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

BuffetSlayer · 16 Apr 2013 at 13:36

LordSplodge said:
Our highways? Are you refering to motor vehicle owners? Because the highways belong by right to pedestrains, animals and cyclists. Motor vehicles use them by license.

So yes, anybody can jump on a bike because they are afforded that privilage.

Yes our highways, as in the collective of mine and yours. IE the UK's.

FoxEye · 16 Apr 2013 at 13:38

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).

This thread highlights what a terrible attitude this country has to cyclists. The views expressed in this thread would horrify people in other (more enlightened) countries.

But then we're (increasingly) a nation of fatties who believe it is their right to drive from their front door, to the shops, to their place of employment, and wherever else.

Cyclists, pedestrians - in fact anybody not too bone idle to stay in their car - they are looked down upon, quite unfairly in most cases.

The vast majority of cyclists are safe and cautious - as you *have* to be when sharing the roads with British drivers and their insane attitude towards non-drivers.

Admiral Huddy · 16 Apr 2013 at 13:39

As a daily cyclist, this is madness it really is. Everyone, motorists, cyclists, motorbikes can be thoughtless. No one group of road user is more to blame than the other.

I have collided into a car and the damage was paid through my home personal liability insurance which i still have, just in case.

Raumarik · 16 Apr 2013 at 13:39

My only concern is the number of bicycles I now see without lights or even reflectors on them, mostly under 18s but no helmet or reflective gear either. Yes a driver should spot them but they aren't exactly helping themselves especially at night in 60 MPH zones. Scary!

I live in an area with quite a few cyclists out in groups etc too and frankly don't see the problem with them, heck there's slower tractors than cyclists. I just think some drivers have a particular problem with cyclists.

Bald-Eagle22 · 16 Apr 2013 at 13:43

BuffetSlayer said:
My point being that other than the bicycle nothing else is mandatory. Whereas vehicle users have to pay VED, insurance, MOT etc in order to legally use the highways.

+ they have to have a licence.

As above ,

I have just about had enough if cyclist in London - I would like to say its the few but in my experience its the majority - breaking the Highway Code , aggressive argumentative .

I even had 2 a breast going down a country lane in North Essex the other day and when I challenged them about the que of traffic behind them I got told to go f myself - charming .

I am convinced it a Lycra thing .

melvis · 16 Apr 2013 at 13:48

As a daily cyclist, this is madness it really is. Everyone, motorists, cyclists, motorbikes can be thoughtless. No one group of road user is more to blame than the other.

+1, if your going the wrong way up a sliproad on a bike your at fault as much as someone who went up a sliproad the wrong way in a car

[DOD]Asprilla · 16 Apr 2013 at 14:02

BuffetSlayer said:
OK thanks for the information. Is there a break down of how many of the 600,000 journeys are by separate individuals? IE does the 600,000 roughly equate to 300,000 cyclists per day with a return journey to work? Does it include business journeys as I know some cyclists in London are operating in a commercial capacity.

Also, what was the reasoning for the drop in cyclists? Why did mandatory helmet law mean that people didn't cycle? Was it simply a cost issue? Or some American style freedoms/liberties thing?

I just noticed this on Wikipedia:

Seems to refute what you were saying?

I don't have a breakdown of the numbers unfortunately.

With regards to Oz, this page shows reductions of between 15% and 45% depending upon location.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycl...ore_and_after_the_introduction_of_helmet_laws

It's doubtful that cost was a factor since a helmet can cost as little as £20. It's probably a case of comfort and having to carry a helmet all day if you are cycling to the train station for instance.

I know I find it irritating when I'm getting the train to work; five minutes on a bike to get to the station followed by 25 minutes on a train and 30 minutes on a tube having to carry my helmet or put it on my lap. The temptation to leave it behind is great.

Nitefly · 16 Apr 2013 at 14:30

Dogbreath said:
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).

Nothing of which prevents liability in a personal capacity.

The most overwhelming and damning piece of evidence that cyclist insurance is pointless is that (in the capacity suggested at least) it doesn't exist

grudas · 16 Apr 2013 at 15:50

Bald-Eagle22 said:
As above ,

I have just about had enough if cyclist in London - I would like to say its the few but in my experience its the majority - breaking the Highway Code , aggressive argumentative .

I even had 2 a breast going down a country lane in North Essex the other day and when I challenged them about the que of traffic behind them I got told to go f myself - charming .

I am convinced it a Lycra thing .

its legal to ride 2 a breast

im convinced you need to wash your head with some soap and stop thinking that you're the king of the road, cyclists have the same right to be on a road as you do! keep that in mind.

Angilion · 16 Apr 2013 at 17:35

hurfdurf said:
Came here to post this. Everyone saying its rubbish should back it up with facts not common sense guess work as to how it will work and what will happen.

My objection is a simple one - I think it's wrong to presume people are guilty based on something irrelevant and require them to prove their innocence in court or be convicted without any evidence of their guilt.

As far as I'm concerned, that principle overides everything else.

I'll spell it out explicitly, in case anyone is wondering: Yes, I do think that reversing that principle is a higher cost than a few deaths per year. Even if presumption of guilt would save a few lives per year, I would still disagree with it.

TicTac · 16 Apr 2013 at 17:36

Heres another part of that report which I cant understand.

A strict liability law would see the introduction of a hierarchy based on the vulnerability of road users.

It would also mean that cyclists would be held automatically responsible for accidents involving pedestrians.

Now, If I am in my car and cause an accident I can be tracked down using the numberplate of my vehicle which is held on computer by VOSA and the Police I guess. If someone on a cycle hits a pedestrian how exactly are they going to track them down if they decide not to stop and just leave the scene?

RDM · 16 Apr 2013 at 17:42

grudas said:
its legal to ride 2 a breast

But is it courteous if you are holding up traffic by doing so?

Monkeynut · 16 Apr 2013 at 17:43

I think it's stupid that cyclists aren't allowed to ride on empty pavements and instead have to cycle on roads, sometimes 60mph roads. Pretty sure you can get done for going on a pavement.

[DOD]Asprilla · 16 Apr 2013 at 17:47

Monkeynut said:
I think it's stupid that cyclists aren't allowed to ride on empty pavements and instead have to cycle on roads, sometimes 60mph roads. Pretty sure you can get done for going on a pavement.

Yes you can. Its to protect pedestrians, and too right.

FoxEye · 16 Apr 2013 at 17:47

RDM said:
But is it courteous if you are holding up traffic by doing so?

If it's not safe to overtake two cyclists riding side-by-side, then you probably shouldn't be overtaking.

There's too many idiots who overtake and leave literally 1 foot or less between the car and the bike. Often at speed. Can you really blame cyclists for being defensive on the road?

Oh and what about all the numpties who wind down the window and scream at you as they overtake? Too many le'Tissiers on the road today.

Monkeynut · 16 Apr 2013 at 17:49

[DOD]Asprilla;24129285 said:
Yes you can. Its to protect pedestrians, and too right.

If the pavement is empty, what's wrong with cycling down it at 10mph?

"andy" · 16 Apr 2013 at 18:01

Nothing at all imo

Roads are dangerous . Empty pavements are safe

It's ridiculous . I was fined myself for riding on empty pavement at 3am in the morning . If I knew the police could be such asses I wouldn't of stopped. Expecting a friendly word and get struck with a fine while round the corner its club kicking out time and people are brawling in the streets and being reckless

RDM · 16 Apr 2013 at 18:17

FoxEye said:
If it's not safe to overtake two cyclists riding side-by-side, then you probably shouldn't be overtaking.

Relevance? It could easily be safe to overtake if they were riding single file, if so by riding two abreast, whilst perfectly legal, is somewhat discourteous to other road users.

[DOD]Asprilla · 16 Apr 2013 at 18:50

Monkeynut said:
If the pavement is empty, what's wrong with cycling down it at 10mph?

It's unexpected.

What's wrong with cycling on the road? Mile for mile it's safer than walking and most studies show that accidents are most likely to happen where roads and cycle / pedestrian infrastructure intersect; so that would be when you have to cross a junction or such like.

You, and everyone else, are safer if you cycle on the road.

Dis86 · 16 Apr 2013 at 19:17

RDM said:
Relevance? It could easily be safe to overtake if they were riding single file, if so by riding two abreast, whilst perfectly legal, is somewhat discourteous to other road users.

The relevance is that legally you are meant to give as much space as you would to over take a car. If you can give one cyclist enough space then you can give two enough.