Strict Liability Law - Drivers to be auto blamed for all accidents with cyclists

Scougar said:
This **** really annoys me as a cyclist. I don't understand why other cyclists seem to think the rules don't apply to them. Only about 5% of cyclists I see are douchebags however, which is a comparable figure for douchebag drivers to be honest.
Click to expand...

ahhahaha I don't power across zebra crossings though however I will veer onto the pavement if its red and go wait at the crossing to cross instead. Purely because I don't like the idea of cycling off from a red light with cars zooming past u. Scares **** out of me. I hate cycling on the road to be fair at all if I can avoid it, I've heard of so many horrible accidents where dudes end up quadriplegic from an accident.

I don't power along the pavement but I'm sure pedestrians probably think I'm an Ahole. But central Leeds it's just a nightmare, god knows what London's like.
 
[FnG]magnolia;24124857 said:
The problem is that we only remember the idiotic cyclists because that is literally every single one of them.
Click to expand...

I could counter your argument by saying all van drivers are idiotic, all taxi drivers are idiotic, all bus drivers are idiotic, heck, even all car drivers are idiotic but I won't due to it being completely idiotic in itself.

I was in Glasgow last week and witnessed a cyclist breeze through a red light several seconds after it had changed and almost get herself killed. I also witnessed a car driver ignore a red light at a pedestrian crossing. Again, he breezed through several seconds after the lights had changed and almost killed the crossing pedestrians.

Local to me, I witnessed a fire engine (with blue lights and sirens) crossing through a busy junction against a red light. All traffic had stopped to allow it's progress when a car driver sped through (I assume to try and beat the lights) without seeming to have noticed the big red LGV with the blue lights taking up most of the space he was trying to use. Only by sheer luck (or skill) did they miss each other.

Idiots everywhere in both cars and on bikes. There is no outright winner in that debate.
 
[DOD]Asprilla;24126506 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Because if it is specific there can be no room to wriggle out of responsibilities by pleading ignorance. "Oh I'm sorry, I was sure my house insurance covered me". It removes grey area and adds clarity in my opinion. It would help with claims too. Cyclists can and do cause damage to vehicles as well as pedestrians. I think as a road user they should be specifically insured as such.

Are you arguing that in all circumstances that a cyclist receives no benefit from a helmet? Perhaps the figure would have been 95% if those who were wearing helmets decided not to. Have you considered that? Maybe redesigning bicycle helmets could also be considered?

Mandatory high vis because cars are big and very visible anyway (by virtue of their size and noise). Cyclists are not by virtue that they are small and almost silent. Every little helps, and if it means reducing risk of accidents I don't think any cyclist could reasonably argue against wearing a high vis tabbard costing a few quid in order to make them more visible. Do you? Particularly because the overall aim is surely an attempt to improve safety?

Cheers
 
This law exists in France too I believe and it works. Cycled there for a week and nobody overtook me without acting as though I was a car (ie overtaking on the other side of the road, not just 1ft away).
 
Seen so many stupid cyclists since moving to london it's unreal. This law would do nothing more than encourage them.

I've never driven a car, I sometimes ride a bike. I support the idea of getting more cyclists and less cars into city streets but this idea is daft.

Just yesterday morning I was walking to work and saw a cyclist try squeezing between the curb and a car and knocking the cars wing mirror almost off. Just cycled on regardless leaving the driver not knowing what to do. Absolutely no liability falls on cyclists anyway as there is no way of identifying them.
 
If cars are so big and visible why do they keep crashing into each other?

Must admit that I don't wear hi-viz as most of the fabrics involved are terrible for cycling; you overheat and boil in the bag.

I'm not arguing that helmets provide no protection; I'm asking what percentage of those killed were not saved by their helmets. If you want to argue for mandatory helmets then you need to look at the circumstances in which helmets would have helped vs those where it wouldn't.

What is true is that people who cycle regularly are healthier and on average a lower burden on the NHS than people who don't exercise, even taking into account cycling injuries. Mandatory helmet laws cut the number of cyclists. In Australia the killed and injured rate fell, but not by as much as the drop in the number of people cycling.

I think people should wear helmets and I always wear mine, as do / will my kids. However, I think education rather than legislation is the way forward.
 
Last edited:
Russinating said:
This law exists in France too I believe and it works. Cycled there for a week and nobody overtook me without acting as though I was a car (ie overtaking on the other side of the road, not just 1ft away).
Click to expand...

OK, well make sure cyclists overtake cars in the same way then. Then they can't blame drivers when they get a door opened on them ;)
 
McBain said:
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.
Click to expand...

Where I live there is a huge junction and if you go straight over it from one direction the road turns into a single thin lane leading to the left and there is a cyclist slipway leading off to the right which joins up with another road.

Loads of cyclists jump the lights when the green man is going to stop traffic because the idiots in norwich think that overtaking on a single lane road as you are trying to move over to the right to take the slip road is a good idea.

I cycle about 1 mile to work and back a few times a week and pretty much every single time I have issues with cars.

Overtaking too close.
Overtaking when I have moved to the middle of the road to turn right.
People opening their doors into the road without looking. (combined with the **** that overtake within half a foot of me, I don't have anywhere to go at times)
Overtaking me then cutting back across me to turn left forcing me to slam on my breaks.
Sticking their car half out of junctions to try and sneak into heavy traffic.

So many people in cars just seem to see bikes as a nuisance and treat them as such. They think they have the right of the road whilst you should pussy foot around them. This is why I find it so hilarious when people claim that cyclists need some sort of test. Everyone in a car has passed their test so why do some still drive like *****.
 
BuffetSlayer said:
OK, well make sure cyclists overtake cars in the same way then. Then they can't blame drivers when they get a door opened on them ;)
Click to expand...

Try doing that where there are cars overtaking you from the other side at the same time.
 
[DOD]Asprilla;24127173 said:
If cars are so big and visible why do they keep crashing into each other?
Click to expand...

People are human. Driver error. You could be in planet size space ships and still have accidents :)

[DOD]Asprilla;24127173 said:
Must admit that I don't wear hi-viz as most of the fabrics involved are terrible for cycling; you overheat and boil in the bag.
Click to expand...

Yup, wearing leathers on a motorbike in the middle of summer is the same. But if it helps to keep you safe, surely it is worth it? I cant imagine a high vis tabbard being 'boil in the bag' though? But to be fair I have never worn one whilst cycling.

[DOD]Asprilla;24127173 said:
I'm not arguing that helmets provide no protection; I'm asking what percentage of those killed were not saved by their helmets. If you want to argue for mandatory helmets then you need to look at the circumstances in which helmets would have helped vs those where it wouldn't.
Click to expand...

I don't have any evidence either way, it was an attempt to get you to look at the issue from a different angle. I cant help feeling, though, that wearing a helmet will always be a good thing. Perhaps it may not help in situations with car impacts, but general falls/accidents not involving vehicles, or 'topples' when your feet are stuck on the pedals would surely see benefits from mandatory helmets?

[DOD]Asprilla;24127173 said:
What is true is that people who cycle regularly are healthier and on average a lower burden on the NHS than people who don't exercise, even taking into account cycling injuries. Mandatory helmet laws cut the number of cyclists. In Australia the killed and injured rate fell, but not by as much as the drop in the number of people cycling.
Click to expand...

I don't think the numbers of cyclists in this country is significant enough to dismiss mandatory helmets on grounds of current/future NHS costs, although I freely admit I cannot substantiate that claim.

[DOD]Asprilla;24127173 said:
I think people should wear helmets and I always wear mine, as do / will my kids. However, I think education rather than legislation is the way forward.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps a healthy mixture of the two?
 
fez said:
Try doing that where there are cars overtaking you from the other side at the same time.
Click to expand...

Yes, and you pretty much prove the tongue in cheek point I was making. :)

What works in France or Netherlands might not work here due to infrastructure and general driving attitudes.

fez said:
So many people in cars just seem to see bikes as a nuisance and treat them as such. They think they have the right of the road whilst you should pussy foot around them. This is why I find it so hilarious when people claim that cyclists need some sort of test. Everyone in a car has passed their test so why do some still drive like *****.
Click to expand...

Perhaps they feel that way because they pay heavily for the privilege of using the roads, where as they perceive cyclists do not? Just a guess, mind.
 
CaptainRAVE said:
It can only help though, certainly better to wear one than not to. Having had my life saved by one, it always sends a shudder down my spine when I see someone not wearing one.
Click to expand...

There are suggestions that cyclist (and bikers) without helmets take more care thus the justification means they're legally allowed to go without in several European countries.

Personally, I doubt it's really the cyclists that are at fault with most of the complaining. I dislike being behind a cyclist because they slow me down, and I need to get past. I suspect thats the same underlying reason for everyone.
 
aln said:
I dislike being behind a cyclist because they slow me down, and I need to get past.
Click to expand...

This just boils down to most driver's general impatience. As a cyclist you see dozens of cars every day whiz past you in some kind of frenzied rush only for you to catch them up at the next set of lights/traffic/crossing/roundabout/junction etc.

Either the road is busy and therefore you're not slowing them down, or it's not and overtaking isn't a difficulty.
 
fez said:
None of which has anything to do with paying for the road. Thats paying for your vehicle and the running of it.
Click to expand...

Fair comment. Although it is illegal to drive any vehicle on the road without insurance, VED and MOT (where applicable), so in essence they are charges imposed on vehicle users in order to be able to make use of the public highways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom