And I wouldn't have thought people would believe that, even subconciously. Is that difficult for you to grasp?
There may well be some evidence for it (which I'd be interested to see), but on the face of it, it's a pretty ridiculous concept.
Strict Liability Law - Drivers to be auto blamed for all accidents with cyclists
- Thread starter Richie
- Start date
And I wouldn't have thought people would believe that, even subconciously. Is that difficult for you to grasp?
There may well be some evidence for it (which I'd be interested to see), but on the face of it, it's a pretty ridiculous concept.
Cant argue with this. In my view all road users should have insurance - including the motorised scooters that disabled people use.
![[DOD]Asprilla](/styles/overclockers/avatars/8.png){kind=avatar}
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 14,034
- Location
- Surrey, by the river
How about pedestrians?
I've had three offs resulting in road rash and damage to bikes as a direct result of pedestrians using crossings when the red man was showing.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 14,034
- Location
- Surrey, by the river
Not sure, but then I've said many times in this thread that I'm not sold on the need for this law.
Twice out of the three times I didn't hit them, I hit the deck avoiding them and the just walked off (one didn't even notice, he was too busy looking at his iPhone) so no liability there.
The third time I managed to bleed off enough speed that when I hit her I just went down sideways and she was unharmed.
So, do peds need insurance? And number plates?
[DOD]Asprilla;24132745 said:
Personally (as a cyclist) I'm all in favour of the larger vehicle having 'lead responsibility' in preventing collisions, be that cars vs cyclists, cyclists vs pedestrians or lorries vs cars. That doesn't mean that blame is automatically applied to the larger vehicle, it's that until all the facts are known, that's where the investigation is focused.
We already have that policy in rear end collisions. The car behind is assumed to be responsible for the collision, regardless of the actions of the car in front. After all they're the one in control of the following distance between them.
If in a car vs bike accident or bike vs pedestrian one it turns out that the smaller party did something monumentally stupid, like darting out from between parked cars then obviously the car driver (in the first instance) or cyclist (in the second) wouldn't be found to blame.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 2,124
[DOD]Asprilla;24132132 said:
Nope
many drivers just as bad, so I don't cycle or drive here. As with anything there are still many who do comply with HC on both sides, however in my view there are still enough who don't to make something like this legislation pilot necessary in the eyes of some/the legislature.
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 2,283
Man.. cyclists....
The other day I was driving with the family and within a space of around 100m a cyclist had:
1) not given way to me on the roundabout (just pulled right in front of me, causing me to slam on the breaks to let him in)
2) weaved in and out of the two lanes we had, so I had no idea where he was going or what he was intending to do
3) casually strolled through a red light across a VERY busy junction
4) rode at around 5mph in front of me all the way to the next roundabout where he proceeded to turn left without looking for any oncoming traffic.
I nearly lost it with him... I pulled up and shouted at him to get off the road (it was not busy at the time) and if my family had not been with me I think I might even have got out and had words with him.... and I'm not that sort of person.
Hate cyclists....
The other day I was driving with the family and within a space of around 100m a cyclist had:
1) not given way to me on the roundabout (just pulled right in front of me, causing me to slam on the breaks to let him in)
2) weaved in and out of the two lanes we had, so I had no idea where he was going or what he was intending to do
3) casually strolled through a red light across a VERY busy junction
4) rode at around 5mph in front of me all the way to the next roundabout where he proceeded to turn left without looking for any oncoming traffic.
I nearly lost it with him... I pulled up and shouted at him to get off the road (it was not busy at the time) and if my family had not been with me I think I might even have got out and had words with him.... and I'm not that sort of person.
Hate cyclists....
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 14,034
- Location
- Surrey, by the river
Nope
Driving in London is OK; you aren't really going quick enough for anything to happen. I try and avoid it, but I have mates in North London so going though the middle is the quickest route on a weekend.
Cycling in London is actually pretty good to; it's mainly just a case of finding the right routes. In rush hour you'll be travelling quicker than the cars.
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 2,283
let me fix that for you "met an idiot cyclist on the road.. hate him"
Correct, but one of many. I meet many more idiotic cyclists than I do idiotic drivers. And if a driver is being silly it's normally not that badly most of the time - not signalling etc.. When a cyclist starts being silly it's usually a lot more serious.
I get the bus to and from work every day and seriously... the number of idiotic cyclists I see nearly getting knocked down by the bus I'm in beause they're trying to squeeze through a tiny gap or don't signal or swerve around. And they regularly suddenly mount the pavement to get around a car/bus, nearly knocking people over... and I'm in a relatively quiet part of town!
if the drivers could get away with jumping red lights, speeding etc etc they would
cyclists can get away with a lot more than a driver can and its quite obvious why.. i mean as a cyclist you're in control of a 15kg peace of steel and a simple slip on the front can cause a bad injury..as a driver you're responsible for a couple of tones of metal that can go fast, kill people inside and outside.
but obviously the fact is that you're surrounded by a metal shell makes you fell more safe and by so people do stupid speeds, kill them selves or even people inside the car and outside, driving a car on its own is a huge responsibility while a bicycle is not something that can kill and if it does its a rare case.
if a cyclists was to collide with a car the chance of driver getting injured is REALLY low.. while a cyclist can be dead, its one of the things drivers forget when they "play around" on the road and try to scare those "dumb cyclists" is that they can kill them in seconds..
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 2,283
if the drivers could get away with jumping red lights, speeding etc etc they would
as a driver you're responsible for a couple of tones of metal that can go fast, kill people inside and outside.
but obviously the fact is that you're surrounded by a metal shell makes you fell more safe and by so people do stupid speeds, kill them selves or even people inside the car and outside, driving a car on its own is a huge responsibility while a bicycle is not something that can kill and if it does its a rare case.
if a cyclists was to collide with a car the chance of driver getting injured is REALLY low.. while a cyclist can be dead, its one of the things drivers forget when they "play around" on the road and try to scare those "dumb cyclists" is that they can kill them in seconds..
... This is a weird post. I'm not saying that all drivers are angels - far from it - many are idiots. But I think the point you're missing is that a LOT of cyclists who drive like I've described cause accidents - if a car has to swerve to avoid a nutcase cyclist who pulls out in front of them without warning/signal then they can easily cause an accident. A lot of these issues are caused by cyclists because they can't/won't keep up with the speed of car traffic, or they sneak along the pavement edge and that is a huge pain for drivers to contend with.
A thin, light bicycle is just as effective a killing machine as a car and don't kid yourself it's not. It's just causing problems in a different way.
Ultimately a bad cyclist and a bad driver are no different. But, as I said, I see WAY more bad cyclists around than bad drivers...
you're free to stand in the middle of the road and ill hit you with my bike at 15mph and then my car... we'll see which hurts more
2 tones of steel or 15kg.. you're just mad at cyclists and the fact that you have to share the road with them
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 2,283
you're free to stand in the middle of the road and ill hit you with my bike at 15mph and then my car... we'll see which hurts more
Again you've missed my point mate. It's been made. Yes I hate sharing the road with cyclists. The vast majority I come across:
1) can't keep up with the pace of car traffic, so they either slow everyone down or they move over to the pavement edge to let cars past, but then drivers have no idea if they're going to suddenly pull out or whizz in-between cars (which they often do).
2) rarely signal to let drivers know their intensions
3) regularly don't wear helmets
4) routinely jump red lights
5) don't give way at roundabouts or junctions
6) ride with HEADPHONES on..... (I see this so often it's quite scary)
There are more but you get the picture.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 14,034
- Location
- Surrey, by the river
Got any stats that they cause accidents?
And don't try to claim a bike just as likely to kill someone as a car; I can assure you that is not the case. Yes, bikes can kill, but it's very, very unlikely.
TfL studies show that about 17% of cyclists jump red lights (17% too many in my opinion) but so do about 4% of motor vehicles (motorbikes jumps reds the least apparently). However, cars accounted for 75% of accidents caused by a failure to stop at red that resulted in an injury or death.
Cars are substantially more dangerous, to claim otherwise is misguided.
This thread has reminded me to track down the 1992 DfT study into drivers attitudes towards cyclists. It makes great reading. Loads of stuff about how cyclists are treated as an 'out group' and so drivers project bad behaviour onto them whilst projecting good behaviour onto their own group. Also, almost all the drivers in the study claimed they were more considerate around cyclists than the average driver.
You definitely don't cycle. At around 15-20mph the wind noise is sufficient that you can't hear the average car engine anyway.
And don't try to claim a bike just as likely to kill someone as a car; I can assure you that is not the case. Yes, bikes can kill, but it's very, very unlikely.
TfL studies show that about 17% of cyclists jump red lights (17% too many in my opinion) but so do about 4% of motor vehicles (motorbikes jumps reds the least apparently). However, cars accounted for 75% of accidents caused by a failure to stop at red that resulted in an injury or death.
Cars are substantially more dangerous, to claim otherwise is misguided.
This thread has reminded me to track down the 1992 DfT study into drivers attitudes towards cyclists. It makes great reading. Loads of stuff about how cyclists are treated as an 'out group' and so drivers project bad behaviour onto them whilst projecting good behaviour onto their own group. Also, almost all the drivers in the study claimed they were more considerate around cyclists than the average driver.
You definitely don't cycle. At around 15-20mph the wind noise is sufficient that you can't hear the average car engine anyway.
Last edited: