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

[Swordfish]

So why didn't you give an example instead of something that is not above the laws of the road?

Can I raise the issue of speeding, the large number of uninsured cars on the road, amber gambling and a list of other things as long as my arm, or would that be off topic?

If you're riding a bike, then you're a cyclist. If you're pushing the bike you're a pedestrian (apart from some obscure legislation in the case of Public Rights of way designated as footpaths).

It's not rocket science.

There's a left turn TL controlled junction on my commute that if I get there at the wrong time I could be sat there a while waiting for the light to go green so instead I just cycle into the asl and push my bike round the corner and re-mount. Perfectly legal and even done it in front of a copper, who commended me on not just riding through the red light!

If the copper was not there would you have dismounted and pushed your bike on the pavement or rode onto it? Again nothing illegal if you rode onto the pavement but it's still wrong in my opinion.

I am probably coming across as a cyclist hater and that is simply not the case. I am a hater of cyclists AND motorists who flout the law to suit themselves.

Every day I witness cyclist's passing me on my left in the cycle lane whilst I am in a queue of traffic and them immediately go through the red light or cycle right onto the pavement. Under the law that is being proposed any driver who hits a cyclist after they went through a red light would have to prove the cyclist is in the wrong or else it is assumed the car driver is guilty. That is what is getting annoying me.

I can see a huge rise in "accidents" if this law goes through purely because of this statement -

Supporters of the Campaign for Strict Liability say it would greatly reduce the time it takes for accident victims to win compensation.

I have a good friend that both drives and cycles and several months ago was involved in a collision when on his bike and the driver of the car tried to blame him but once police saw the helmet cam footage he was banged to rights, accepted responsibly and was charged accordingly.

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.

Agreed and I would go further to say that all road users should be tested regularly on the road.

 

[Swordfish]

But dismounting and pushing a bike on the footpath isn't against the law! In fact the Highway code even recommends it in some instances!cording to one you could be charged with all the offences attributed to driving through a red light.

Nice ninja edit.

Thing is I have never seen cyclist dismount and push their bike.

They either:

Proceed without care and ignore the fact they are at a roundabout and have to give way to the right.

Or

Cycle right up onto the pavement.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

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.

Hear hear!

But only if we apply the same to other road users (horse riders and pedestrians).

Nice ninja edit.

Thing is I have never seen cyclist dismount and push their bike.

They either:

Proceed without care and ignore the fact they are at a roundabout and have to give way to the right.

Or

Cycle right up onto the pavement.

So deal with them as you would any other road user breaking the law.

 

[Cupra]

I commute to work on a bike and I think this is a stupid idea.

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

Swordfish, are you saying that you've never seen a cyclist give way at a roundabout and every single cyclist that filters past you mounts the pavement or goes through a red light?

 

[Orionaut]

You can get dangerous cyclists but they are highly unlikely to kill anyone but themselves

Depends on how you define "Likely" Cyclists can and do kill pedestrians and the risk is by no means insignificant, (They can also kill by causing other types of accident too)

Admittedly this is old data but the first chart is a bit of an eye opener, particularly given that WVM is generally regarded as an accident waiting to happen!

On another note, I am a bit of a fan of the Grumpy Old Sod. Here is his take on the subject (It gets relevant about halfway through the article)

 

[VeNT]

My issue is that many, many cyclist believe themselves to be above the laws of the road and they want it both ways.

my point is that many MANY drivers are impotent short sighted morons who can't see past the chip on their shoulder.

That's not an opinion, it's a statistic.

also if you're saying that they are squeezing though a "tiny" gap in front of you then you're too close to the car in front. Better hope some angry driver doesn't go into the back of you.

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

Edit; I'd misread the safe speed stuff so what I was writing isn't relevant.

 

[Dis86]

also if you're saying that they are squeezing though a "tiny" gap in front of you then you're too close to the car in front. Better hope some angry driver doesn't go into the back of you.

lol. True...true...even in stationary traffic you should leave a gap of at least 1 car length and if they can't get through that then they really are terrible at riding!

 

[SexyGreyFox]

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

1) In January I was going round a corner, hit black ice, felt my head hit the floor and woke up in A&E and found I had also dislocated my shoulder. There is no doubt that the helmet either a) saved my life or b) saved me from serious head damage. My £70 helmet was ruined and I had to buy another.

2) I asked last week where the woman was who rides the 'green Trek' to be told she was seriously injured in hospital with a head injury. She had simply fell off her bike and I know for a fact she never wore a helmet.

3) On Sunday the husband of my wife's mate was doing some cycle maintenance, got on, rode about 20 foot, mis-balanced and hit his head on the floor and we've been told today he has lost his eye The sad thing is he 100% wears a helmet but didn't think it necessary while he was doing a turn in front of his house.

 

[RDM]

lol. True...true...even in stationary traffic you should leave a gap of at least 1 car length and if they can't get through that then they really are terrible at riding!

A car length? When I was learning to drive (admittedly this was quite a while a go) the advice was to leave enough of a gap to see the wheels of the car in front, not an entire car length.

 

[VeNT]

A car length? When I was learning to drive (admittedly this was quite a while a go) the advice was to leave enough of a gap to see the wheels of the car in front, not an entire car length.

same, about 2-3m at a guess.

 

[Dis86]

A car length? When I was learning to drive (admittedly this was quite a while a go) the advice was to leave enough of a gap to see the wheels of the car in front, not an entire car length.

The trouble with that though is that it would vary massively depending upon your car. My last car for example had an exceptionally low driving position and I couldn't see the wheels of the car in front from about 20 metres!

Length of car is used because it tends to have quite a small range. It also means larger cars, those with a longer length, leave a bigger and thus more appropriate gap enabling them to stop should something such as accidentally knocking it in to gear or releasing the brake occur.

It's also advisable because in the event of an emergency it leaves a greater space in which to be able to turn around. Larger cars generally (certainly not always) tending to have a bigger turning circle.

And vent, what do you think the average car length is? Taking a nissan micra, 3.5m, polo just under 4m and golf, just over as examples! BMW 3 series is about 4.5m

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Originally Posted by Basher
I don't understand cyclists who don't wear helmets.

It's not that hard to understand - it's because some don't want too.

It's like saying you don't know why some people don't eat brussel sprouts because they are good for you. Or do eat kebabs because they are bad for you.

Personal choice - the only person directly affected by not wearing a helmet is that person.

 

[RDM]

The trouble with that though is that it would vary massively depending upon your car. My last car for example had an exceptionally low driving position and I couldn't see the wheels of the car in front from about 20 metres!

A bit of common sense might come in handy here...

Length of car is used because it tends to have quite a small range. It also means larger cars, those with a longer length, leave a bigger and thus more appropriate gap enabling them to stop should something such as accidentally knocking it in to gear or releasing the brake occur.

It's also advisable because in the event of an emergency it leaves a greater space in which to be able to turn around. Larger cars generally (certainly not always) tending to have a bigger turning circle.

And vent, what do you think the average car length is? Taking a nissan micra, 3.5m, polo just under 4m and golf, just over as examples! BMW 3 series is about 4.5m

Seems to be a disproportionately large gap and isn't really supported by anything I can find. Most seem to recommend enough distance so you can pull around the vehicle in front if you need to, nobody seems to be recommending a full car length. Could you imagine what that would do to junctions in a busy city?

 

[Streeteh]

Simple way to see if this is a good idea, turn it around. 100% liability for cyclists? Strikes you as unfair, then so is this.

Difference is that a car is multiple times more likely to kill than a bike in a collision. Putting a potential 'get out clause' in the hands of motorists is just asking for trouble, especially given the friction that this country seems to have between the two modes of transport.

 

[BuffetSlayer]

Difference is that a car is multiple times more likely to kill than a bike in a collision. Putting a potential 'get out clause' in the hands of motorists is just asking for trouble, especially given the friction that this country seems to have between the two modes of transport.

Likelyhood of killing is irrelevant and should not be used to condone the already questionable behaviour of some cyclists.

Do you think giving a get out clause to cyclists is any more reasonable? Particularly seeing as some like to openly flout the HC already?

I have driven in London many times whilst working there, and I physically wince at the stunts cyclists pull (and motorcyclists too to be honest). Agreed, it is not all cyclists, but I would say it is probably the majority of the ones I have seen, although admittedly that is probably a small number of the total in the London area.

Undertaking large vehicles is one I particularly hate to see. Squeezing into a gap barely wide enough does not seem sensible or safe. Indeed, the arguments for the correct way to overtake should surely apply to undertaking? I have heard a lot in this thread about cars overtaking dangerously closely to cyclists, and yet I have seen so many cyclists undertaking a slower moving vehicle in an equally dangerous manner, which is another example of the kind of double standards applied by some cyclists.

Trying to absolve any party of responsibility is just ridiculous and basically gives licence to bad behaviour and creates more division and more friction between groups where there is already too much.

I'm a firm believer in a person being responsible for their actions and this culture we seem to have where everyone is out to transfer blame to someone else would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic.

How did we become a nation seemingly full of responsibility dodging, blame evading, compo seeking opportunists?

 

[platypus]

My £70 helmet was ruined and I had to buy another.

They are a "one use" only type device - ie once you have had an accident in one, no matter how small, the structural integrity of the helmet no longer meets safety ratings.

 

[platypus]

What concerns me most, both as a cyclist and a driver, is the lack of people who use their mirrors. I remember once being told that once you've passed your test, thats when you start learning to drive. It seems to me that for most people it's when you start to learn all the bad habits that make driving easier because people are lazy.

 

[v0n]

lol. True...true...even in stationary traffic you should leave a gap of at least 1 car length and if they can't get through that then they really are terrible at riding!

A car length? When I was learning to drive (admittedly this was quite a while a go) the advice was to leave enough of a gap to see the wheels of the car in front, not an entire car length.

same, about 2-3m at a guess.

All of the above is unsustainable in London conditions. Most lights in rush hour traffic change for 5-7 seconds. If everyone left a gap of 5 meters around them only single cars would go through junctions at the time. On busy and narrow lanes, around Holborn, Victoria or Parliament Square I use my front sensors in rush hour to be no more than 30cm from car in front when stationary, just so at least three or four cars can fit between yellow box junctions and go through light changes in one go.
But I see red bus drivers in London now doing this tail to front thing, where they only leave about two inches of space from bumper of the bus, lorry or car in front after they stop in traffic specifically so the wobbly Boris bikers and "dancing lycrobats" cannot filter through the gap in front and start "staging" all over the place or position themselves in such way as to prevent slow bus from turning or going through short light change.