Petition for presumed liability
- Thread starter cyberknight
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
HMS_Dave
Grand Old Lady
It could well be that you are guilty. You could be fiddling with a touchscreen and avoided the accident, eating a pie, distracted by passengers, on the phone, drunk etc... It's important for motorists to be looking out for all obstacles and potential hazards. Hazard perception being part of obtaining a licence.
I think it highlights really the culture instilled in us that motorists really do think they own the road and struggle with the concept that it is them that kill other road users, overwhelmingly so. There could be a kid farting about on a bike in the road, or an old dear pops out between cars etc, it doesn't mean they deserve to die, nor instantly assumes that they are immediately guilty for doing so...
steveindenmark
Legendary Member
It works very well in Denmark. It does not exonerated careless cycling. What it does plant in the brain of a motorist is that if I am ln collision with a cyclist. It is my fault, until I prove otherwise. These accidents are usually in towns and finding who is at fault is not usually difficult. But it does make drivers especially aware of cyclists and pedestrians.
As is often said hereabouts - a bicycle is a vehicle.
Supersuperleeds
Legendary Member
- Location
- Leicester
Okay all new motor vehicles
keithmac
Guru
I've read the petition, as a person I cycle far more than drive (probably 90% if my travel is by bike) but I've seen enough "bag heads" and idiotic/ antisocial scooter rides to decide the petition is not for me.
Need to get the dashcam wired in tomorrow..
T.M.H.N.E.T
Rainbows aren't just for world champions
- Location
- Northern Ireland
If the petition isn't for you personally, could you still sign it for the benefit of the rest of us.
Thanks
Thanks
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
No, this is about liability, not guilt or innocence.
Motorists are to blame in 85% of collisions with cyclists, so let's start from a fairer default than 50-50.
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
This is a bit cake and eat it to my mind.
Cyclists are, by and large, against compulsory insurance. Conversely, theyd be happy to benefit from an innocent drivers insurance simply because there was no evidence to substantiate an innocent drivers account.
Despite all but 4 EU countries adopting this, there is no clear reduction in casualties that can be attributed to it. This makes the "it'll make car drivers more careful" argument as justification seem a bit hollow. Indeed, only 2 EU countries have a lower per-journey-mile cycling death rate than the UK, so the correlation appears not to exist in reality. Instead, it simply allows some people to make a profit out of their own idiocy and recklessness.
The majority of the bicycle v car collisions are the technical fault of the car drivers - ougaidemof that, penalising drivers who were not at fault does nothing to make the roads safer. I'd sooner see compusory insurance for adult cyclists than PL.
In any case, were bumping our guns. It's incompatible with British law. More chance of my coming out as a commie than PL appearing.
Cyclists are, by and large, against compulsory insurance. Conversely, theyd be happy to benefit from an innocent drivers insurance simply because there was no evidence to substantiate an innocent drivers account.
Despite all but 4 EU countries adopting this, there is no clear reduction in casualties that can be attributed to it. This makes the "it'll make car drivers more careful" argument as justification seem a bit hollow. Indeed, only 2 EU countries have a lower per-journey-mile cycling death rate than the UK, so the correlation appears not to exist in reality. Instead, it simply allows some people to make a profit out of their own idiocy and recklessness.
The majority of the bicycle v car collisions are the technical fault of the car drivers - ougaidemof that, penalising drivers who were not at fault does nothing to make the roads safer. I'd sooner see compusory insurance for adult cyclists than PL.
In any case, were bumping our guns. It's incompatible with British law. More chance of my coming out as a commie than PL appearing.
Last edited:
Bonefish Blues
Banging donk
- Location
- 52 Festive Road
What does 'larger' mean? If a chuffin huge cyclist and me have an incident, is it their fault?
HMS_Dave
Grand Old Lady
Duly noted. On the point of presumed liability however isn't just for the benefit of cyclists. It would be for the benefit of users such as cyclists. But you could argue pedestrians would benefit most as they are approximately 4 times more likely to be killed or seriously hurt by a motorist.
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
I'm not sure how you're quantifying any of this Stevie. Following its introduction in Denmark in 1986 there was no reduction in casualties attributable to the new legislation. Ditto Holland when they introduced it in 1990. No evidence there that it's making anyone more aware of anyone else, or if it is then that is not translating to a tangible benefit.
Where's the "benefit" Dave if it isn't making them any safer? There might be a nice cash benefit, so times for people that don't deserve it, but the argument being advanced is one of road safety, and there is little evidence that anyone is benefitting from that as a result.
I'm all for anything than genuinely benefits safety, but only where there is reasonably clear cut and reproduceable evidence that it does indeed contribute to safety.
Last edited:
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
I agree with much of what you post but this bit goes too far. While not a safety improvement, it would be better than the current default that penalises a greater number of blameless cyclists and walkers.
Obviously it doesn't work with current law but I don't see why Parliament couldn't change the law. Incompatible how? It's not like the UK has any base laws that can't be changed. Parliamentary sovereignty, innit?
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
Parliament could change the manner in which liability is attributed in civil law, not only the burden of proof conventuon, but the evidential, moral and legal principles, but that would then impinge on pretty much every and all aspects of disputes in civil law and would cause incalculable legal disarray.
There are so many things that can and do contribute to cycling safety it seems daft to expend any thought or effort on something that is not only highly unlikely to improve casualty figures, but is never going to happen. A petition regarding infrastructure or traffic enforcement is far more likely to contribute to safety and far more likely to actually one day materialise, so why waste our time fiddling while Rome burns?
There are so many things that can and do contribute to cycling safety it seems daft to expend any thought or effort on something that is not only highly unlikely to improve casualty figures, but is never going to happen. A petition regarding infrastructure or traffic enforcement is far more likely to contribute to safety and far more likely to actually one day materialise, so why waste our time fiddling while Rome burns?