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

[estebanrey]

People that ride in tandem are selfish idiots and making excuses about doing it to force cars to safely over-take is both counter intuitive and a lie.

You do it so you can have a 'chat' with your buddy, why pretend you have some self-imposed highway-code enforcer status.

 

[estebanrey]

 

[VeNT]

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).

really? got anything to back that up?

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.

and this law wouldn't stop that
where you are at fault you would be responsible.
but it would default to be the car until either you owned up or they provided proof it was you to blame.
I really can't see an issue with this?

the law's not going to say it's 100% drivers fault, just that it's presumed to be untill they prove otherwise.

Hold up a sec.

So what some people are saying is that you should not be passing cyclists unless you can pass like above?

Surely, by riding 2-abreast, the outside cyclist is now being overtaken by a motorist with the same space as people are decrying that a single cyclist should not be overtaken by?


Anyone else not see the double-standard here?

the issue here is the drag caused by a car is MUCH more than by a bike. also car drivers are unable to judge how close they are to bikes.

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

People that ride in tandem are selfish idiots and making excuses about doing it to force cars to safely over-take is both counter intuitive and a lie.

You do it so you can have a 'chat' with your buddy, why pretend you have some self-imposed highway-code enforcer status.

Er, who said that? Btw, tandems are one in front of the other.

I ride side by side to have a chat. However, sometimes if I think someone is going to attempt an overtake that I think isn't safe I'll attempt to dissuade them by not relinquishing my position. It's called 'taking primary' and you can do it when riding solo. It's recommended by the dft as well.

The two things aren't related though.

 

[nath247]

Cyclists should be auto-blamed for pedestrian accidents.

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

Cyclists should be auto-blamed for pedestrian accidents.

That would be included in this particular proposal as well, and that's how it works on the continent too.

Got to say that all of my offs in London are as a result of peds stepping out on crossings on the red man. Usually iPeds.

 

[Richie]

the issue here is the drag caused by a car is MUCH more than by a bike. also car drivers are unable to judge how close they are to bikes.

Not exactly sure where the drag issue comes in. Cyclist state that motorists should overtake them as if the cyclists are a car as this means that the motorist is not driving too close to them i.e.

If, however, 2 cyclists are riding side by side, how can a motorist now overtake in a manner that leaves the same space between vehicle and cyclists as there would be if the cyclist were riding behind each other?


My point is - cyclist moan that drivers do not allow space to overtake yet, when riding side by side on a normal road, the cyclists are not allowing cars to overtake at all should the motorist want to whilst leaving enough space between vehicle and bike that the cyclist is demanding as per above image.


edit: what I am saying is, if you add another cyclist onto the image, the car will now have to drive on the verge to overtake whilst giving the same clearance for BOTH bikes as they are for the single bike in the pic above

 

[R.P.L]

Right then, where to start... I read about this proposed law a few years ago, and thought it was retarded then. My feelings haven't changed since. There are plenty of idiotic cyclists around, just as there are plenty of idiotic drivers - to claim that either make up the majority of their respective group though is just Daily Mail-esque ranting. As a keen driver and cyclist, it winds me up when I see either do stupid things, not least because some people will blindly believe that those are the majority. Regarding helmets for cyclists, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be alive today if I didn't wear one, and no, cyclists shouldn't be allowed on pavements.

 

[VeNT]

Not exactly sure where the drag issue comes in. Cyclist state that motorists should overtake them as if the cyclists are a car as this means that the motorist is not driving too close to them i.e.

If, however, 2 cyclists are riding side by side, how can a motorist now overtake in a manner that leaves the same space between vehicle and cyclists as there would be if the cyclist were riding behind each other?


My point is - cyclist moan that drivers do not allow space to overtake yet, when riding side by side on a normal road, the cyclists are not allowing cars to overtake at all should the motorist want to whilst leaving enough space between vehicle and bike that the cyclist is demanding as per above image.


edit: what I am saying is, if you add another cyclist onto the image, the car will now have to drive on the verge to overtake whilst giving the same clearance for BOTH bikes as they are for the single bike in the pic above

fair enough most cyclists won't cycle like that tho?

 

[rogan]

This is just madness, opens the door for yet more insurance fraud and makes cyclists think that they are not accountable to their own actions. AWESOME.

Haha, this cannot be serious.

and i thought i couldnt hate cyclists on our roads even more....

The problem is that we only remember the idiotic cyclists because that is literally every single one of them.

What amazes me with cyclists is how few you see wearing a helmet - especially considering how crazy they are on the roads.

Cyclists should have to pass a test similar to a motorcycle or car and have insurance to be on the road just like the rest of us then within time the risk and costs of damages will be fairly proportioned.

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.

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 .

This forums like daily mail comments some days

 

[One More Solo]

Some days? All days.

 

[estebanrey]

 

[Jimbeam3678]

It people like you who make me wear a helmet , make eye contact with other users who I suspect haven't seen me and write emails to other company road users to explain all road users are equal

And yes I do have insurance for the very reasons I highlighted above

 

[Basher]

I don't understand cyclists who don't wear helmets.

 

[Voltar]

I was under the impression that driving offences were strict liability anyway?

I could be wrong as it's not an area which I've got much experience in...

My opinion is that cyclists often flaunt the rules of the road-or at least in London they do- and that by breaching the highway code it'd be their fault should any accident occur. Which would be a standard pleading in negligence. However, this thread seems to make me think that such activity is criminalised by making it strict liability... I may have got that wrong though...

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

I was under the impression that driving offences were strict liability anyway?

I could be wrong as it's not an area which I've got much experience in...

My opinion is that cyclists often flaunt the rules of the road-or at least in London they do- and that by breaching the highway code it'd be their fault should any accident occur. Which would be a standard pleading in negligence. However, this thread seems to make me think that such activity is criminalised by making it strict liability... I may have got that wrong though...

Whereas London drivers are paragons of virtue.....

 

[Russinating]

I think he was saying that he lives in London and therefore can't comment on cyclists outside the city, rather than London cyclists are terrible and drivers aren't.

I live on a section of road that's one-way and the road opposite is also one-way. The road they join at the bottom is also one-way as well as the two roads it leads onto at either end. I see SO many cyclists go the wrong way and it drives me insane. For the sake of saving 20 seconds by not going round the correct way they're risking quite a lot, let alone giving us a bad name. All it would take is for one pedestrian to step out from in between cars looking the correct way and you've got a nasty collision.

Whilst I think there are bad cyclists and bad drivers, it is much easier for a cyclist to disobey the laws of the road (ie going through reds, going the wrong way down a street, cycling on the pavement) and those that do give the rest of us a bad name. 90% of the cyclists I see breaking the law are also the same cyclists who are either not wearing a helmet, wearing normal clothes or riding a cheap bike. I'm not saying you need to do all those things but there is a strong correlation between those who take cycling seriously and obey the rules of the road and those who just have one to '**** about' on and don't.

We made this film a while ago for Confused.com and it only took us about half an hour of driving round to capture all the cyclists (and more) misbehaving:

 

[Voltar]

Whereas London drivers are paragons of virtue.....

Of all you could have picked up on it's something I didn't say. What I will say is that I'd never want to drive OR cycle here.

 

[platypus]

Well you could insist cyclists have to have insurance. They can cause damage to other road users and pedestrians too.

Incredibly difficult to police. Incidentally myself, and a lot of cyclists I know do have insurance.

I just wouldnt allow bicycles on the road at all.

Then its just as well you don't pass laws; it's a shame that people with your attitude have the vote however.

It might do but these factors might play a part

There is a continuous network of cycle paths, clearly signposted, well maintained and well lit, with road/cycle path junctions that often give priority to cyclists. This makes cycling itself convenient, pleasant, and safe.

The Netherlands is a relatively densely populated and very flat country, which means that journeys tend to be well within the capabilities of the average cyclist. Cycling is very cheap and has low overheads.

The needs of cyclists are taken into account in all stages of urban planning. Urban areas are frequently organised as woonerfs (living streets), which prioritise cyclists and pedestrians over motorised traffic.

None of those really apply to us UKers

Good point - and as a cyclist in a so called "cycling city" I was going to post something similar. The cycling infrastructure in Cambridge, a well known city for cycling, is terrible. The condition of what cycle paths there are is terrible, I know we've all had problems with wintery conditions causing worse roads than usual, but this has been a condition in Cambridge for a long time.

Pot holes are abundant, broken surfaces the norm, and most cycling paths are actually too narrow to be considered properly safe - certainly not for children.

It's all well and good citing statiscs from countries like the Netherlands, but we just don't have the room.

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

Of all you could have picked up on it's something I didn't say. What I will say is that I'd never want to drive OR cycle here.

Sorry. Since you only talked about cyclists flouting the HC I assumed you were making an implication.