the dutch perspective

morana

Came across this on twitter. I agree but as ragazzo says I always side with the cyclist!

godtabh

morana wrote: »

Can!e across this on twitter. I agree but as ragazzo says OK am always side with the cyclist!

Having recently cycled in Holland it's a lot harder to hit a cyclist. Even in Amsterdam

smacl

Seems reasonable that the duty of care should lie with the person driving the more potentially dangerous vehicle, particularly where you have younger cyclists on the road.

smacl

godtabh wrote: »

Having recently cycled in Holland it's a lot harder to hit a cyclist. Even in Amsterdam

How hard did you try?

Fian

I disagree with this entirely.

It infantalises cyclists not to hold them responsible for their own behaviour and for their own safety (insofar as appropriate). Further it would encourage even more reckless behaviour and a foster a greater sense of entitlement to send out the message that "the cyclist is always right no matter what." How could you realistically have a rule that if you hit a cyclist who breaks a red light and crashes into the side of your car you are liable?

Having said all that, the reality is that in a cyclist/car accident our courts mostly hold with cyclists especially if there are serious injuries. There is an insurance company on one side and an injured individual on the other, so it is natural to have sympathy for the cyclist.

bobcranfret

Holding cyclists (and pedestrians) responsible for their behaviour while adopting a zero tolerance approach to motorists who hit cyclists or pedestrians is not incompatible.

Idleater

The context of the twit though correct doesn't convey the opinion of people on the street so to speak, where like in Copenhagen, bike use abuse is rife from a pedestrian city perspective.

Tenzor07

I guess because the Dutch and others have an actual bicycle infrastructure I guess actual collisions with motor vehicles are quite rare?

the.red.baron

Tenzor07 wrote: »

I guess because the Dutch and others have an actual bicycle infrastructure I guess actual collisions with motor vehicles are quite rare?

I'd say there is plenty of hot dutch style cyclist on cyclist action though....

Plenty of us have been rear ended on the cobbled streets of Amsterdam..

am I right

Idleater

Tenzor07 wrote: »

I guess because the Dutch and others have an actual bicycle infrastructure I guess actual collisions with motor vehicles are quite rare?

No, collisions are quite rare because vehicle drivers drive with the knowledge that all cyclist idiots are going to be in the right almost unquestionably.
My point was that the flip side of cyclists being in the right regardless is the liberties they take with pedestrians and shared spaces.

CramCycle

I think it is also a misleading quote, if a cyclists is at fault they will not get away with it. It's just the onus is on the motorist to show the cyclist was at fault. This is why she uses the word "almost".

Works great in the Netherlands, don't think it would work here though, bad drivers would use it as a "well I am at fault no matter what happens" so I may as well not care or not stop and certain cyclists will use it as an excuse to pay even less attention.

the.red.baron

Idleater wrote: »

No, collisions are quite rare because vehicle drivers drive with the knowledge that all cyclist idiots are going to be in the right almost unquestionably.
My point was that the flip side of cyclists being in the right regardless is the liberties they take with pedestrians and shared spaces.

How rare are they?

say in comparison to Dublin, a place let's presume car drivers are driving with impunity and are as such, out to get us.

Tenzor07

Idleater wrote: »

all cyclist idiots are going to be in the right almost unquestionably.

So your opinion of cyclists is completely unbiased then? :rolleyes: :pac:

harringtonp

Having lived there for a few years I'd say very rare, particularly if you compare total annual bike journey time. Then again the number of completely separate cycle lanes is massive over there.


In answer to other posters about the Dutch perspective encouraging cyclists to be irresponsible, I don't think cyclists goes around thinking "what the hell if I get hit because at least I won't be responsible".

the.red.baron

CramCycle wrote: »

I think it is also a misleading quote, if a cyclists is at fault they will not get away with it. It's just the onus is on the motorist to show the cyclist was at fault. This is why she uses the word "almost".

Works great in the Netherlands, don't think it would work here though, bad drivers would use it as a "well I am at fault no matter what happens" so I may as well not care or not stop and certain cyclists will use it as an excuse to pay even less attention.

The issue appears to be liability from an insurance point of view, and it's seems that you are are at minimum 50% liable even if you weren't at any fault.

When the onus is on you to prove you weren't at fault the reality will be you won't be able to find proof unless you have a dash cam that covers exactly what happened, cctv footage etc.

And even with this, it's going to cost you.

You could see why this would piss drivers off

but I doubt that 99% of cyclists are going to intentionally put themselves in harms way because they won't have to pay and medical bills for that broken arm or face etc.

the.red.baron

harringtonp wrote: »

Having lived there for a few years I'd say very rare, particularly if you compare total annual bike journey time. Then again the number of completely separate cycle lanes is massive over there.


In answer to other posters about the Dutch perspective encouraging cyclists to be irresponsible, I don't think cyclists goes around thinking "what the hell if I get hit because at least I won't be responsible".

more rare than here though?

laraghrider

Statistically Dublin is actually one of the safest cities in the world to cycle a bike in. Given the quote the key word here is almost. It's not a given that the cyclist is going to be found in favour of. Now me personally if I was in Amsterdam cycling to work or home I'd be more concerned about getting to either location in one piece and my kids being able to watch daddy walk through the front door rather than who's at fault if I get plastered onto the bonnet of a car.

CramCycle

the.red.baron wrote: »

The issue appears to be liability from an insurance point of view, and it's seems that you are are at minimum 50% liable even if you weren't at any fault.

Are there links to this, certainly never came up in conversation when I was over there, the only people acting like d8cks were tourists and they were stopped by police whenever I seen it.

When the onus is on you to prove you weren't at fault the reality will be you won't be able to find proof unless you have a dash cam that covers exactly what happened, cctv footage etc.

Also witnesses etc. Lots of all of the above in towns and cities.

And even with this, it's going to cost you.

?!?

You could see why this would piss drivers off

Are dutch drivers pissed off?

monument

CramCycle wrote: »

Are there links to this, certainly never came up in conversation when I was over there, the only people acting like d8cks were tourists and they were stopped by police whenever I seen it.

Article explaining Dutch "strict liability" http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/strict-liability-in-the-netherlands/

From that article: "There are a number of (false) assumptions that lead to such an assertion. The first being that drivers are always at fault when they are in a collision with a cyclist, regardless of how the cyclist behaved. As I will explain later, this is not the case, and that already takes away the largest part of the base of the assertion."

Note the video at the end from when the law was brought in.

Really the law was only codifying / standardising the most common outcome in courts.