So its your fault..but....

[yello]

Oh, and an interesting spin by the Times. The proposal is....

Government advisers are pushing for changes in the civil law that will make the most powerful vehicle involved in a collision automatically liable for insurance and compensation purposes.

...which the Times pitch as a 'cycling plan to blame drivers'. Be careful out there... you'd be at fault for the rule change too!

 

[John the Monkey]

Predictably, the Times' article is a little short on detail.

Is this needed?

I'd say yes - drivers have abdicated their responsibility to look out for vulnerable road users (and so have cyclists to a degree, judging by the commentary concerning pedestrians) to such a startling degree in this country that we can have coroners courts recommending that all pedestrians be made to wear "Hi Viz" gear.

God forbid that drivers should exercise more care when conditions are poor, or visibility reduced. That they should take it easy when they can't see the pavement properly because of parked cars, instead of hooning along at the nominal speed limit of the road "But I wasn't speeding!"

As I understand it the presumption of fault can be challenged where there is recklessness &c on the part of the other party in the European versions of this law.

This is a gem in particular;

motorists and residents are often infuriated at seeing swathes of road space, or the kerbs where they park their cars, turned into cycle lanes. Councils in York, Huddersfield and Cambridge, have all had to deal with anti-cycling protests.

I have to say that the presence of green paint doesn't stop the selfish bastards in Manchester from parking wherever they like in order to avoid walking more than 50 yards to the shop.

After the death of Edith Cairns, Velorution argued for a change in the way death on the roads was treated by the police and courts;

http://www.velorution.biz/?p=2198
The system needs to change: if you kill someone while in charge of a vehicle, you are automatically sent to jail and you will never be able to drive again, unless you can prove that the victim was commiting suicide. For crashes of lesser impact, the penalty would be commeasurably smaller.

Whenever such a change is proposed in this country, the Daily Mail and other Middle England idiots, rage that it is unfair.



Let me spell out the logic:
Under the present system, the cost of an error by a pedestrian or a cyclist is death. The cost of an error by a driver is a small fine.
Under the proposed system, the cost of an error by a pedestrian or a cyclist is still death, so there will be no behavioural change: people will still walk and cycle with care. The cost to the driver however is much higher, no matter the cause: this will produce behavioural changes: drivers will look and stop before turning left, will not drive so close to cyclists and will slow down. This will greatly diminish the number of crashes caused by drivers, which constitutes the large majority of crashes which involve vulnerable road users. A few people will lose their licence because of someone else’s error, a lot more people will not lose their life because of someone else’s error.
What is unfair about that?

 

[John the Monkey]

...which the Times pitch as a 'cycling plan to blame drivers'. Be careful out there... you'd be at fault for the rule change too!

Noticed that too.

I quite frequently get blamed for local cycle lanes - (and happily say that they could grub the bloody things up, for all I care - they're just extra parking for cars along most of my route).

 

[XmisterIS]

YABOUL!!

(Yet Another Bit Of Useless Legislation!)

Will it make the blindest bit of difference to someone like me, who is a driver as well as a cyclist?

No.

Why?

Because, regardless of any proposed change in the law in my favour, I ride defensively and obey road signs and signals so as to avoid getting myself flattened by an artic truck.

Will it make a difference to the small minority of idiot cyclists who think it's their God-given right to cycle wherever and however they choose, with a complete lack of self-preservation or respect for others?

Of course it will!

It will just help them to become more selfish, thus bringing more hate from certain drivers against ALL cyclists.

And who will suffer the fall-out?

Yep, you guessed it, the defensive, careful, courteous cyclists! (i.e. the majority of us).

 

[jonny jeez]

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…

Totally agree.

As for us having to watch out for ped's...well, we all have to share the burden of responsibility.

Lorries/buses will have to be watching out for Van's trucks, MPV's, cars, motorbikes bikes and peds (infact anything smaller than them)...so for us to keep an eye out for rare "wild" peds is hardly unacheivable and a small price to pay.

Like the spike's idea too

 

[John the Monkey]

Will it make a difference to the small minority of idiot cyclists who think it's their God-given right to cycle wherever and however they choose, with a complete lack of self-preservation or respect for others?

The will (probably) continue to ride in a selfish way, true. Do they deserve to die or be seriously injured for doing this though? Should we impose a similar form of "justice" on the halfwits who think they can blast down streets with parked cars on both sides at 30mph or more - or is it only cyclists and pedestrians to whom this rough justice applies?

It will just help them to become more selfish, thus bringing more hate from certain drivers against ALL cyclists.

And who will suffer the fall-out?

Yep, you guessed it, the defensive, careful, courteous cyclists! (i.e. the majority of us).

How is this an acceptable state of affairs? Other cyclists are crap, so drivers can intimidate and endanger you? That this can even be mooted with a straight face is a strong indication of the need for a cultural change here. I don't really care how it comes about, but it's far more likely to come about by legislative means than by means of expensive advertising campaigns &c, imo.

 

[wafflycat]

As a motorist who enjoys driving, I have no problems whatsoever with presumed liability. It will simply mean a bit of an increased insurance premium. After all, as a driver if it clearly is the fault of the other person, then I am still not liable should I wish to go the route of showing that - at least that's my understanding of how it works in jonnyforeignerland across the Channel. As a motorist, cyclist & pedestrian, it's pretty clear to see that over here the scales have swung too far in favour of the poor, beleaguered, put-upon, stealth tax paying, law-abding motorist, and it's about time there was a bit of a rebalance towards more vulnerable road users.

 

[Origamist]

As usual it appears that most people who are against the rebuttable presumption (praesumptio iuris tantum) do not know what it means in practice. This is understandable as the media often obfuscates and skews the issue.

Sadly, the issue of liability and vulnerable road users gets raised every 2/3 years but nothing gets done. I am not hopeful that we will see a change in the law, even though it is needed.

 

[Origamist]

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?

It's a "presumption" of liability that could be rebutted in a Civil Court (if the case actually got there).

I have hit a pedestrian at speed and have absolutely no problem with what is being suggested.