mr_cellophane
Legendary Member
- Location
- Essex
Drivers in the Dock
- Thread starter mr_cellophane
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
thomas
the tank engine
- Location
- Woking/Norwich
watching it now...well, letting it load as it keep stuttering.
Cathryn
Squire
- Location
- Marlborough, Wiltshire
Really interesting programme. I generally agreed with the verdicts they came to. I'm not sure I actually agree with drivers automatically being in the wrong, cyclists can be pretty awful!
thomas
the tank engine
- Location
- Woking/Norwich
I though under this "drivers being wrong" law, they just had to prove otherwise? So, if for instance I went through a red light, into a car and the driver can prove this, I am then liable?
I'd quite like to know how they assembled their expert panel .... I never got a letter
I'd quite like to know how they assembled their expert panel .... I never got a letter
addictfreak
Guru
- Location
- Boldon, Tyne and Wear
thomas said:
Sounds good in practice, but what if theres no witnesses. Would the car driver be held to account. If a cyclist goes through a red light he is just as guilty as a car driver doing the same.
thomas
the tank engine
- Location
- Woking/Norwich
addictfreak said:
What if a motorist kills a cyclist and there are no witnesses, but they are at fault? The motorist shouldn't be let off.
I don't know if there have to be witnesses, they'd just have to prove it. At the moment I believe it can be a bit of an up hill battle for victims.
I think it's a good idea, as if someone sees a cyclist they will hopefully give them a little bit more room and be a bit more patient around them.
addictfreak
Guru
- Location
- Boldon, Tyne and Wear
thomas said:
Of course not, and thats not what im suggesting at all. However in the absence of any evidence i suspect the driver may walk free.
The taxi driver who was hit by the RLJer was the victim in that case, lets not forget that.
As i have said before there are good and bad on both sides. I think it would be a shame to pin the blame solely on one party
thomas
the tank engine
- Location
- Woking/Norwich
addictfreak said:
It sounds like in that case he knew who the cyclist was and could of pursued a claim against them. Probably in small claims court. It was a shame that it happened though.
I do get why people don't like the idea of being at fault, but I am happy that when I'm cycling if I hit a pedestrian I should make the effort to show how it wasn't my fault. Certainly some cyclists could do with taking a bit more responsibility around pedestrians.
I drive as well, so the change in law would affect me too.
I think the main advantage of the change would be that drivers may feel a greater responsibility around cyclists. If they know that if something happens they will be at fault they might care. I am sure that some of my incidents wouldn't of happened if people had their no-claims bonus in the back of their mind.
I'll be honest and say I don't really know that much about it. A lot of what I've seen in the press seems to be a bit bias and not the whole picture.
addictfreak
Guru
- Location
- Boldon, Tyne and Wear
I agree, and I think that if you have a foot in both camps you seem to be more objective.
Wouldnt it be nice if we all just took that little bit more responsibility for our actions, and just took that little bit more time. Sadly everyone seems to be in such a hurry, and all to willing to aportion blame.
Wouldnt it be nice if we all just took that little bit more responsibility for our actions, and just took that little bit more time. Sadly everyone seems to be in such a hurry, and all to willing to aportion blame.
thomas
the tank engine
- Location
- Woking/Norwich
addictfreak said:
It's more like a toe....
. Other than being a passenger, I haven't driven since last Christmas. With being at UNI and away for a month over summer (other part being able to cycle to work) I haven't need to drive.Tempted to get a couple days worth of insurance though! I enjoy driving so it's a shame it's been so long!
