Liable for cyclists - Blackbelt barrister video
Discussion
Randy Winkman said:
Can only think that as he alludes to at the start - people slag him off for always supporting cyclists so he made a video about a dumb one to illustrate that issue.
It is not really about the video but the legal opinion the barrister gives, go to around 2.40 https://youtu.be/nu7kZ5eeAIo?t=164 Unless I am very thick, which is a possibility, the barrester says that despite the cyclist being a, I think the word he used is a numpty, cycling dangerously, not obeying the rules, the car drivers could still be held liable in the event of an accident.Oliver Hardy said:
It is not really about the video but the legal opinion the barrister gives, go to around 2.40 https://youtu.be/nu7kZ5eeAIo?t=164 Unless I am very thick, which is a possibility, the barrester says that despite the cyclist being a, I think the word he used is a numpty, cycling dangerously, not obeying the rules, the car drivers could still be held liable in the event of an accident.
That would depend on the standard of the car driving, just like any other accident.gazza285 said:
Oliver Hardy said:
It is not really about the video but the legal opinion the barrister gives, go to around 2.40 https://youtu.be/nu7kZ5eeAIo?t=164 Unless I am very thick, which is a possibility, the barrester says that despite the cyclist being a, I think the word he used is a numpty, cycling dangerously, not obeying the rules, the car drivers could still be held liable in the event of an accident.
That would depend on the standard of the car driving, just like any other accident.Regardless of the cyclist. The driver of the car should have seen the cyclist well in advance and should have slowed down accordingly. Continuing to drive at whatever speed without slowing down is asking for trouble.
pedestrian on the left wearing high viz
approaching a junction.
there is a learner driver on the opposite side of the road
there is a cyclist in high viz.
hazard perception is part of the standard driving test.
pedestrian on the left wearing high viz
approaching a junction.
there is a learner driver on the opposite side of the road
there is a cyclist in high viz.
hazard perception is part of the standard driving test.
Oliver Hardy said:
gazza285 said:
Oliver Hardy said:
It is not really about the video but the legal opinion the barrister gives, go to around 2.40 https://youtu.be/nu7kZ5eeAIo?t=164 Unless I am very thick, which is a possibility, the barrester says that despite the cyclist being a, I think the word he used is a numpty, cycling dangerously, not obeying the rules, the car drivers could still be held liable in the event of an accident.
That would depend on the standard of the car driving, just like any other accident.Oliver Hardy said:
It is not really about the video but the legal opinion the barrister gives, go to around 2.40 https://youtu.be/nu7kZ5eeAIo?t=164 Unless I am very thick, which is a possibility, the barrester says that despite the cyclist being a, I think the word he used is a numpty, cycling dangerously, not obeying the rules, the car drivers could still be held liable in the event of an accident.
He didn't actually say that. What he said was that even if the driver was considered liable, then the stupidity of the cyclist would amount to contributory negligence, which could amount to anything up to 100% liability.sugerbear said:
Regardless of the cyclist. The driver of the car should have seen the cyclist well in advance and should have slowed down accordingly. Continuing to drive at whatever speed without slowing down is asking for trouble.
pedestrian on the left wearing high viz
approaching a junction.
there is a learner driver on the opposite side of the road
there is a cyclist in high viz.
hazard perception is part of the standard driving test.
Pretty special trying to blame the driver for a Cyclist driving like a tool, in this instancepedestrian on the left wearing high viz
approaching a junction.
there is a learner driver on the opposite side of the road
there is a cyclist in high viz.
hazard perception is part of the standard driving test.
He was clearly doing under 20MPH, and nothing wrong at all
And there is no 'regardless of the cyclist' he's the entire reason for the video and the thread
Oliver Hardy said:
It is not really about the video but the legal opinion the barrister gives, go to around 2.40 https://youtu.be/nu7kZ5eeAIo?t=164 Unless I am very thick, which is a possibility, the barrester says that despite the cyclist being a, I think the word he used is a numpty, cycling dangerously, not obeying the rules, the car drivers could still be held liable in the event of an accident.
I think he said... If the cyclist did something different and the motorist did something different, and then there was a collision, then the cyclist might bear some responsibility and the motorist might bear some responsibility - is that about right? So yes, the car driver could be held liable. Because no matter how illegal or stupid somebody is being - whether travelling by foot, bike, horse, roller skates, car etc. we still need to take reasonable care not to run into them. gazza285 said:
Is there a point to this?
Yes. Cyclist massively cuts the corner, fails to give way, bullies and forces other road users to make room for him, uses the "wrong" side of the road and generally seems to act as if he's superior to everyone else, and far too important to obey some pesky road rules like waiting behind the white line until it's clear to make his turn(s). So, all in all, it's just like a normal day on the roads where, despite me driving two tonnes of car with DRLs and headlights on, I'm frequently subject to the exact same sort of nonsense by other DRIVERS. This is just another case of a person behaving badly/stupidly. And call me judgmental if you want to, but I reckon that the bicycle is irrelevant here. The kind of person who rides a bike like that is the kind of person who would pull out and block that lane, effectively blackmailing drivers in the oncoming (as we view it) lane into letting them all of the way out. Particularly prevalent among van and crew cab 4x4 drivers. Perhaps the poor fella forgot that he was on a bicycle? Easy done if you've dropped you L200 Barbarian GTi Turbo pickup truck in for it's two-yearly MOT...
Cyclist appears to do everything possible to make himself vulnerable ( pulling out in the face of oncoming traffic, riding the wrong way up the road in the face of more oncoming traffic, crossing the road between cars when he should wait, causes other traffic to take evasive action ), yet to some on here the car drivers still have to expect to be held accountable for an irresponsible knobhead who clearly couldn't give a s
t for his own safety?
Nobody but him to blame for his own actions and stupidity. If he gets run over doing that he'll deserve it, and I pity the unfortunate car driver who gets drawn into it.
t for his own safety?Nobody but him to blame for his own actions and stupidity. If he gets run over doing that he'll deserve it, and I pity the unfortunate car driver who gets drawn into it.
yellowjack said:
...Particularly prevalent among van and crew cab 4x4 drivers. Perhaps the poor fella forgot that he was on a bicycle? Easy done if you've dropped you L200 Barbarian GTi Turbo pickup truck in for it's two-yearly MOT...
Stereotyping van and crew cab drivers is as silly as stereotyping cyclists.Belgium or Netherlands (cant remember which) has a law that states if you’re driving 2 tonnes of metal in a built up area, then you are responsible for the safety of other vulnerable road users.
I imagine people would think twice about how they drive, if they would be liable 100% of the time.
I imagine people would think twice about how they drive, if they would be liable 100% of the time.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff