your fault law

[stephenjubb]

Does anyone think it would be possible to introduce the following into British Law? Would it work and would there by any issues?

From http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/page/?o=3Tzut&page_id=87113&v=1FN

You have to ponder why this is: has their road manners simply grown organically from when they started to move from the horse and cart to motorised vehicles, is it that they are in less of a rush compared to us? I think not. There is a law in Belgium which is common in other EU States, If you're in a car and hit a cyclist it’s your fault, you pay the expenses, just like when you hit the back of a car. and one thign for sure, there aren't going to be many cyclist wanting to hit cars.

It’s a simple thing to introduce. Just think: people might get that little bit more brave = more cyclists = less cars = less stress = less ailments = less heart disease = less costs to NHS = less tax = More smiles.

 

[Black Sheep]

i've not read the link, if i do my fiancee might kill me for not getting on with other stuff i have to do, but...

i've often wondered this myself, and it could work, although introducing it at the moment would not be a good idea due to the low opinion drivers have (rightly so in some cases) of cyclists.


in the summer i nearly killed a cyclist, i came off the coventry ring road and slowed almost to a stop to observe traffic on the roundabout, saw there was absolutely nothing coming and so went.

as i started accelerating i caught in the corner of my eye, and turned to look, a glimmer of light - the reflection of a street light on a wheel rim

black bike, black clothes and hugging the curb on a roundabout under a flyover - i did not see him until he was right next to the car

if i'd hit him, would it have been my fault? i slowed and was able to stop and give way, as asked by road markings, i looked, i saw nothing.

was it his fault for riding where he was less likely to be seen, without lights and in dark clothing? i'll let you decide,

i could not sleep at all that night.

 

[stephenjubb]

it should work both ways. some argue imposing anything on cycling will reduce the numbers cycling.

well surely enforcing cyclists to obey the law and not RLJ, ride recklessly etc is a good thing. Who wants them on the road.

If we could get rid of the reckless cyclists, we would have more grounds to get this law introduced. surely then it would encourage more cyclists as the roads would be safer???

not much chance though. the government here is full of c??p. they have no cycling strategy (i.e. stupid cycle lanes etc). hardly surprising, they say they want more to cycle but they do nothing to bolster cycling (i.e. vat reduction on cycles, education etc) as they make no money from us.

why is it european countries can get their act together but not here?

and no I am not saying we should all wear helmets

 

[marinyork]

I agree with the idea but it'll never get introduced in this country. We're only bothered with cars zooming around and see pedestrians, cyclists, horses, anybody else as inconvenient and if there is an accident it's assumed to be the peds/cyclist's fault.

RLJing is irrelevent, if it wasn't RLJing it'd be something else like cyclists smell or they hold us up or glide along silently.

 

[Cubist]

Does anyone think it would be possible to introduce the following into British Law? Would it work and would there by any issues?

From http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/page/?o=3Tzut&page_id=87113&v=1FN

You have to ponder why this is: has their road manners simply grown organically from when they started to move from the horse and cart to motorised vehicles, is it that they are in less of a rush compared to us? I think not. There is a law in Belgium which is common in other EU States, If you're in a car and hit a cyclist it’s your fault, you pay the expenses, just like when you hit the back of a car. and one thign for sure, there aren't going to be many cyclist wanting to hit cars.

It’s a simple thing to introduce. Just think: people might get that little bit more brave = more cyclists = less cars = less stress = less ailments = less heart disease = less costs to NHS = less tax = More smiles.

Once again, the "pub barristers" have a field day with this one. Everybody seems to be convinced that if you hit the back of a car there's some British law which states categorically that you are at fault. M'lud I beg to submit that it is in fact, bollocks.

I give you for example the car that undertakes another on a dual carriageway and cuts in front, braking sharply because he's a bit of a cock. Would it be fair to prosecute the following driver? No, of course it wouldn't. Similarly you are observing the speed limit in an urban setting, following at the correct braking distance a car the driver of which, completely without warning, decides to apply his brakes so hard that all his ABS kicks in because he has overshot the turn into the pub carpark. Your car, not fitted with ABS cannot stop in the same distance and drifts into the back. Would you be happy to take all the blame? No, you wouldn't. How about the car in front of you at the roundabout. You have drawn up behind him, and both of you can see that there isn't another car on the roundabout to give way to. He pulls forward over the line, you see him move off, then check back to your right to see whether the roundabout is still clear. It is, so you pull forward towards the empty space left by the car you saw pull away earlier, only to find that the driver has dropped his fag/decided to reload his CD player/answered his mobile phone and jammed all his brakes on. You drive into the back of him. Is that one your fault? No, of course it isn't, at least not 100%.

There is absolutely no way that you can make one particular road user completely devoid of blame in an accident. If you did, then swarms of cyclists would hurl themselves at cars/buses/HGVs, not one of them with lights on, not a scrap of hi-viz in sight, with an entire army of "Injury Lawyers 4 You" on the pavements with their mouths open waiting for the manna from heaven.

Virtually every law we have in this wonderful sceptered isle depends on a test of reason and fairness. Due care/dangerous driving etc are particular favourites for a test of fairness. (They even have statutory defences such as "being under attack by a swarm of bees " FFS!).

Fortunately for all of us, each and every party must take an acceptable level of responsibility for our own actions on a road. To try and pretend that all cyclists are innocent and incapable of wrongdoing is naiive to the extreme.

 

[Joe]

It doesn't make anyone "devoid of blame" though does it? From what I understand it just puts the onus on the driver to prove they weren't at fault...rather than on the cyclist to prove they were in car-bike collisions, when it comes to insurance claims. Burden of proof with those who pose the most risk, seems fair to me and evidently works in other countries.

There was an interesting thread a couple of years back on the CTC forums about it.

http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t=8270

 

[fossyant]

Suppose it's just the same as a ped running the red light - you should be looking out for them..... doesn't apply over here... it's a legal issue about 'reasonable due care and attention'.

Ride a bike like you would drive a car, and obey the rules of the road, then you are OK legally....push it/break it, then not.....

 

[fossyant]

There is a 'deviod of blame' issue.....

The 'sorry I didn't see you' got me in December....

Didn't work for her as I was lit up like Blackpool, and even if I'd been a HGV, she didn't look properly........

 

[Black Sheep]

How about the car in front of you at the roundabout. You have drawn up behind him, and both of you can see that there isn't another car on the roundabout to give way to. He pulls forward over the line, you see him move off, then check back to your right to see whether the roundabout is still clear. It is, so you pull forward towards the empty space left by the car you saw pull away earlier, only to find that the driver has dropped his fag/decided to reload his CD player/answered his mobile phone and jammed all his brakes on. You drive into the back of him. Is that one your fault? No, of course it isn't, at least not 100%.

it was the lorry driver's fault when it happened to my mum, he looked over my mum's car and just went into the back of her thinking she'd gone (bright yellow allegro estate, bit hard to miss)

 

[MartinC]

Discussing this issue (sometimes known as "strict liability") in the UK is a waste of time as no-one here (well, very few) is able to grasp the basic concept.

The theory in the civilised world is simple. Motor vehicle drivers bring a risk of death, injury and damage to the environment they share with other humans to a degree not matched by anyone else they share space with. Therefore the people who benefit from using the motor vehicle bear the cost of insuring against the consequences. If there's a car/pedestrian accident then the car insurance will pay out.

In the UK the cultural background is different. The roads (and any other usable space) belongs to cars and any other users must conform to the rules that are convenient for car drivers. If you don't do this then you are at "fault" and the car driver doesn't want to be burdened with the cost of mitigating the risks they create. This is why the road safety figures in the UK for vulnerable users (children, old people, cyclists etc.) are appalling by European standards.

 

[Amanda P]

The original premise is wrongly stated. It's not the case that in Belgium "If you're in a car and hit a cyclist it’s your fault".

In fact there is an assumption in law that it's your fault. That is, you have to show that it is not your fault.

So in Pushing Tin's example, had he hit the cyclist, the fact that the cyclist was wearing black, had no lights etc., would be strong evidence that he, the cyclist, was wholly or partly to blame for the accident.

It's somewhat akin to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt. If they fail to do so, the court must find for the defence.

If we had a similar assumption of responsibility on a driver, a driver would have to prove in court that a collision with a cyclist was not his fault. If he failed to prove this, the court would find in favour of the cyclist without the cyclist needing to prove anything.

 

[tyred]

I agree in principle but the cyclist still needs to follow the rules of the road as they apply to cycles. I would worry that many will take the reckless approach that they can claim of the driver's insusrance. I almost wiped a cyclist out at about 1 o' clock in the morning a few months back when he decided to go through a crossroads on which I had the right of way. Like pushing tin's example, he was riding a dark coloured bike, wearing black and had no lights of any description despite the fact that it was pitch dark. The only thing that saved him was that I caught a glint of my headlights on his rims at the last possible minute and I was able to take avoiding action. Lucky for him that his rims were shiny!

 

[Nigeyy]

I'll give you another real life example -two lane highway with good visibility, another car in near side lane ahead, my wife driving in far side lane as she needs to be in that lane for a junction couple of hundred yards up. Car in nearside lane slows so wife in far side lane continues......

Giving almost no warning at all, car puts indicator on, swerves right out into the far lane and brakes suddenly to take a turn -right in front of us. How my wife didn't hit them I don't know.

I do strongly suspect that without witnesses, had there been a collision, my wife would have got the blame..... they really did cut out the braking distance.

Once again, the "pub barristers" have a field day with this one. Everybody seems to be convinced that if you hit the back of a car there's some British law which states categorically that you are at fault. M'lud I beg to submit that it is in fact, bollocks.

I give you for example the car that....

 

[Nigeyy]

It does sound attractive doesn't it? Well, until somebody on a bicycle does something crazy and YOU get to bear the blame (and ultimately pay!). I can see the point of it, but I do think it would be very unfair to blanket all accidents as the automobile driver's fault. I can't say I'd agree with it!

Perhaps a better idea would be to increase penalties and publicize them for when an automobile does hit a cyclist and it's *definitely* their fault. Maybe way over and above if they'd hit another automobile instead? That might serve as some small deterrent to drivers who are willing to "overlook" cyclists too easily and wake them up a bit.

Course, would only work if it was really well publicized and the stakes were high enough....

 

[MacB]

not just about fair though Nigey it's about safety, treating the most implicitly dangerous road users in a harsher manner should promote increased caution where it's needed. If someone is in charge of a heavy, fast moving, vehicle, then SMIDSY shouldn't be an acceptable excuse. This isn't just in relation to cyclists but to all other road users.