So its your fault..but....

[Ian Johnson]

It will always be the cars fault
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6841326.ece

 

[ComedyPilot]

Pathetic.

Vote the inept prats out of government.


We need real, effective and safe infrastructure, not passing the buck onto (quite often) innocent motorists.

 

[ComedyPilot]

BTW this really happened.

Cyclist riding along country road, lights, reflective clothing. Is clipped from behind by a car, and thrown into the path of another car.

He died.

Car that hit him stopped at the scene.

Car that clipped him did a runner.

According to these PRATS, the driver of the car that killed him is at fault?

[Now looking for the local news story]

 

[alecstilleyedye]

Pathetic.

We need real, effective and safe infrastructure, not passing the buck onto (quite often) innocent motorists.

i see your point cp, but i have to say taking the view of the "most dangerous party takes responsibility" will at least force lorries to treat cars with more care, cars the cyclists and cyclists the pedestrians. good anticipation on behalf of all can prevent crashes, and without a suitable motivation this skill seems to go out of the window some time after drivers pass their test.

i also take the view that spikes in the steering wheel, not airbags, will get drivers to take more care…

 

[Tharg2007]

Why not look at how denmark do it and copy it. Simplez

 

[purplepolly]

will at least force lorries to treat cars with more care, cars the cyclists and cyclists the pedestrians.

It would also mean I'll have to cycle to work at 7am continually blasting an airzound in residential areas in order to prevent pedestrians from launching themselves out in front of me. Bet that'll be popular.

 

[gaz]

This is just going to make some cyclists think they are invincible. Highly stupid!

 

[purplepolly]

This is just going to make some cyclists think they are invincible.

Maybe some of the more stupid ones who probably already cycle dangerously - the ones who can't work out that it won't really matter who's to blame if they're dead.

 

[stowie]

This is just going to make some cyclists think they are invincible. Highly stupid!

I for one am unlikely to believe I am invincible on a bicycle just because the the law presumes the motorised vehicle to be culpable in an accident

As far as I can see, the law would presume the motorised vehicle to be liable in an accident. This is only for civil law for insurance compensation etc. and will not be for criminal law.

The article says the idea is to get people out of their cars and onto bicycles, but I can't really see that a technical change to the law is going to help. If I get hit by a car, it is likely to hurt just as much whoever is presumed liable in a civil court.

How about slowing down cars in urban areas (no point to going quickly most of the time just to get to the next traffic jam), and actually providing some real, enforced cycling provision on the roads?

 

[Will1985]

Note that cyclists would also be guilty for hitting pedestrians. Presumably this will mostly involve POBs riding on the pavement, but what about those unfortunate cyclists (and IIRC it has happened to some on here) who can't avoid the idiot who steps off the kerb with a phone/ipod stuck in their ear?

Totally agree with ComedyPilot - infrastructure is key but Britain lacks it. The Dutch have it right...a decent infrastructure as well as a sense of responsibility maintained by all road users.

 

[gavintc]

The law works just fine in Germany. Cyclists are given respect. I do not see the major problem with this one.

 

[BentMikey]

I don't see a problem with this either. The reality is that in 4 out of 5 collisions of the subset of collisions involving bicycles and motor vehicles, the motorist is responsible anyway. It doesn't make the motorist guilty, it just places the onus of proof correctly on the driver of the most dangerous vehicle, and on the one that is by far the most likely to have caused the collision.

Infrastructure is not key at all - a change in driver attitude is. With a change in driver attitude, we won't need much in the way of infrastructure at all.

 

[smavter]

We have the same rule here in Holland. If anything i think it makes driver's more aware of cyclists. Cyclists dont tend to think theyre invincible because youre still the one that is going to get hurt despite who's fault it is.

 

[summerdays]

Its a change in civil law, and if a car driver killed a cyclist going through a red light the motorist would not be at fault as far as I understand. The change is that rather than the cyclist having to prove it was the motorist the roles would be reversed. Many car drivers drive around in their "safe metal bubbles", and don't give consideration to the other more vulnerable road users. This proposed change in the law would hopefully lead to everyone giving each other more respect.

 

[yello]

I do not see the major problem with this one.

I would. In that I foresee (further) enraged motorists!

But in-so-far as a rule change would be concerned, I too think it'd be a good thing.