UK plan to place blame on motorists for all incidents involving cyclists

uberwolf

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6841326.ece

a little excessive?

Wez

It's so well thought out, ya'd swear it was the Irish Govt trying to bring this in..

Whoever causes a crash, is at fault, simple as!

I think it's to scare drivers away from cyclists, when they'll just see them as expensive - as opposed to how they view us now (somebody who doesn't pay tax/moving target)!

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Sweet.

Tim Allen. Tim Allen. Tim Allen.

(That thing about saying his name three times is true right?)

Doctor Bob

The article is a bit ambiguous, though.

MINISTERS are considering making motorists legally responsible for accidents involving cyclists or pedestrians, even if they are not at fault.

doesn't mean quite the same thing as

Such scheme would place the presumption of blame against whoever was driving the most powerful vehicle involved in an accident, so they or their insurers would be liable for costs or damages.

The presumption of blame allows for a driver to make a case againt it; legal responsibility when not at fault leaves no room for manoeuvre.

The Dutch approach alluded to in the article places the onus on the driver to demonstrate he did nothing wrong, which I think is fair enough. Punishing blameless drivers for the more idiotic fringes of cycling behaviour seems grossly unfair.

Rowley Birkin QC

I can't see how that could be legal. It would bring presumption of guilt and predetermination of wrongdoing into the investigation of an incident, lunacy.

So when a cyclist runs a red light and runs into the side of a car that has legally moved forward it's the motorists fault, no way could that be seen as just.

On the other hand I wonder where this would fall in the case of a cyclist hitting a pedestrian at a zebra crossing, which is presumed to be the most "powerful vehicle"?

kenmc

As far as I am aware that's already the way it is in The Netherlands if a bike and car are involved in an accident; car driver is at least 50% at fault.
I like the rule. Will make folk be more observant when driving

uberwolf

bigkev49 wrote: »

So when a cyclist runs a red light and runs into the side of a car that has legally moved forward it's the motorists fault, no way could that be seen as just.

I agree with the thrust of what you're saying. A point of order though is that a green light merely means proceed if it is safe to do so, not an absolute proceed without caution

niceonetom

bigkev49 wrote: »

I can't see how that could be legal. It would bring presumption of guilt and predetermination of wrongdoing into the investigation of an incident, lunacy.

At the moment there is a presumption of guilt placed on the rearmost person in a nose-to-tail vehicular accident. Or, more simply, it's always your fault if you rear end someone unless you can demonstrate otherwise. Not lunacy at all.

bigkev49 wrote: »

So when a cyclist runs a red light and runs into the side of a car that has legally moved forward it's the motorists fault, no way could that be seen as just.

No. If a cyclist breaks a red light he has already broken the law and would, presumably, be liable for any resulting accident. There no provision I can see that would exonerate cyclists form the normal rules of the road. But thanks for showing exactly the kind of reasoned and considered reaction I would expect from your ilk.

bigkev49 wrote: »

On the other hand I wonder where this would fall in the case of a cyclist hitting a pedestrian at a zebra crossing, which is presumed to be the most "powerful vehicle"?

Pedestrians =/= vehicles, kev.

Nietzschean

well i guess the obvious one is what happens if a car is stopped a red light and a cyclist just cycles in the back of the car...

i don't really mind too much of a presumption of driver guilt for liability, though the statement that it would be blanket liability seems mad....

Beasty

They have had rules similar to this in the Netherlands for years. The presumption is that the motorist caused the accident, unless, I believe, it can be proven different (rather than starting with a level playing field). Obviously there is much more of a cycling culture in the Netherlandfs, but I understand these rules do make motorists take much more care when around cyclists (which is pretty much all the time, except on motorways)

Húrin

uberwolf wrote: »

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6841326.ece

a little excessive?

Not at all. it's to scare drivers away from cyclists, when they'll just see them as expensive. It is simply bringing home the hidden, externalised dangers of driving. Thus it will make driving less attractive and increase the amount of cycling, walking and bus use.

Húrin

bigkev49 wrote: »

So when a cyclist runs a red light and runs into the side of a car that has legally moved forward it's the motorists fault, no way could that be seen as just.

I agree.

On the other hand I wonder where this would fall in the case of a cyclist hitting a pedestrian at a zebra crossing, which is presumed to be the most "powerful vehicle"?

A bike has more mass, speed and thus momentum so it is certainly the most powerful vehicle. I would also agree with making cyclists legally responsible for accidents with pedestrians. Might stop these RLJ types who ride indignantly through a mass of pedestrians.

Captain Havoc

When I first read it, I thought it was giving idiot cyclists a license to do what they want but I agree it would make drivers think. I would hate for this to be used by cyclists with an agenda to start cycling in the middle of the road or similar actions.

blorg

It's a very badly written article, if you dig into it you see it IS about presumption of blame like in the Netherlands, not an automatic blame on the motorist "even if they are not at fault."

As far as I can make out the opening sentence "MINISTERS are considering making motorists legally responsible for accidents involving cyclists or pedestrians, even if they are not at fault" is flat out wrong.

Right:

Such scheme would place the presumption of blame against whoever was driving the most powerful vehicle involved in an accident, so they or their insurers would be liable for costs or damages.

If a cyclist were hit by a car, the presumption of blame would fall on the driver, while a cyclist would automatically be blamed if he or she knocked down a pedestrian.

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.

tunney

jerseyeire wrote: »

When I first read it, I thought it was giving idiot cyclists a license to do what they want but I agree it would make drivers think. I would hate for this to be used by cyclists with an agenda to start cycling in the middle of the road or similar actions.

To start cycling in the middle of the road? Start???
Something like this may *stop* me cycling in the middle of the road as at the moment this is the only way I can ensure enough room is left for me by passing cars - i.e. don't let any past.

Ryaner

blorg wrote: »

It's a very badly written article, if you dig into it you see it IS about presumption of blame like in the Netherlands, not an automatic blame on the motorist "even if they are not at fault."

As far as I can make out the opening sentence "MINISTERS are considering making motorists legally responsible for accidents involving cyclists or pedestrians, even if they are not at fault" is flat out wrong.

Right:

Seconded. First half reads like a licence for cyclists / pedestrians to jump in front of cars and start claiming damages.

Presumption of blame is partly a good thing. It'd force drivers to be safer however since lots of crashes happen with no witnesses, they'd be more at risk. It does nothing to stop motorists running cyclists of the road and driving off either.

Rowley Birkin QC

niceonetom wrote: »

No. If a cyclist breaks a red light he has already broken the law and would, presumably, be liable for any resulting accident.

Ok.

niceonetom wrote: »

There no provision I can see that would exonerate cyclists form the normal rules of the road.

Ok.

niceonetom wrote: »

But thanks for showing exactly the kind of reasoned and considered reaction I would expect from your ilk.

WTF ??

DirkVoodoo

bigkev49 wrote: »

WTF ??

Ilk Ilk ([i^]lk), n.
Kind; class; sort; type; as, him and his ilk; -- sometimes
used to indicate disapproval when applied to people.
[1913 Webster +PJC].

Rowley Birkin QC

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Ilk Ilk ([i^]lk), n.
Kind; class; sort; type; as, him and his ilk; -- sometimes
used to indicate disapproval when applied to people.
[1913 Webster +PJC].

Quoting from the dictionary, nice. :rolleyes:

petethedrummer

bigkev49 wrote: »

On the other hand I wonder where this would fall in the case of a cyclist hitting a pedestrian at a zebra crossing, which is presumed to be the most "powerful vehicle"?

The Zebra.

Rowley Birkin QC

uberwolf wrote: »

I agree with the thrust of what you're saying. A point of order though is that a green light merely means proceed if it is safe to do so, not an absolute proceed without caution

By the same point of order, a red light means stop, it is not safe to proceed. TO cyclists and motorists.

Surely a mod of the cycling forum couldn't defend a hypothetical cyclist that runs into the side of a car at a junction when the car has proceeded on a green light?

DirkVoodoo

bigkev49 wrote: »

Quoting from the dictionary, nice. :rolleyes:

It's great! I should do it more often. Ubuntu comes with a dictionary packaged. I'm learning all sorts of new words like "conceited", "supercilious", etc. I recommend you try it.

DirkVoodoo

bigkev49 wrote: »

By the same point of order, a red light means stop, it is not safe to proceed. TO cyclists and motorists.

Surely a mod of the cycling forum couldn't defend a hypothetical cyclist that runs into the side of a car at a junction when the car has proceeded on a green light?

This is your hypothetical cyclist? I think if you do a search of this forum, you will see that red light jumping is a big no-no.

Like Tom said, the red light jumping "supercedes" (there it is again, class!) any subsequent action. Breaking the law is not something cyclists are immune from, despite the image you are trying to paint here.

Rowley Birkin QC

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

This is your hypothetical cyclist? I think if you do a search of this forum, you will see that red light jumping is a big no-no.

Like Tom said, the red light jumping "supercedes" (there it is again, class!) any subsequent action. Breaking the law is not something cyclists are immune from, despite the image you are trying to paint here.

A search of this forum might throw up that result but 60 minutes spent driving/walking in Dublin would show some very different results. The question I'm asking is; if this law were to pass here would the motorist be obliged to prove his innocence in a situation where a cyclist broke a red light?

Also, I'm not trying to "paint a picture" of cyclists here, tell that chip on your shoulder to take the chip off its shoulder. Congratulations on your use of the English language too, you seem pretty chuffed with it. It's only decent to acknowledge it.

Beasty

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

"supercedes" (there it is again, class!)

I think you should ask for your money back on that dictionary Dirk - "supersedes":D

DePurpereWolf

So, this is actually the case in the Netherlands, that when a car hits a cyclist, it is assumed to be the car's fault. Given that the cyclist wasn't putting him or herself in excessive danger. If a cyclist breaks a red light and gets hit by a truck, it's not the trucks fault. But if a cyclist drives into a truck that's turning left, it is the trucks fault, always.