"Strict liability" in cycle vs. car accidents
Discussion
Now,
I've put this in here because I thought it the best place to get a balanced view. I am a member of Sustrans- Joined up because I think the National Cycle Network is an excellent idea, and also because I enjoy getting my hands dirty maintaining paths,cutting back vegetation etc. However, I recently received an e-mail extolling the virtues of the proposed change in the law to make drivers automatically at fault when in collision with a cyclist, unless it's exceptional circumstances like the car being stationary...
Attached was this video link. Watch it, it's short.
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/02/strict-liabil...
This has distinctly ruffled my feathers. I've been thinking of leaving Sustrans for some time because of the increasingly anti-car attitude. I'm all for promoting cycling, but not in the hands-over-the-ears-don't-ever-need-cars way.
And frankly, I don't like the strict liability idea. Daily I witness ridiculous cycling manoeuvres and I think cyclists should be encouraged to cycle safer- I don't see this doing that.
What are your thoughts?
I've put this in here because I thought it the best place to get a balanced view. I am a member of Sustrans- Joined up because I think the National Cycle Network is an excellent idea, and also because I enjoy getting my hands dirty maintaining paths,cutting back vegetation etc. However, I recently received an e-mail extolling the virtues of the proposed change in the law to make drivers automatically at fault when in collision with a cyclist, unless it's exceptional circumstances like the car being stationary...
Attached was this video link. Watch it, it's short.
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/02/strict-liabil...
This has distinctly ruffled my feathers. I've been thinking of leaving Sustrans for some time because of the increasingly anti-car attitude. I'm all for promoting cycling, but not in the hands-over-the-ears-don't-ever-need-cars way.
And frankly, I don't like the strict liability idea. Daily I witness ridiculous cycling manoeuvres and I think cyclists should be encouraged to cycle safer- I don't see this doing that.
What are your thoughts?
Looking at the writing at the end of the video, if the driver can prove that he was not at fault then he is not liable.
likewise its up to the cyclist to prove innocence in the event of a collsiion with a pedestrian.
Just means you have to be a bit more careful and aware of other road users.
Don't see what difference it will really make.
likewise its up to the cyclist to prove innocence in the event of a collsiion with a pedestrian.
Just means you have to be a bit more careful and aware of other road users.
Don't see what difference it will really make.
I agree with coupeboy, in that in won't really change anything. If I cycle across on red, and you hit me in your car, then clearly, I will legally held to be at fault.
The point of legislation like this, is to avoid those grey areas where both sides think they have right-of-way.
For example, bike on cycle-path travelling parallel, but just behind a car. The road/cycle path crosses a minor road, where the car wishes to turn left into, which will bring it onto a collision course with the bike. Who has to wait for the other party before proceeding ?
The point of legislation like this, is to avoid those grey areas where both sides think they have right-of-way.
For example, bike on cycle-path travelling parallel, but just behind a car. The road/cycle path crosses a minor road, where the car wishes to turn left into, which will bring it onto a collision course with the bike. Who has to wait for the other party before proceeding ?
BOR said:
I agree with coupeboy, in that in won't really change anything. If I cycle across on red, and you hit me in your car, then clearly, I will legally held to be at fault.
The point of legislation like this, is to avoid those grey areas where both sides think they have right-of-way.
For example, bike on cycle-path travelling parallel, but just behind a car. The road/cycle path crosses a minor road, where the car wishes to turn left into, which will bring it onto a collision course with the bike. Who has to wait for the other party before proceeding ?
Nose position is everythingThe point of legislation like this, is to avoid those grey areas where both sides think they have right-of-way.
For example, bike on cycle-path travelling parallel, but just behind a car. The road/cycle path crosses a minor road, where the car wishes to turn left into, which will bring it onto a collision course with the bike. Who has to wait for the other party before proceeding ?
I've seen this elsewhere, and personally I think that to change the law in this fashion is just naive. Ok, the concept is that it will make the roads safer and that no-one who is truly innocent will be found guilty but sorry, that's dream world stuff.
Consider the car vs cyclist collision; the whole idea revolves around the fact that to prove innocence as a car driver you need an independent witness. You might get one, but more likely you won't because either people don't want to be involved, the incident is at night, deserted rural roads, etc, etc.
And that's in the true accident situation, just consider the cyclist who ignores the law/highway code now, and we all know they exist, heck, they'll have a field day. All that will happen is that resentment will grow between motor transport and cyclists.
Or, as a cyclist, how are you going to feel when you hit a kid who's just run into the road without looking ? Without witnesses there's no point claiming it's their fault, you're a responsible road user who should have realised that a kid by the roadside might do something unpredictable. So you're guilty unless you can PROVE the kiddie ran out without looking - best of luck with that one !
(And even with witnesses, if you're a lycra-clad roadie then the first thing the witness will say is that you were going too fast.... )
Like most of us on here, I'm both a motorist & cyclist. I've been a "proper" cyclist for far longer than a motorist but campaigns like this just make me despair.
So in answer to the original question; yes, if I were in sustrans I would be writing to let them know that I didn't agree with the policy because if members don't voice their opinion, the zealots will carry it forward unopposed.
As an aside, I would also point out that some of the cycling in that video link comes under my definition of "careless cycling/driving" - we saw cyclists weaving around, riding with overloaded bikes, one handed, heck one guy even had one hand in his pocket while riding through what looked like a shopping centre. And this is supposed to show cyclists as responsible road users ?
Consider the car vs cyclist collision; the whole idea revolves around the fact that to prove innocence as a car driver you need an independent witness. You might get one, but more likely you won't because either people don't want to be involved, the incident is at night, deserted rural roads, etc, etc.
And that's in the true accident situation, just consider the cyclist who ignores the law/highway code now, and we all know they exist, heck, they'll have a field day. All that will happen is that resentment will grow between motor transport and cyclists.
Or, as a cyclist, how are you going to feel when you hit a kid who's just run into the road without looking ? Without witnesses there's no point claiming it's their fault, you're a responsible road user who should have realised that a kid by the roadside might do something unpredictable. So you're guilty unless you can PROVE the kiddie ran out without looking - best of luck with that one !
(And even with witnesses, if you're a lycra-clad roadie then the first thing the witness will say is that you were going too fast.... )
Like most of us on here, I'm both a motorist & cyclist. I've been a "proper" cyclist for far longer than a motorist but campaigns like this just make me despair.
So in answer to the original question; yes, if I were in sustrans I would be writing to let them know that I didn't agree with the policy because if members don't voice their opinion, the zealots will carry it forward unopposed.
As an aside, I would also point out that some of the cycling in that video link comes under my definition of "careless cycling/driving" - we saw cyclists weaving around, riding with overloaded bikes, one handed, heck one guy even had one hand in his pocket while riding through what looked like a shopping centre. And this is supposed to show cyclists as responsible road users ?
DrMekon said:
If it's so burdensome, why are the Dutch espousing its virtues so vociferously?
Because they have a culture in which cycling is more accepted ? lower traffic density ? more compact cities with better road layouts ? I don't know to be honest, but we have cities in the UK where cycling is very popular (Cambridge, York, etc) without legislation such as this being in place.I first saw this in a paper published in 2008 entitled "making cycling irresistible", http://www.policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/Irres... Of course it's on the internet so it might be true or just simply rubbish, but what concerned me was a quote on traffic laws in this report on page 27
article said:
Moreover, motorists are generally assumed to be legally responsible for most collisions with cyclists unless it can be proven that the cyclist deliberately caused the crash. Having the right of way by law does not excuse motorists from hitting cyclists, especially children or elderly cyclists
Now that just seems plain silly, and given the ratio of cyclists to motorists in this country if I wanted to popularise cycling I don't think I'd do it by passing legislation like this. Can you imagine the headlines in the Sun ? Rather than introduce new laws like this they should start enforcing the ones they already have.
Obviously that would mean having Officers out there to see the crimes committed, people on phones "my pet hate", pulling out looking but not seeing and general bad driving without due care and attention.
I am just back on the bike today after almost three months off, I was knocked off last November, whilst travelling at 20mph along a high street well lit, a pair of headlamps on and an led light as well, when somebody coming the other way decided to cut across the road in front of me.
I hit the left wing broke two fingers on left hand, smashed the ligaments and tore muscles in the right, cut and bruised legs from the wing and screen and five stitches in my chin where I hit the top of the right 'A' post before flying twenty feet down the road.
Personally I think he saw me and misjudged my speed and tried cutting across but despite me having right of way the Police are not going to prosecute him, my insurance is dealing with it all.
Obviously that would mean having Officers out there to see the crimes committed, people on phones "my pet hate", pulling out looking but not seeing and general bad driving without due care and attention.
I am just back on the bike today after almost three months off, I was knocked off last November, whilst travelling at 20mph along a high street well lit, a pair of headlamps on and an led light as well, when somebody coming the other way decided to cut across the road in front of me.
I hit the left wing broke two fingers on left hand, smashed the ligaments and tore muscles in the right, cut and bruised legs from the wing and screen and five stitches in my chin where I hit the top of the right 'A' post before flying twenty feet down the road.
Personally I think he saw me and misjudged my speed and tried cutting across but despite me having right of way the Police are not going to prosecute him, my insurance is dealing with it all.
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff