Cyclists manefesto

[Matthames]

With the elections looming I thought I might have a bit of fun and write start a cyclists manefesto for the cyclists party.

Drivers getting impatient about cyclists getting in their way while climbing a hill will be required to attend a remedial course whereby they must attempt to climb said hill by human powered transport.

Add what policies you would like to see.

 

[Brains]

Ensure all engine powered vehicles have a range of no more than 200 miles per day and the speed and acceleration of a bicycle

 

[HJ]

How about Strict Liability for road users, now that would really make for a better world.

 

[Lizban]

How about Strict Liability for road users, now that would really make for a better world.

That ^^^^^ just lost my vote.......

How about all drivers must resit test every 7-10 years a which must partially be taken on a bike

 

[HJ]

Why waste money for very little return, Liz? Is there some reason why you don't want people to take responsibility for their actions?

 

[Lizban]

Why waste money for very little return, Liz? Is there some reason why you don't want people to take responsibility for their actions?

That's exactly what I want, what I don't want is people held resposible for things that aren't their fault.

I can think of a large number of incidents that the vunrable road user is at fault for the accident - why should anyone be punished if its not their fault?

Now if we talk about upping the consquences when found liable I would agree whole heartedly.

 

[HJ]

That's exactly what I want, what I don't want is people held resposible for things that aren't their fault.

I can think of a large number of incidents that the vunrable road user is at fault for the accident - why should anyone be punished if its not their fault?

Now if we talk about upping the consquences when found liable I would agree whole heartedly.

You either fail to understand the concept or you haven't bother to read the link, it isn't about holding people responsible for things that aren't their fault. 90% of "accidents" are not the fault of the "vulnerable road user", yet those that are at fault are not being properly held to account. If you in control of a large heavy object on the road, you have a duty of care to other road users, where is the problem with that?

 

[Lizban]

You either fail to understand the concept or you haven't bother to read the link, it isn't about holding people responsible for things that aren't their fault. 90% of "accidents" are not the fault of the "vulnerable road user", yet those that are at fault are not being properly held to account. If you in control of a large heavy object on the road, you have a duty of care to other road users, where is the problem with that?

I quote from your link;
With Strict Liability, it's always the motorist at fault when they collide with vulnerable road users like pedestrians and cyclists.

(my underline)

Seems like it is holding motorist to blame if they collide with the V. road user. even when it's not their fault. If the motorist isn't at fault they would still be held liable, this is just incorrect.

We agree that those at fault are not being held properly to account, but by making the motorist liable for every collision even when it's not their fault that is not the way to go.

Our current legislation covers this neatly the problem is the sentencing guidelines.


All this would do is change the burden of proof round to respondent from the claimant - something that I have personal experience of in other fields and have an intense dislike as it has cause an surge in 'frivolous' claims

 

[HLaB]

How about Strict Liability for road users, now that would really make for a better world.

Same thing but I think I prefer the words 'Assumed Responsibility', the less vulnerable would be assumed responsible, unless they could prove otherwise.

 

[Clamson]

I quote from your link;
With Strict Liability, it's always the motorist at fault when they collide with vulnerable road users like pedestrians and cyclists.

(my underline)

Seems like it is holding motorist to blame if they collide with the V. road user. even when it's not their fault. If the motorist isn't at fault they would still be held liable, this is just incorrect.

We agree that those at fault are not being held properly to account, but by making the motorist liable for every collision even when it's not their fault that is not the way to go.

Our current legislation covers this neatly the problem is the sentencing guidelines.


All this would do is change the burden of proof round to respondent from the claimant - something that I have personal experience of in other fields and have an intense dislike as it has cause an surge in 'frivolous' claims

Try reading the rest of the page.

A small bit further down it says that the driver will be held at fault unless he/she can prove that it was the fault of the more vulnerable road user.

Which is basically what you wanted, is it not?

 

[Lizban]

Try reading the rest of the page.

A small bit further down it says that the driver will be held at fault unless he/she can prove that it was the fault of the more vulnerable road user.

Which is basically what you wanted, is it not?

Read my response - it acknowledges this point - (by stating the reversal of the burden of proof i.e guilty before innocent in very base terms). I also argue against this. All incidents should be judged on merits.

If we want equal rights on the road we need to take our responsibilities as well.

But I would be loathed to extend this principle to compensation claims for RTAs.

 

[stowie]

Read my response - it acknowledges this point - (by stating the reversal of the burden of proof i.e guilty before innocent in very base terms). I also argue against this. All incidents should be judged on merits.

If we want equal rights on the road we need to take our responsibilities as well.

But I would be loathed to extend this principle to compensation claims for RTAs.

1) Strict Liability doesn't cover criminal proceeding arising from the accident. Burden of proof would be exactly the same for vehicular criminal prosecutions as for all other criminal prosecutions - with the prosecution.

2) Liability would refer to civil compensation proceedings (insurance claims in essence), where the liability is assumed to be on the side of the least vulnerable in the accident, unless evidence shows otherwise.

Currently, a cyclist is least likely to be at fault for a road accident (according to statistics excluding cycling accidents involving children), and are more likely to be the most injured. Yet the system means they end up having to prove that the other party is liable, thus allowing insurance companies to draw out proceedings by insisting that every part of a claim establishes their client's liability. Thus claims with clear fault on the motorists part get drawn out as the vulnerable party has to establish that things like whether or not the client was wearing a helmet, or had a reflector, or wore reflective patches didn't have a bearing on the accident. If the liability was reversed, then the insurance companies would have to prove that, for example, a cyclist involved in an accident whilst not wearing a reflective jacket was a major factor in the cause of the accident and mitigated liability.

The change wouldn't put the cyclist in a favoured position, it would simply level the playing field. It should also be noted that vehicles are used under license on the roads, as opposed to cycling and walking which is a right. So the license assumes extra responsibility which should be reflected in civil proceedings.

All the Daily Wail rantings about cyclists being able to flout the law with impunity and then empty the pockets of the insurance companies if they hit a car is just bollox.

 

[Lizban]

But as all things it has unintended results. This reversal of burden of proof has occured in some employment claim. I represent employees and employers at tribunal and it has been a nightmare. It has clogged the tribunals with crazy claims. The net result is slower and worse results all round. For example I have a client was was unfairly dismissed, no doubt in my mind at all (remember I work for both sides on occassion.

Claim submitted 21 months ago, still no hearing. My mind is that this delay is caused by the reversal of the burdon of proof leading to an increase in claims. I don't think this reversal of burden of proof will work.

As an aside strict liabilty is not the definition of what you are seeking.

 

[Origamist]

But as all things it has unintended results. This reversal of burden of proof has occured in some employment claim. I represent employees and employers at tribunal and it has been a nightmare. It has clogged the tribunals with crazy claims. The net result is slower and worse results all round. For example I have a client was was unfairly dismissed, no doubt in my mind at all (remember I work for both sides on occassion.

Claim submitted 21 months ago, still no hearing. My mind is that this delay is caused by the reversal of the burdon of proof leading to an increase in claims. I don't think this reversal of burden of proof will work.

As an aside strict liabilty is not the definition of what you are seeking.

Yes, it's more along the lines of a rebuttal presumption, not strict liability.

I have not heard of the problems you are suggesting, Lizban (even if you are extrapolating from employment law, tribunals etc), in any of the European countries where vulnerable road uses are afforded greater protection. If you have any information that supports your view, I'd be grateful if you could direct me to it.

 

[Lizban]

No stats to hand, but if I get the chance will plot the et claim numbers v outcome since reversal of the burden of prof changed. I'm confident there will be a strong link. Personal exp. Whilst of limited value clearly slows this