RE: Motorists To Take Blame For Cycle Crashes

[B Oeuf]

Mr Gear said:

B Oeuf said:

...one thing we should all have as a right is to be innocent till proven guilty regardless of his choice of transport.

I agree with that, which is why I would not vote in favour of "the proposal". However, what would your proposal be for forcing drivers to be more aware? I think that is the crux of the issue. The "proposal" (I am putting that in speech marks, because its actually nothing of the sort) has some merit from that point of view in my opinion. If it makes a car driver think "st, cyclist ahead, better give them the benefit of the doubt" then it has some use.

But at what cost? this is a typical, lazy response from Government.

Driving standards have slipped alarmingly because, IMO, there is no deterent to driving like an arse. Start at the beginning with tougher tests,
Remove pressure to deliver quotas from Test Centres so that the hopelessly inadequate don't pass to boost numbers.
Emphasise pedestrian and cyclists in the test.
Green Cross Code made compulsory at school along with cycle training.
Throw all the fking cameras in a bin and get more plod out there,
Use more TV campaigns to address behaviour and courtesy
Remove, as far as is possible, all pointless roadworks, badly phased traffic lights etc to reduce stress on road users,
Bin cycle lanes, they are for the large part ignored or are simply dangerous

[esselte]

Pip1968 said:

The alternative for me is to make all car drivers pass their cycling proficiency

It'd be nice if all cyclists had to do this...

[Mr Gear]

swerni said:

dream on!

when have we ever been innocent till proven guilty with motoring offences?
Try and get off a speeding ticket, you are guilty till proven innocent.

As a cyclist, it really winds me up when I see others cycling in the dark with no lights or reflective gear. Have some people got no concept of self preservation.

I would much rather been seen and avoid an accident than I would have debate about who was legally or morally liable from my hospital bed

^ I agree with this too. We have been given the guilty until proven innocent situation with regard to virtually all mechanised policing. Bus lane cameras, speeding, red light cameras... I have never been sent a speeding ticket or red-light ticket I am proud to say, however, I once had to move into a bus lane for an emergency and I got fined for it with virtually no option for appeal apart from going to court! I paid up to save the hassle, but my injustice gland was severely inflamed. That's the reality.

Edited by Mr Gear on Wednesday 7th October 14:41

[B Oeuf]

swerni said:

B Oeuf said:

Chicane-UK said:

B Oeuf said:

Yup, last winter I nearly hit a cyclist, it was pitch black on an unlit country road and the cock was riding sans lights wearing camoflage FFS! yet according to pip......and the law, it would be my fault had I hit him

Come on... no one is suggesting it should be as clear cut as that. I think the point of the article would make the motorist more accountable unless there was compelling evidence to prove otherwise. When plod showed up and examined the condition of the cyclist to discover no lights (and probably not even any fixtures for lights!), totally inapproriate clothing, and a testimony from you to explain what had happened, I doubt somehow that you'd even be remotely accountable.

Fair enough my example was extreme, but in less than clear cases the motorist is guilty till proven otherwise. That is wrong, one thing we should all have as a right is to be innocent till proven guilty regardless of his choice of transport.

dream on!

when have we ever been innocent till proven guilty with motoring offences?
Try and get off a speeding ticket, you are guilty till proven innocent.

As a cyclist, it really winds me up when I see others cycling in the dark with no lights or reflective gear. Have some people got no concept of self preservation.

I would much rather been seen and avoid an accident than I would have debate about who was legally or morally liable from my hospital bed

Couldn't agree more...it still isn't right though and it is even worse that you have to be able to afford court costs to contest anything

[TVRWannabee]

B Oeuf said:

Mr Gear said:

B Oeuf said:

...one thing we should all have as a right is to be innocent till proven guilty regardless of his choice of transport.

I agree with that, which is why I would not vote in favour of "the proposal". However, what would your proposal be for forcing drivers to be more aware? I think that is the crux of the issue. The "proposal" (I am putting that in speech marks, because its actually nothing of the sort) has some merit from that point of view in my opinion. If it makes a car driver think "st, cyclist ahead, better give them the benefit of the doubt" then it has some use.

But at what cost? this is a typical, lazy response from Government.

Driving standards have slipped alarmingly because, IMO, there is no deterent to driving like an arse. Start at the beginning with tougher tests,
Remove pressure to deliver quotas from Test Centres so that the hopelessly inadequate don't pass to boost numbers.
Emphasise pedestrian and cyclists in the test.
Green Cross Code made compulsory at school along with cycle training.
Throw all the fking cameras in a bin and get more plod out there,
Use more TV campaigns to address behaviour and courtesy
Remove, as far as is possible, all pointless roadworks, badly phased traffic lights etc to reduce stress on road users,
Bin cycle lanes, they are for the large part ignored or are simply dangerous

Ever thought of going for Prime Minister?

[TVRWannabee]

As a matter of interest, I see The Highway Code has five pages devoted to cyclists (sections 59 to 82, if you care). It deals with helmets, lights, junctions and traffic lights among others things.

I know this is not legally enforceable but it is there for guidance. Oh, and the police local to here did have a purge stopping cyclists without lights a little while ago and, I believe, were fining offenders.

[M400 NBL]

TVRWannabee said:

As a matter of interest, I see The Highway Code has five pages devoted to cyclists (sections 59 to 82, if you care). It deals with helmets, lights, junctions and traffic lights among others things.

I know this is not legally enforceable but it is there for guidance. Oh, and the police local to here did have a purge stopping cyclists without lights a little while ago and, I believe, were fining offenders.

I could almost understand not always using bike lights when they were huge and used those gigantic batteries.... and the brightness faded quickly quickly. It was normal to almost wait until pitch darkness rather than wasting the batteries/bulbs when you MAY be seen without them.

These days the LED lights don't need new batteries for years.

It does my head in when I see cyclists jumping lights, at night, without lights.

[swldxer]

Yes, LED bike lights have been around for more than 10 years and it's interesting to see that cars have finally caught up. ;-) My main front LED for winter cost £350 and gives out a massive 1000 lumens, but I bet drivers will still miss the damn thing!

[Flibble]

swldxer said:

Yes, LED bike lights have been around for more than 10 years and it's interesting to see that cars have finally caught up. ;-) My main front LED for winter cost £350 and gives out a massive 1000 lumens, but I bet drivers will still miss the damn thing!

The problem with LED bike lights compared to car headlights is they're very tightly focused - they light the road up great, and give good visibility from dead on at the front, but bikes are almost invisible at junctions, and they're the dangerous places...