"Sir Graham said cyclists were often to blame for collisions with cars."

[glenn forger]

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/New...-for-crashes-with-cyclists-20130919042228.htm

 

[Paul99]

Having lived in Cambridge, and seen the poor road craft of the people on bikes (not cyclists, just people on bikes), riding ninja style and generally not paying attention, it pains me to say it but I'd have to agree with Sir Graham.

 

[glenn forger]

The published evidence doesn't agree with Mr Bright, and he doesn't seem to understand the proposal at all.

 

[Leodis]

The MP is correct, cyclists should not need to fight for justice like they do now as a vulnerable road user.

I feel this would make drivers take more care on the roads.

There isnt anything we can do about people on bikes, it will always be the case but we need legal protection on UK roads.

“Proportionate liability, which operates in most European countries, offers the cyclist more protection in these cases. It puts the onus on the more dangerous vehicle for the collision. It would help protect car drivers from HGVs, bikes from cars and pedestrians from bikes.

“But this assumption is not an absolute rule. If a cyclist were travelling at night with no lights on, jumping red lights or not abiding by other rules of the roads, it would change the presumption.

This PCC is nothing more than a over paid quango who will be retired after the next election.

 

[LCpl Boiled Egg]

Having lived in Cambridge, and seen the poor road craft of the people on bikes (not cyclists, just people on bikes), riding ninja style and generally not paying attention, it pains me to say it but I'd have to agree with Sir Graham.

Riding in Cambridge most days, seeing the poor road craft of motorists generally not giving a fig about anyone not in a metal box, I don't agree with Sir Graham.

 

[Paul99]

As a cyclist I obviously like anything that is going to make me safer, but this isn't the way to do it IMO.

This isn't going to keep me safe, it is very unlikely to stop bad drivers from driving badly.

Presumed liability is like it or not, guilty until proven innocent, and it's wrong. If as Dr Huppert says "this assumption is not an absolute rule" then it changes nothing from what is available now: one word against another unless there are witnesses, and then the truth will out and the guilty party will get stung.

 

[Paul99]

Riding in Cambridge most days, seeing the poor road craft of motorists generally not giving a fig about anyone not in a metal box, I don't agree with Sir Graham.

I didn't say that there wasn't bad drivers in Cambridge, and I didn't say that they were never at fault. I just said that I agree with Sir Graham that cyclists were often to blame. Not always, not even most of the time, just often.

 

[Leodis]

As a cyclist I obviously like anything that is going to make me safer, but this isn't the way to do it IMO.

This isn't going to keep me safe, it is very unlikely to stop bad drivers from driving badly.

Presumed liability is like it or not, guilty until proven innocent, and it's wrong. If as Dr Huppert says "this assumption is not an absolute rule" then it changes nothing from what is available now: one word against another unless there are witnesses, and then the truth will out and the guilty party will get stung.

You mean like normal where the drivers insurance only coughs up 75% and it has to be accepted and the CPS refused to listen? If the driver has a witness saying the RLJ caused it then I am sure the truth will out, I refused to have to wear a camera to prove poor driving and someone trying to kill me.

 

[LCpl Boiled Egg]

I didn't say that there wasn't bad drivers in Cambridge, and I didn't say that they were never at fault. I just said that I agree with Sir Graham that cyclists were often to blame. Not always, not even most of the time, just often.

Fair enough. But as Dr. Huppert says "This assumption is not an absolute rule. If a cyclist were travelling at night with no lights on, jumping red lights or not abiding by other rules of the roads, it would change the presumption." So if the cyclists is at fault, the driver is not to blame. What's not to like?

 

[glenn forger]

As a cyclist I obviously like anything that is going to make me safer, but this isn't the way to do it IMO.

This isn't going to keep me safe, it is very unlikely to stop bad drivers from driving badly.

Presumed liability is like it or not, guilty until proven innocent, and it's wrong. If as Dr Huppert says "this assumption is not an absolute rule" then it changes nothing from what is available now: one word against another unless there are witnesses, and then the truth will out and the guilty party will get stung.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with guilt.

 

[Paul99]

You mean like normal where the drivers insurance only coughs up 75% and it has to be accepted and the CPS refused to listen? If the driver has a witness saying the RLJ caused it then I am sure the truth will out, I refused to have to wear a camera to prove poor driving and someone trying to kill me.

If presumed liability becomes law you will HAVE to wear a camera to protect yourself from getting sued everytime a ped steps out in front of you accidently on purpose. It will become the new crash for cash.

 

[glenn forger]

If presumed liability becomes law you will HAVE to wear a camera to protect yourself from getting sued everytime a ped steps out in front of you accidently on purpose. It will become the new crash for cash.

Hys

If presumed liability becomes law you will HAVE to wear a camera to protect yourself from getting sued everytime a ped steps out in front of you accidently on purpose. It will become the new crash for cash.

hysterical nonsense, can you find any evidence that this happens in countries with these rules?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Presumed liability is like it or not, guilty until proven innocent, and it's wrong.

It isn't. You're showing the same level of misunderstanding as Sir Graham. If you've got five minutes to spare there's a good explanation of it here.

GC

 

[Paul99]

It has nothing whatsoever to do with guilt.

Semantics.

 

[Paul99]

Hys



hysterical nonsense, can you find any evidence that this happens in countries with these rules?

Have a look at the dashcam footage from Russia.