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

[Leodis]

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.

No mention of cyclist on Ped presumed liability, it only talks about Motor vehicle on vulnerable road user.

 

[glenn forger]

Have a look at the dashcam footage from Russia.

Russia doesn't have Presumed Liability for cyclists.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Semantics.

Accuracy.

GC

 

[Paul99]

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

Have read this before and my opinion is unchanged. It is still semantics IMO.

 

[Paul99]

No mention of cyclist on Ped presumed liability, it only talks about Motor vehicle on vulnerable road user.

Dr Huppert told the News last night: “Cyclists and pedestrians are vulnerable road users and come off far worse in a collision with a motor vehicle. On occasions, a driver will use the excuse that he or she just hasn’t seen the cyclist. This is not acceptable.
“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.

 

[glenn forger]

Have read this before and my opinion is unchanged. It is still semantics IMO.

What part of the piece linked to do you feel is incorrect?

 

[Paul99]

Russia doesn't have Presumed Liability for cyclists.

No they don't, but the article quotes Dr Huppert as saying it would apply here, see my post above to Leodis (#20)

 

[Wobblers]

TfL figures show that almost in 70% of collisions between vehicles and cyclists, blame can be apportioned to the motorist alone. Ha! A politician plucking nonsense out of his arse and exaggerating it? Who'd have thunk it...

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Have read this before and my opinion is unchanged. It is still semantics IMO.

Then you haven't understood it.

GC

 

[Paul99]

What part of the piece linked to do you feel is incorrect?

"liability for reparations because, on the balance of probabilities, it is the actions of the motorist, blameless as they may be, that bring by far the greatest risk (probability of serious incident) to the situation, and therefore it is the motorist who should normally bear the liability for reparations."

 

[glenn forger]

No they don't, but the article quotes Dr Huppert as saying it would apply here, see my post above to Leodis (#20)

But you've already shown you don't understand the proposal so I'm unclear as to why you oppose it.

 

[glenn forger]

"liability for reparations because, on the balance of probabilities, it is the actions of the motorist, blameless as they may be, that bring by far the greatest risk (probability of serious incident) to the situation, and therefore it is the motorist who should normally bear the liability for reparations."

You disagree that the onus is on the more dangerous vehicle to take more care?

 

[Paul99]

TfL figures show that almost in 70% of collisions between vehicles and cyclists, blame can be apportioned to the motorist alone. Ha! A politician plucking nonsense out of his arse and exaggerating it? Who'd have thunk it...

Exactly, so in 30% of collisions it may not be apportioned to the motorist alone.

 

[Wobblers]

Dr Huppert told the News last night: “Cyclists and pedestrians are vulnerable road users and come off far worse in a collision with a motor vehicle. On occasions, a driver will use the excuse that he or she just hasn’t seen the cyclist. This is not acceptable.
“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.

You're quite right: presumed liability does put the onus of proof onto the less vulnerable party - which means cyclists in the event of a collision with a pedestrian. Do you often get pedestrians stepping out in front of you "accidentally on purpose"?

 

[glenn forger]

Exactly, so in 30% of collisions it may not be apportioned to the motorist alone.

No, in some cases blame was apportioned equally or no blame was assigned. You seem very exercised about something you plainly don't understand.