Strict Liability Law - Drivers to be auto blamed for all accidents with cyclists
- Thread starter Richie
- Start date
I'm aware of those factors. I just wanted to point out that in certain situations it works.
The issue I have riding on UK roads is that I feel much, much less safe than when riding on the continent. Sweeping generalisation I know, but I get the impression UK motorists hate cyclists. There's just a level of aggression\impatience\lack of respect that doesn't exist in France\Holland etc. Presumably because cycling is more ingrained in their culture.
I'm a very confident cyclist, who obeys the highway code in full and has insurance too. But I watch other cyclists get bullied\intimidated by motorists all the time and it's stupidly dangerous. A lot of it is a lack of awareness, and a failure to appreciate the dangers of cycling on UK roads. A strict liability law is one way to change that awareness. I don't happen to agree with it, but it's one method.
Personally, I'd like to see the driving test include a week of cycling on busy roads at rush hour, that might change some people's attitudes.
FWIW - In my experience the ratios of good motorists\cyclists to their idiot counterparts is about even. There's plenty of stupid motorists AND cyclists. But one of those groups is better for the environment, health of the nation generally and is a LOT more vulnerable.
Last edited:
If cyclists want protection from accidental losses then they should do what car drivers have to do for it, like buy Insurance or something.
They should also be forced by Law to take a competency test and have an awareness of the Highway Code and their obligations to other road users, like a Licence or something.
Another good idea would be to have road-worthiness tests of bikes to ensure they have good tyres, brakes, working lights (Front and rear), like an MOT or something.
They should also be forced by Law to take a competency test and have an awareness of the Highway Code and their obligations to other road users, like a Licence or something.
Another good idea would be to have road-worthiness tests of bikes to ensure they have good tyres, brakes, working lights (Front and rear), like an MOT or something.
Yes, it may well do.
Yes it would probably work in Jupiter too but in reality the typical Dutch cyclist is much more responsible and experienced than the typical cyclist in London and shifting automatic blame to the car drivers will not help anything at all. Working in the West End, I see cyclists ignoring the rules of the road, cycling through red lights, pushing their way through pedestrian crossings and cycling on busy pavements every single day. It would be nice if EVERYONE was accountable for their actions.
Really? Source?
Genuinely interested to read up on that. In my example, I fail to see how cyclists can possibly be safer running red lights than ones who don't.
However, yes, it matters to me. I'm the one who has to slam on when some clown decides he can run a red light because he's only on 2 wheels. If you're on the road, you should respect the laws of it, period, they aren't there for a laugh.
you ever been to holland? the place is built around the cyclist (and the trams), we really aren't! I'd wager they have more cycle path than anywhere else in the world
B@
![[DOD]Asprilla](/styles/overclockers/avatars/8.png){kind=avatar}
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 14,034
- Location
- Surrey, by the river
Mmmm, chestnuts.
The economic argument for those things doesn't stack up. Most cyclist have insurance anyway; you should be covered for personal liability under your household insurance.
Lights are removable, so checking you have them is silly.
Good tyres is highly subjective, what are they going to test for; rubber compound type? Please don't say grip.
Most cyclist are also drivers and consequently have taken a test. Mind, given that most drivers are completely unaware of what the HC says in relation to cycling or what constitutes good, safe cycling then perhaps that reinforces your point.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,482
No problem with this but it should be with a proviso that:
I'm a car driver and a motorcycle rider and I feel cyclists get away lightly for using our highways.
Anyone can jump on a bike and ride on the highways, even without any knowledge of the highway code. Simply put, it is dangerous. I think it is easy to palm responsibility off onto car drivers for accidents, but in 2011, 57% of bicycle collisions with other vehicles at junctions were put down to the driver (43% being the cyclist's fault). That means 43% of drivers in such circumstances would be wrongly accused and if they had no way of proving their innocence they could face insurance claims and possibly legal action. Its not quite 50/50 but it isn't far off, yet 100% of the blame/suspicion would be placed on the driver. Not very fair in my opinion, particularly considering it completely undermines the entire ethos of our justice system.
Of course the Netherlands have had success with this type of policy because their cycling infrastructure and investment far exceeds ours. We would not achieve their success without heavy spending along with re-education. So who is to foot that bill in these austere times? Of course it would be nice to be able to have a cycle infrastructure like the Netherlands but we don't, and getting one is unlikely any time soon. As such I think those cyclists in support of these proposals need to stop the free ride and start taking on some responsibility for their chosen mode of transport instead of blaming car drivers and also expecting them to be the ones bearing all of the responsibilities. As for the costs, well I don't think using the roads should be free and I don't see why cyclists should be exempt from showing they are competent as well as protecting themselves and other road users (and pedestrians in the case of shared footpaths/cycle routes) from physical and financial damage should they be involved in an accident. Those rules have to be applied to all other road users, so why not cyclists? (IE car drivers must be insured, have a licence and wear a seat belt, motorcycle riders must be insured, hold a licence and wear a helmet). In the case of motorcycles most new bikes have hard wired headlights that are always on. I also think it should be compulsory to wear high vis, but is isn't, which is something I would like to see change.
Cheers
Buff
- Any cyclist that uses cycle routes or public highways must have shown their competence and understanding of the highway code and hold a licence granted after they have demonstrated such to an examiner (vehicle licence holders to be exempt as a vehicle licence would act as sufficient evidence).
- Any cyclist that uses cycle routes or pubic highways must hold insurance specifically for purpose (not extensions of household policies).
- Any cyclist that uses cycle routes or public highways must protect themselves by wearing a helmet (75% of those killed in 2011 had serious head injuries).
- Any cyclist that uses cycle routes or public highways must wear high visibility, reflective clothing, even during daylight hours (80% of incidents happen in daylight).
- Any cyclist that uses cycle routes or public highways outside of daylight hours must use lights on both front and rear of their bicycle as well as wearing high visibility reflective clothing.
I'm a car driver and a motorcycle rider and I feel cyclists get away lightly for using our highways.
Anyone can jump on a bike and ride on the highways, even without any knowledge of the highway code. Simply put, it is dangerous. I think it is easy to palm responsibility off onto car drivers for accidents, but in 2011, 57% of bicycle collisions with other vehicles at junctions were put down to the driver (43% being the cyclist's fault). That means 43% of drivers in such circumstances would be wrongly accused and if they had no way of proving their innocence they could face insurance claims and possibly legal action. Its not quite 50/50 but it isn't far off, yet 100% of the blame/suspicion would be placed on the driver. Not very fair in my opinion, particularly considering it completely undermines the entire ethos of our justice system.
Of course the Netherlands have had success with this type of policy because their cycling infrastructure and investment far exceeds ours. We would not achieve their success without heavy spending along with re-education. So who is to foot that bill in these austere times? Of course it would be nice to be able to have a cycle infrastructure like the Netherlands but we don't, and getting one is unlikely any time soon. As such I think those cyclists in support of these proposals need to stop the free ride and start taking on some responsibility for their chosen mode of transport instead of blaming car drivers and also expecting them to be the ones bearing all of the responsibilities. As for the costs, well I don't think using the roads should be free and I don't see why cyclists should be exempt from showing they are competent as well as protecting themselves and other road users (and pedestrians in the case of shared footpaths/cycle routes) from physical and financial damage should they be involved in an accident. Those rules have to be applied to all other road users, so why not cyclists? (IE car drivers must be insured, have a licence and wear a seat belt, motorcycle riders must be insured, hold a licence and wear a helmet). In the case of motorcycles most new bikes have hard wired headlights that are always on. I also think it should be compulsory to wear high vis, but is isn't, which is something I would like to see change.
Cheers
Buff
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 14,034
- Location
- Surrey, by the river
Why specific insurance? If you are insured then you are insured.
Of those 75% with serious head injuries, how many were wearing helmets? Bike helmets are designed to protect the head in a static fall from a height of 2m, not vehicle impacts.
Why mandatory hi-viz? We don't mandate that all cars have flashing warning lights.
i'm a cyclist and tbh this is stupid if you're at fault then you're at fault doesn't frickin matter what transport you've used! the number of cyclists i see on a road that act like idiots is unbelievable so no way a driver should be blamed for all the accidents.
if you're at fault then you're at fault doesn't frickin matter what transport you've used! the number of cyclists i see on a road that act like idiots is unbelievable so no way a driver should be blamed for all the accidents.Personally I'd prefer us to redesign our transportation network in such a way cyclists/pedestrians or cyclists/motorists don't have to share the same space.
It's always going to be a danger to pedestrians when they are on the footpath or themselves when they are on the road.
Automatic liability doesn't solve any problems either way, it simply shifts blame onto one group only.
It's always going to be a danger to pedestrians when they are on the footpath or themselves when they are on the road.
Automatic liability doesn't solve any problems either way, it simply shifts blame onto one group only.
i'm a cyclist and tbh this is stupid
In short, divers of dangerous vehicles have to take greater precautions to ensure the safety of everyone else. So whilst in theory motorists are not to blame for all accidents, the practical reality of it is that insurers will always pay out unless there are exceptional circumstances that show a clear lack of fault (insert a ludicrous scenario here). It's exceptionally rare that both parties are faultless.
There is no point in having insurance for cyclists - loss caused by a cyclist is usually entirely self-inflicted or otherwise minimal.
Studies have also shown that people that don't abide by their own rules are hypocrites.
Utter rubbish. Cyclists often cause damage to cars, knocking off wing mirrors, scratching paint, denting panels etc. and cyclists have caused serious injuries to pedestrians (and even killed them).