Cycling plan to blame drivers for all crashes..

[Andy90]

So you mean to tell me that when someone runs out straight out without warning into the path of a car doing 30 mph in a 30mph area, that the car driver, who probably could never react in time, is responsible?

I know this Country has some complete idiots in charge, but I don't think this will ever get off the ground. Though if it does I will find out where Phillip Darnton lives and walk out in front of him as he leaves his house in the morning. I suggest when a few hundred people do this and he cannot get any insurance he will rue the day he spoke without engaging his brain.

 

[Tefal]

Do you think a driver should do 10 years inside for death by dangerous driving .

It's for insurance purposes not criminal prosecution purposes.

So that would never happen.

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

Do you think a driver should do 10 years inside for death by dangerous driving because a cyclist who is not wearing a helmet runs a damned red light? Or perhaps he/she should just pay for a new bike, not much use to the dead idiot cyclist who took risks on a vehicle he/she chose to drive on the Queen's highway.

It says in the article that the proposal would only cover civil law for insurance and compensation purposes and would not be extended to criminal law.

So you mean to tell me that when someone runs out straight out without warning into the path of a car doing 30 mph in a 30mph area, that the car driver, who probably could never react in time, is responsible?

You have a duty of care to be watching out for such idiots and slowing down whilst near them if required, that's why you do the hazard test as part of the current driving exam. Being in a 30 limit doesn't mean that you have to drive at 30.

 

[DominicStar]

Can't see the justification for it. Also can't see what difference it will make to 4x4 drivers in cars with a turning arc which looks something like a straight line.

 

[Tefal]

You have a duty of care to be watching out for such idiots and slowing down whilst near them if required, that's why you do the hazard test as part of the current driving exam. Being in a 30 limit doesn't mean that you have to drive at 30.

So hang on why does this only apply to people in more powerfull cars/ lorries?

Are people in smaller/less powerfull cars considered too retarded to be responsible for thier own actions?

 

[-BA-]

It's for insurance purposes not criminal prosecution purposes.

So that would never happen.

Irrelevant. It is assuming guilt before you have even got behind the wheel of your vehicle and even before you have had an accident.

Ok different angle. Same scenario taking out the criminal liability. You get sued for £2m by family. What insurance company is going to touch you again for being involved in an accident that wasn't your fault?

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

So hang on why does this only apply to people in more powerfull cars/ lorries?

Are people in smaller/less powerfull cars considered too retarded to be responsible for thier own actions?

I don't think it does. The article only states that trucks would be at fault for hitting cars, cars for cyclists and cyclist for pedestrians. It doesn't make an reference to a big car hitting a small car.

I was just giving an example before, it wasn't definitive.

Ok different angle. Same scenario taking out the criminal liability. You get sued for £2m by family. What insurance company is going to touch you again for being involved in an accident that wasn't your fault?

It wouldn't really matter since everyone would be in the same boat. Also, it works in other countires, so I can't see insurance being a real issue.

 

[Glaucus]

It wouldn't really matter since everyone would be in the same boat. Also, it works in other countires, so I can't see insurance being a real issue.

What a retarded statement. Just because it "works" in other countries. Does not mean it's a good idea, or it should be implemented. Who ever is at fault should be blamed. Simple really isn't it.
Get this stupid government out.

Cutting of theifs hands works quite well, shall we implement that as well?

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

What a retarded statement. Just because it "works" in other countries. Does not mean it's a good idea, or it should be implemented. Who ever is at fault should be blamed. Simple really isn't it.
Get this stupid government out.

Ohh, get you.

Who said it was a good idea and who said it would work in this country? Of course it wouldn't be a stupid kneejerk reaction to dismiss it without looking at what it's supposed to achieve and whether it could. No, that wouldn't be blinkered at all.

 

[Glaucus]

Ohh, get you.

Who said it was a good idea and who said it would work in this country? Of course it wouldn't be a stupid kneejerk reaction to dismiss it without looking at what it's supposed to achieve and whether it could. No, that wouldn't be blinkered at all.

it blames an innocent person. Therefore it is totally retarded. End of, it really is that simple.

You know how people slam on breaks to get whip lash claims. Well with this law you wouldn't have to do that. Just drive into something bigger. Not to menchen that your NCB would be screwed even if it was not your fault.

It is a retarded idea, however you look a it.

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

it blames an innocent person. Therefore it is totally retarded. End of, it really is that simple.

You know how people slam on breaks to get whip lash claims. Well with this law you wouldn't have to do that. Just drive into something bigger. Not to menchen that your NCB would be screwed even if it was not your fault.

It is a retarded idea, however you look a it.[/QUOTE]

It could also be argued that it reduces accidents and therefore reduces insurance costs overall. Also, I'm fairly sure that an major issues relating to fraud and NCBs have been looked at in those areas that use it.

Given the impact it can have it's actually very simple and cost effective, so quite the opposite of retarded really.

 

[Glaucus]

It could also be argued that it reduces accidents and therefore reduces insurance costs overall. Also, I'm fairly sure that an major issues relating to fraud and NCBs have been looked at in those areas that use it.

Given the impact it can have it's actually very simple and cost effective, so quite the opposite of retarded really.

What has reducing insurance costs got to do with anything?
In this country it is likely to increase expedients. We have already seen increase in accidents seen the sole focus of speeding. Even though it attributes to a miniscle number of crashes.

So you would like to be sued for a crash that is not your fault?
Words fail me.

I always wonder how government gets away with passing half the laws they do. But this thread just reconfirms how stupid the general population is. In nearly every thread like this. You get stupid people thinking it's a good idea.

 

[BigglesPiP]

It's not an incentive for SUV drivers to drive carefully, it just makes Mr Singj Jing Mahingbing's job (insurance fraud) a **** of a lot easier.

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

What has reducing insurance costs got to do with anything?
In this country it is likely to increase expedients. We have already seen increase in accidents seen the sole focus of speeding. Even though it attributes to a miniscle number of crashes.

So you would like to be sued for a crash taht is not your fault?

You were the one complaining about the impact upon NCB, therefore I assume you thought insurance costs were part of the argument against this proposal. Obviously this wasn't the case, or at least not when it suits.

My understanding of the figures, but I'll have to go and check, what that accident rates were relatively fixed in recent years, perhaps only increasing with the percentage of the population able to drive.

I completely agee about targetting speeding being a failure, particularly when enforced by indescriminate fixed cameras which cannot discern road conditions, or other factors. Personally, I think that driver education is the only way to reduce accidents; and oddly enough I feel that this kind of legislation (although I'd need to see the full proposal and how it compared to other countries before I made a decision as to whether it was a good idea or a bad one) could be one way of frcing drivers to reconsider how they view driving and their own actions.

Words fail me.

So I see.

 

[Glaucus]

You were the one complaining about the impact upon NCB, therefore I assume you thought insurance costs were part of the argument against this proposal. Obviously this wasn't the case, or at least not when it suits.
.

I'm talking about the cost of insurance to a specific person, no as a total entity. I can't see how anyone at all can think this is a good idea.
Blaming the big vehicle, does not instil a sense of responsibility or driving safety. It opens up a whole can of worms for fraud and purposely caused accidents. there is not one single part of it that makes any sense.
It also will not get people on to bikes.
some people are scared of being hit, not whos fault it is. Same reason many people dont ride motorbikes, due to safety. The safety will not change.

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

The safety will not change.

As has been shown in those countries which have similar laws, oh no, wait....

In fact every country which has enacted a similar law has seen a drop in road accident rates so whilst the retarded proposers of this loony law are basing their ideas on hard data and real evidence, you are basing yours on.....what exactly?

 

[Glaucus]

As has been shown in those countries which have similar laws, oh no, wait....

In fact every country which has enacted a similar law has seen a drop in road accident rates so whilst the retarded proposers of this loony law are basing their ideas on hard data and real evidence, you are basing yours on.....what exactly?

Do they have our laws? our compensation culture, our total lack of personal accountability?

I bet they don't.

How can you possibly think it's a good idea, where a cyclist could get done criminally, but still gets to sue the car driver? Doesn't make sense does it. Use your head, this makes no sense, luckily it is extremely unlikely to get through as it's a cycling agency proposing it.

 

[willhub]

Well, if I'm going to get blamed regardless of my fault or not, I may as well flatten them....

No but then you'd be in the slammer.

 

[[TW]Fox]

As has been shown in those countries which have similar laws, oh no, wait....

In fact every country which has enacted a similar law has seen a drop in road accident rates so whilst the retarded proposers of this loony law are basing their ideas on hard data and real evidence, you are basing yours on.....what exactly?

On what planet is it fair for you to take the blame if I decided to launch my bicycle off a pavement in front of your oncoming car giving you no time to react?

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

Do they have our laws? our compensation culture, our total lack of personal accountability?

Good question and I don't know the answer, but then, neither do you so that kinda makes it a mute point and not really the basis for a convincing argument.

How can you possibly think it's a good idea, where a cyclist could get done criminally, but still gets to sue the car driver? Doesn't make sense does it. Use your head, this makes no sense

I never said I thought it was a good idea, I quite clearly stated that I'd need to see the full proposal before I made up my mind.

As for the mismatch between civil and criminal responsibility, then I don't know what the answer is. It'd like to think that other countries have found answers to this, if they have made a workable law. In fact the article doesn't mention if the law would apply in all cases, it may be that if crimial guilt is proven then the civil law is discarded. Might be worth looking into.