuvering.

smoggysteve

There are plenty of white vans with stickers on them as though it somehow removes them from any blame if a cyclist on their inside it knocked off by them - the laws about who is to blame currently exist. It's just the arrogance of the few who feel they are able to circumvent the law with a sodding sticker.

There doesn't really need to be a changing of the law just a better enforcement of the ones we currently have. Although not really related but semi relevant read the story on smart motorways. The rules changed to using hard shoulders and variable speed limits have done more to confuse drivers as to the rule of the road than actually clarifying them.

Crazyjenkins01

On the enforcement and prosecution I 100% agree, but I do think that needs to be on cyclists too, not just motorists. I work in London a fair amount and travel there for union duties and the amount of absolute idiots on bikes I see is staggering! I know being from the south west its a bit different down here, but even so... I don't agree on the smart motorways though, again lots of miles, and there are signs there to give instruction. Drivers just don't seem to want to stick to speed limits etc (especially through roadworks). Its the same problem with paint on the road, I see plenty of drivers ignoring road markings and cutting other vehicles up etc.

smoggysteve

Playing devils advocate. I can see why a lot on inner city drivers condemn cyclists and how they are treated as the 'victim' since absolutely anyone can jump on a bike without a license or insurance and have the same right of way as a motor vehicle. As is true with any part of society you have the majority as law abiding citizens and the small minority of utter fuckmongerers who cause the problems. They can be in the cars the taxis the trucks and on the bikes. This again comes down to law enforcement and not saying a new law coming into place which tips the balance unfairly in someone's favour.

veronese68

Crazyjenkins01 wrote:

I see plenty of drivers ignoring road markings and cutting other vehicles up etc.

The problem is far too many people seem to believe rules only apply if they are not inconvenienced by them, but they should apply to others all the time without fail.
This applies to drivers, cyclist, pedestrians, etc...

anonymousblackfg

Crazyjenkins01 wrote:

Also, why is BR and other websites not headlining this on their front page/news page?!?!

My experience when I was attacked and highlighted who the liveried driver was on here, BR removed the thread. Hardly out to support us!

Crazyjenkins01

That's exactly my point V!

ABF not sure I can comment on that, the only thing I can come up with is possible liable lawsuit???

N0bodyOfTheGoat

SmoggySteve wrote:

Playing devils advocate. I can see why a lot on inner city drivers condemn cyclists and how they are treated as the 'victim' since absolutely anyone can jump on a bike without a license or insurance and have the same right of way as a motor vehicle. As is true with any part of society you have the majority as law abiding citizens and the small minority of utter fuckmongerers who cause the problems. They can be in the cars the taxis the trucks and on the bikes. This again comes down to law enforcement and not saying a new law coming into place which tips the balance unfairly in someone's favour.

While cyclists (like other road users) have a responsibility to ride with due care and attention, the odds of a collision with a cyclist hitting you causing serious or fatal injuries to you is very low, but those in/on ~500+Kg motorised vehicles cannot say the same.

And on that note, I shall go for a quick ride, something I have been beating myself up (again) about not doing since ~1100 this morning!

veronese68

NitrousOxide wrote:

While cyclists (like other road users) have a responsibility to ride with due care and attention, the odds of a collision with a cyclist hitting you causing serious or fatal injuries to you is very low, but those in/on ~500+Kg motorised vehicles cannot say the same.

Whilst there are flaws in it, this is where presumed liability is a good thing.

fat daddy

NitrousOxide wrote:

the odds of a collision with a cyclist hitting you causing serious or fatal injuries to you is very low,

but still a probability, which is why cyclists should be insured and the odds of any damage reflected in the price of the insurance

£35 a year compared to £500 a year for a car ?

smoggysteve

Veronese68 wrote:

NitrousOxide wrote:

While cyclists (like other road users) have a responsibility to ride with due care and attention, the odds of a collision with a cyclist hitting you causing serious or fatal injuries to you is very low, but those in/on ~500+Kg motorised vehicles cannot say the same.

Whilst there are flaws in it, this is where presumed liability is a good thing.

In both cases. There is no guarantee the driver is always wrong and there are many a time the driver may be the victim of a cyclist thinking he is untouchable. If you push the balance of the law to favour one party over another purely based on the more of transport it opens it up to abuse. Again not entirely irrelevant but cash for crash scams. Presumed liability lays with the driver behind so slamming on the brakes at a roundabout means you hit me you're at fault. It's getting less due to more cctv at junctions or dash cams but still it's an imbalance in the law. You add presumed liability to a car over a cyclist it will invite the scum who think they can dive into a cars path for a claim almost like the YouTube clips of people running onto people bonnets as though hit in a comedic fashion. It will happen and when they see it reaps reward it will become common. Adding further distrust and annymosity from drivers toward cyclists.

N0bodyOfTheGoat

fat daddy wrote:

NitrousOxide wrote:

the odds of a collision with a cyclist hitting you causing serious or fatal injuries to you is very low,

but still a probability, which is why cyclists should be insured and the odds of any damage reflected in the price of the insurance

£35 a year compared to £500 a year for a car ?

And what should we then charge...

E-bikes?
Mobility scooter users?
Joggers?
Pedestrians?
Young kids, even if they cycle on the pavement?
etc.

Sounds like the insurance companies are going to make a packet!

smoggysteve

NitrousOxide wrote:

fat daddy wrote:

NitrousOxide wrote:

the odds of a collision with a cyclist hitting you causing serious or fatal injuries to you is very low,

but still a probability, which is why cyclists should be insured and the odds of any damage reflected in the price of the insurance

£35 a year compared to £500 a year for a car ?

And what should we then charge...



E-bikes?
Mobility scooter users?
Joggers?
Pedestrians?
Young kids, even if they cycle on the pavement?
etc.

Sounds like the insurance companies are going to make a packet!

I would add to that, how do you police bike insurance? Do you insure bike or rider? What about boris bikes? Should you leave a £35 pound insurance downpayment every time you get on one? Its a completely unworkable unmanageable system

cooldad

NitrousOxide wrote:

fat daddy wrote:

NitrousOxide wrote:

the odds of a collision with a cyclist hitting you causing serious or fatal injuries to you is very low,

but still a probability, which is why cyclists should be insured and the odds of any damage reflected in the price of the insurance

£35 a year compared to £500 a year for a car ?

And what should we then charge...

E-bikes?
Mobility scooter users?
Joggers?
Pedestrians?
Young kids, even if they cycle on the pavement?
etc.

Sounds like the insurance companies are going to make a packet!

Most of us (pretty much anyone with house/contents insurance) already have public liability cover, which includes non motorised vehicles. By extension so do the kids. Can't be bothered to check as it doesn't apply to me, but I have a feeling that mobilty scooters and possibly e bikes fall into the cover as well.

cooldad

Just double checked mine (Aviva) but all pretty standard.

Covers liabilities using a non motorised vehicle, and specifically excludes vehicles designed to help disabled people as long as not registered for road use, and electrically assisted cycles providing they are not required to pay VED, from the definition of motorised vehicles.

So covered as I thought.

bompington

Well, I guess cycle insurance might help in the 1.5% of cases where a pedestrian on the pavement is hit by a bike rather than a car.
Dunno if it would do much about the 0% of pedestrians killed by RLJing riders though, as opposed to the 5 or so per year caused by RLJing drivers.

veronese68

SmoggySteve wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Whilst there are flaws in it, this is where presumed liability is a good thing.

In both cases. There is no guarantee the driver is always wrong and there are many a time the driver may be the victim of a cyclist thinking he is untouchable. If you push the balance of the law to favour one party over another purely based on the more of transport it opens it up to abuse. Again not entirely irrelevant but cash for crash scams. Presumed liability lays with the driver behind so slamming on the brakes at a roundabout means you hit me you're at fault. It's getting less due to more cctv at junctions or dash cams but still it's an imbalance in the law. You add presumed liability to a car over a cyclist it will invite the scum who think they can dive into a cars path for a claim almost like the YouTube clips of people running onto people bonnets as though hit in a comedic fashion. It will happen and when they see it reaps reward it will become common. Adding further distrust and annymosity from drivers toward cyclists.

That is of course the major flaw. But at the moment it's loaded in favour of the driver, this is not the fault of the law but prejudice in the minds of people. Maybe making the law a little more favourable wouldn't be so bad. Drivers would have to be more careful around cyclists, cyclists more careful around pedestrians. Some cyclists may abuse the system, but I would hope only a small minority. Some people will abuse any system.
I'm not convinced it's the way to go, but I think it's better than the way things are now.
I suspect dash cam manufacturers would do well out of it.

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

Well, I guess cycle insurance might help in the 1.5% of cases where a pedestrian on the pavement is hit by a bike rather than a car..

I spend a lot of time filtering between expensive cars.

That's the main reason I buy 3rd party bike insurance.

Sods law I clip a wing mirror of a ferrari and have an £1000 bill.

pblakeney

Re presumed liability and cyclists deliberately getting hit to make a claim.
Darwin's theory in action.

the_hundredth_idiot

SmoggySteve wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

NitrousOxide wrote:

While cyclists (like other road users) have a responsibility to ride with due care and attention, the odds of a collision with a cyclist hitting you causing serious or fatal injuries to you is very low, but those in/on ~500+Kg motorised vehicles cannot say the same.

Whilst there are flaws in it, this is where presumed liability is a good thing.

In both cases. There is no guarantee the driver is always wrong and there are many a time the driver may be the victim of a cyclist thinking he is untouchable. If you push the balance of the law to favour one party over another purely based on the more of transport it opens it up to abuse. Again not entirely irrelevant but cash for crash scams. Presumed liability lays with the driver behind so slamming on the brakes at a roundabout means you hit me you're at fault. It's getting less due to more cctv at junctions or dash cams but still it's an imbalance in the law. You add presumed liability to a car over a cyclist it will invite the scum who think they can dive into a cars path for a claim almost like the YouTube clips of people running onto people bonnets as though hit in a comedic fashion. It will happen and when they see it reaps reward it will become common. Adding further distrust and annymosity from drivers toward cyclists.

Presumed liability isn't quite as strong as some people think.

There's quite of lot of blogs around explaining this - for example:
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013 ... therlands/
http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki/ ... -play-nice

It's not saying the driver is always liable for damages arising from an incident, it's just saying the starting point is that the driver (with the greater responsibility) is liable but that evidence can show otherwise.

At the moment, the UK appears to operate the other way - the justice system (informally, at least) seems to assume the cyclist is in the wrong and is to blame for injury unless there is very strong evidence to the contrary.

[Edited to correct some points which showed I am as guilty as everyone else of misunderstanding presumed liability.]

Crazyjenkins01

From a lot of reports I have read from one of my favorite columnists, at the moment even when the evidence shows a driver to be at fault, and the logic behind the defence is laughable to say the least, they get off scott-free.
This needs to change.