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

[Wobblers]

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

Much of that 30% it is unclear as to where blame lies - that is why I didn't count it. 10% is down to cyclists ignoring traffic signals. But it is beyond dispute that in the large majority of collisions the cyclist is entirely blameless.

 

[glenn forger]

Imagine for a moment you are walking along a pavement, a vehicle passes you, it kicks up a stone and blinds you in one eye.

If you have to prove negligence then you will not be entitled to compensation, the driver did nothing wrong.

Strict liability says that the possibility of kicking up a stone and blinding someone is an inherent risk of driving, the fact the driver chose to drive the car and put you at risk in that way means that they have accepted they will be held liable if that risk is realised.

Strict liability is nothing to do with criminal responsibility, strict liability recognises that the driver is the one who has introduced the risk to the public space and they have done so to their advantage .

Driving in an urban setting is morally hazardous, the driver accrues the benefits of driving but not the risks.

All strict liability does is recognise that if you wish to benefit by taking risks at the expense of others, you should be prepared to pay up (or rather, your insurer should) when that risk is realised, consequently strict liability isn't limited to cars vs bicycles, it says the larger vehicle, the one owing the greater risk is more liable HGV>car>bicycle>pedestrian.

Strict liabilty is reserved for "inherently dangerous" activities or products. The classic example used is that of a circus: If a lion escapes and injures an audience member, it doesn't matter how strong the lion's cage was, or how closely the lion was watched.

The reasoning behind strict liability is to hold whoever benefits from a dangerous activity - demolition, transporting hazardous materials, using dangerous machines, etc. - accountable for any damaged caused by that activity.

 

[Paul99]

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

No I don't disagree with that at all, and nowhere have I said anything like this, but at present the onus is on ALL road users to take EQUAL care and that is the way it should be.

 

[glenn forger]

No I don't disagree with that at all, and nowhere have I said anything like this, but at present the onus is on ALL road users to take EQUAL care and that is the way it should be.

that is plainly not the case, it's why you need a license for a car and not for a bike, you need a special license if the vehicle is large and heavy, so the law already recognises that different road users have different responsibilities.

 

[Leodis]

What happened to the Lion?

 

[Paul99]

that is plainly not the case, it's why you need a license for a car and not for a bike, you need a special license if the vehicle is large and heavy, so the law already recognises that different road users have different responsibilities.

Glenn,
re your post #32 I'd like to see the precedent for this. And as far as I am concerned the negligence would lie with the persons responsible for the condition of the road.

re your post #34. Yes, I agree the law does already recognise that different road users have different responsibilities. So no new law needed.

 

[glenn forger]

I don't understand, what precedent? there isn't one at present, that's the whole point!

A motorist brings their four piece suite with an engine attached into the public realm. they get all the benefits of motorised traffic and the risks are mostly externalised, after all, you don't hear about cyclists killing drivers. this is an imbalance. As things stand, someone who wants to shave a few seconds off their journey time can leave a vulnerable road user with life changing injuries and get away virtually scot free. presumed Liability may well reduce insurance premiums if accidents decrease. have you cycled in Germany? the courtesy afforded cyclists is astonishing, because drivers know if they hit a cyclist it can cost them plenty of euros. it's a civilised, fair solution to the current regime, weighted mightily against peds and riders.

 

[Paul99]

I don't understand, what precedent? there isn't one at present, that's the whole point!

A motorist brings their four piece suite with an engine attached into the public realm. they get all the benefits of motorised traffic and the risks are mostly externalised, after all, you don't hear about cyclists killing drivers. this is an imbalance. As things stand, someone who wants to shave a few seconds off their journey time can leave a vulnerable road user with life changing injuries and get away virtually scot free. presumed Liability may well reduce insurance premiums if accidents decrease. have you cycled in Germany? the courtesy afforded cyclists is astonishing, because drivers know if they hit a cyclist it can cost them plenty of euros. it's a civilised, fair solution to the current regime, weighted mightily against peds and riders.

But the point you are missing is that this being law will not make the roads in the UK safer. Your argument for this presumed liability is that it will change driver behaviour. It won't, it will just make it slightly easier for you to get paid out if you are hit by a car. You think bad drivers give 2 seconds thought about how much money their shitty driving might cost them? What are you going to do about the unemployed, un-insured drivers out there? How much will they have to pay? Will they drive like an angel because of this?

Bad drivers will not drive any differently around cyclists as a result of this, but it will build further resentment in the "they don't even pay road tax" brigade.

Meanwhile, the government gets to crow about the new law they have introduced to make cycling "safer" and the poor infrastructure, which is the main problem, continues to be poor.

 

[glenn forger]

the infrastructure isn't the problem, poor driving is. people saying roads are dangerous are annoying, roads are inert stretches of Tarmac, the danger comes from the motor vehicles, it is motor vehicles that introduce the danger. It is TEN times safer to cycle in Denmark than the UK, not solely due to PL but it plays a part.

I wonder if you have cycled in Germany, if you had I doubt you would maintain PL makes no difference.

For example, riding in Berlin I would be overtaken on my left by an indicating car that then waited for me to progress past the junction where the driver wanted to turn right. it actually led to some confusion on my part because I'm used to East London drivers! now Germany has similar levels of car ownership as the UK, but much higher cycling rates. the single most common factor that dissuades people from cycling is bad, dangerous and frightening driving, PL would address that.

 

[Paul99]

the infrastructure isn't the problem, poor driving is. people saying roads are dangerous are annoying, roads are inert stretches of Tarmac, the danger comes from the motor vehicles, it is motor vehicles that introduce the danger. It is TEN times safer to cycle in Denmark than the UK, not solely due to PL but it plays a part.

I wonder if you have cycled in Germany, if you had I doubt you would maintain PL makes no difference.

For example, riding in Berlin I would be overtaken on my left by an indicating car that then waited for me to progress past the junction where the driver wanted to turn right. it actually led to some confusion on my part because I'm used to East London drivers! now Germany has similar levels of car ownership as the UK, but much higher cycling rates. the single most common factor that dissuades people from cycling is bad, dangerous and frightening driving, PL would address that.

Wow 10 times! It wouldn't have anything to do with the amount of vehicles on the road would it?

I see examples of courteous behaviour from car drivers in the UK all the time, it isn't because of PL is it?

I understand that your belief that PL will make all drivers think more about their driving but I just don't believe it will. Most drivers that are involved in collisions with cyclists, and are at fault, didn't do it intentionally, they did it because they are not very good at driving and either made a miscalculation or a mistake. PL won't change this, but it will make it slightly easier for you to get paid.

 

[Dan B]

I understand that your belief that PL will make all drivers think more about their driving but I just don't believe it will. Most drivers that are involved in collisions with cyclists, and are at fault, didn't do it intentionally, they did it because they are not very good at driving and either made a miscalculation or a mistake. PL won't change this, but it will make it slightly easier for you to get paid.

By means of making their insurance premiums higher, possibly to the extent that the next generation of idiots decide it's uneconomic to buy a car and stick to walking/cycling/public transport. Or invest in some more "advanced" driving lessons to lower their insurance. Either way, a win for the general level of driving standards.

 

[Paul99]

By means of making their insurance premiums higher, possibly to the extent that the next generation of idiots decide it's uneconomic to buy a car and stick to walking/cycling/public transport. Or invest in some more "advanced" driving lessons to lower their insurance. Either way, a win for the general level of driving standards.

Or they decide it is uneconomic to buy insurance. So what about the uninsured drivers, or WVM who doesn't pay the insurance premium? It still won't make the roads a safer place for cyclists.

 

[LCpl Boiled Egg]

Or they decide it is uneconomic to buy insurance. So what about the uninsured drivers, or WVM who doesn't pay the insurance premium? It still won't make the roads a safer place for cyclists.

Surely you can still be held responsible for causing a crash even if you're uninsured?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

This morning I watched six cars, one-after-another, go through a red light. My light was green. But they barged through all mighty and righty.

Had I been dumb enough to ride on and one of the rlj-ers had hit me I'd only have myself to blame. OBVIOUSLY.

 

[Paul99]

Surely you can still be held responsible for causing a crash even if you're uninsured?

Yes, but my post was in response to Dan B thinking that there would be less cars on the road if the premiums were jacked up. I was just pointing out that not all people pay insurance premiums. You can be held responsible at the moment without PL.

This morning I watched six cars, one-after-another, go through a red light. My light was green. But they barged through all mighty and righty.

Had I been dumb enough to ride on and one of the rlj-ers had hit me I'd only have myself to blame. OBVIOUSLY.

If you had been dumb enough. Obviously. But how would PL have changed the outcome? They would still have been held responsible for RLJ and causing a collision.