New offences for cyclists/cycling

[Andy in Germany]

I understand it’s the same in France - if a motorist hits a cyclist, the assumption is that the fault is with the motorist.

It's the same in all EU countries, except Romania, last I heard. The law works on the principle that the stronger, and the one who introduces a greater degree of risk in a given situation, is presumed liable for any consequences.

In Germany, the same applies to me if I'm cycling and hit a pedestrian. As a cyclist, I'm introducing more risk and the pedestrian is more vulnerable.

 

[Mike_P]

It's the same in all EU countries, except Romania, last I heard. The law works on the principle that the stronger, and the one who introduces a greater degree of risk in a given situation, is presumed liable for any consequences.

In Germany, the same applies to me if I'm cycling and hit a pedestrian. As a cyclist, I'm introducing more risk and the pedestrian is more vulnerable.

Thats how the new highway code is set down, problem is only a small percentage of UK motorists will have looked at it and even a smaller percentage understand it.

 

[Alex321]

Thats how the new highway code is set down, problem is only a small percentage of UK motorists will have looked at it and even a smaller percentage understand it.

And the other problem is that the Highway code is only advice, not law.

 

[icowden]

And the other problem is that the Highway code is only advice, not law.

Not entirely. It is advice but many rules are supported by and reflect legal requirements. If the Highway code says "Must" or "must not" then that refers to a legal requirement.

 

[Alex321]

Not entirely. It is advice but many rules are supported by and reflect legal requirements. If the Highway code says "Must" or "must not" then that refers to a legal requirement.

Agreed, but the Hierarchy of road users doesn't fall into that category.

 

[Andy in Germany]

During my driving lessons (I learned to drive in Germany, not the UK, it's a long and rather boring story) it was drilled into me repeatedly that if I hit a pedestrian or cyclist I was in a lot of trouble; they deliberately drove in "shared space" streets and areas with cycleways to I got used to seeing them and reacting appropriately around pedestrians and cyclists. I had to demonstrate that I'd checked every pedestrian crossing for pedestrians waiting or even approaching them.

Correct behaviour around cycle lanes (in exactly the situation shown above) is also a big part of the test: the point being cyclists on cycle lanes have right of way crossing side roads unless otherwise shown by the signage.

It's a very different regime from the UK, and it does improve driver behaviour.

 

[matticus]

To quote the motorists' argument I've seen more times than I could possibly count:

"You're the ones who stand to get hurt, if you don't get out of our way you're stupid".

That's a threat. Pure and simple.

 

[mjr]

Not entirely. It is advice but many rules are supported by and reflect legal requirements. If the Highway code says "Must" or "must not" then that refers to a legal requirement.

Not entirely. Ignore enough of the advice and you're very likely to be convicted of a careless offence.

 

[mjr]

I understand it’s the same in France - if a motorist hits a cyclist, the assumption is that the fault is with the motorist.

Sign https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/700451 if you want it here too.

 

[markharry66]

according to the government breathing air is no longer mandatory.

 

[mjr]

according to the government breathing air is no longer mandatory.

What do you mean by that?

 

[styles]

Not entirely. Ignore enough of the advice and you're very likely to be convicted of a careless offence.

And flouting non-legislated rules from the highway code can also be used to determine liability in civil claims.

If two people are driving within the speed limit on a roundabout, one person is in the left lane and tries to continue round to the right, and somebody from the right tries to exit into the second lane on the left from the correct roundabout lane, it'll be a split liability (almost always exactly 50-50 in this specific scenario); because driver 1 disobeyed the rules on lane selection, and driver 2 disobeyed the rules on checking it's safe to exit before leaving the roundabout. Neither have broken any legislation-based 'MUST' rules in the highway code (though both may be considered for careless driving), but they're both at fault.

Example, from an insurance case handler:



View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMoHm1B5ZlM

 

[Fastpedaller]

And flouting non-legislated rules from the highway code can also be used to determine liability in civil claims.

If two people are driving within the speed limit on a roundabout, one person is in the left lane and tries to continue round to the right, and somebody from the right tries to exit into the second lane on the left from the correct roundabout lane, it'll be a split liability (almost always exactly 50-50 in this specific scenario); because driver 1 disobeyed the rules on lane selection, and driver 2 disobeyed the rules on checking it's safe to exit before leaving the roundabout. Neither have broken any legislation-based 'MUST' rules in the highway code (though both may be considered for careless driving), but they're both at fault.

Example, from an insurance case handler:



View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMoHm1B5ZlM

I'm surprised that's 50/50 - the camera car had ample opportunity to avoid a collision, but wanted to go where he wanted to go!. More like 60/40 liability of guy in camera car IMHO

 

[icowden]

I'm surprised that's 50/50 - the camera car had ample opportunity to avoid a collision, but wanted to go where he wanted to go!. More like 60/40 liability of guy in camera car IMHO

I can't see any issue with the driver in the left lane at all. It's not compulsory to exit if you are in the left lane. The car in the right hand is clearly a chump.

 

[markemark]

I cannot see how the outside driver is at fault. The driver on the inside moved into a lane without checking it was clear and bashed into someone. The outside driver maybe should have indicated their intentions, but they occupied the lane and the person entering their lane did not ensure it was clear to do so.