Petition for presumed liability

[snorri]

So if a car driver kills a cyclist he has to prove his innocence? Or go to jail?

I'm unsure what you find unreasonable about the situation you describe.

 

[steveindenmark]

I can't speak directly for @steveindenmark, but I do agree wholeheartedly with him. It is impossible to quantify, but if you've spent the amount of time that I have, cycling in a country that has presumed liability, then you will see that on the whole, driver attitudes are completely different. Drivers here do go out of their way to avoid you and I've been amazed at the lengths drivers go to to give cyclist and pedestrians priority.

Another point that folks here are forgetting is that it also goes the other way, so in the examples above where a young cyclist is riding along paying more attention to their phone than their surroundings, then they are presumed liable when they invariably hit a pedestrian. I really believe in it's efficacy as a road safety measure and is a big part of why cycling here is so much more safer and pleasurable than Britain.

I think you have raised a good point Chris. When there is presumed liability, there is also percieved respect. Drivers have to stop for us. They have no choice. But cyclists often give a wave of thanks and the drivers appreciate that. I think it is a very enviroment to ride around in. Drago pointed out that presumed liabilty has not changed the accident figures in Denmark. I will accept that as I cannot find the data. But there are other benefits to it. It leads to a better understanding and respect between cyclists and motorists.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

If that were true, why is drivers behaviour so different around cyclists in countries that already have it?

That could be correlation rather than causation.

To be certain, you’d have to know the levels of collisions and injuries prior to and after the introduction of presumed liability.

I believe the difference in behaviour comes from the increased volume of people cycling, thanks to the introduction of safe infrastructure in, for example, the Netherlands at the end of the ‘70s. There, presumed liability wasn’t brought in until the ‘90s so if your suggestion is that PL was significant in affecting driver behaviour then it should be obvious from the collision stats.

But even if there is no discernible improvement in driver behaviour, it’s still a worthwhile initiative to introduce.

 

[classic33]

That does sound like you got the dirty end of the stick and the car was definitely at fault for pulling out in front of you.

Almost as though I'd no right to be on the road.

 

[Notafettler]

I'm unsure what you find unreasonable about the situation you describe.

Erhh the cyclist pulls out in front of him and the car driver has no chance of stopping.

 

[Slick]

Erhh the cyclist pulls out in front of him and the car driver has no chance of stopping.

That wasn't quite the situation you described.

 

[snorri]

Erhh the cyclist pulls out in front of him and the car driver has no chance of stopping.

You said "the driver kills a cyclist", which would suggest the decision of the court was that the driver was responsible for the death of the cyclist.
There is no reason to believe that that would be the decision of the court in the scenario you now describe.

 

[Notafettler]

You said "the driver kills a cyclist", which would suggest the decision of the court was that the driver was responsible for the death of the cyclist.
There is no reason to believe that that would be the decision of the court in the scenario you now describe.

I would prefer if you didn't quote me accurately.

 

[mjr]

Negligence, liability and damages come under Common Law/ Tort not statute. Various liabilities have been defined by case law.

That is the major difference between UK and (most) continental law where statute law defines

EDIT:

ie it is not specific laws that are incompatible, but the very system of English Common Law

What in English Common Law says that the starting point must be 50-50? Would it still start from that even if one party brought a WMD to a collision?

 

[classic33]

What in English Common Law says that the starting point must be 50-50? Would it still start from that even if one party brought a WMD to a collision?

That'd be premeditated. Setting out with the clear intention to do harm.

Not the same at all.

 

[mjr]

It's not just one thing that makes a difference - it's a whole package.

I think that may be what scares some who have not ridden much abroad. They hear of things like being required to use some cycleways and they think of their local UK-council-provided narrow indirect root-damaged washboard and it sounds like hell. The fear is that if we get something good from abroad, that will be the price asked, without us getting the rest of the good stuff, like not only smooth and wide flowing routes but traffic lights that respond to the number of bikes waiting and have countdown displays and clear route and destination signs and guarded cycle parking in most cities and loads more I forget.

I don't think one will be demanded as the price for another. Indeed, forcing us onto crap cycle paths has already appeared in minor party manifestoes without any concessions to balance the pain. Each element seems unconnected.

 

[mjr]

That'd be premeditated. Setting out with the clear intention to do harm.

Not the same at all.

I'm not saying they meant the WMD to go off. Just that they were carrying it.

 

[boydj]

The main difference with what we have here currently is the starting point when determining liability. When a cyclist is hit by a car, it is up to the cyclist to show that the driver' actions caused the incident. With presumed liability, the driver has to show why he is not liable. This would not affect any criminal liability/charges.

In my own experiences, I was fortunate that I was able to clearly demonstrate that the fault lay with the drivers and their insurance companies only argued about the level of damages to be paid. Currently many drivers walk away from incidents with no fault lodged against them when they are fully or mainly to blame for the incident.

 

[classic33]

The main difference with what we have here currently is the starting point when determining liability. When a cyclist is hit by a car, it is up to the cyclist to show that the driver' actions caused the incident. With presumed liability, the driver has to show why he is not liable. This would not affect any criminal liability/charges.

In my own experiences, I was fortunate that I was able to clearly demonstrate that the fault lay with the drivers and their insurance companies only argued about the level of damages to be paid. Currently many drivers walk away from incidents with no fault lodged against them when they are fully or mainly to blame for the incident.

I'd to fight for three years just to prove I'd the right to be on the road after being hit. The 50/50 blame, I'd have been happy with in the days after being hit. From there I'd fight my side, as I've done already.

 

[Badger_Boom]

So where would 50/50 have fitted yesterday's excitement?

I was in the right hand lane on the dual side of a three lane urban road (2x one way, 1x the other - Barbican Road for those who know York) with a 30 limit. On my left and half alongside was another car, which began to indicate and move accross into my lane (the old "mirror SIGNALMANOEUVER"). I braked gently to allow them to pull accross ahead of me, when to my surprise they braked hard, and swung into a full U-turn to get into a layby on the oposite side of the road! What proportion should I get for failing to accurately read their mind and predicting they'd do the bonkers thing rather than the simply careless?