Cycling plan to blame drivers for all crashes..

[Glaucus]

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.

Not really. You know exactly what would happen in the uk. You would have kids throwing themselves in front of a car. They would be under the criminal age of respionsability and they would sue the driver.

Really think what you are supporting.

You would also get the situation where people are deemed criminal responsibility, but could and would sue the innocent party.
*shakes head* you must live in a different world.

 

[etom]

Not really. You know exactly what would happen in the uk. You would have kids throwing themselves in front of a car. They would be under the criminal age of respionsability and they would sue the driver.

Really think what you are supporting.

You would also get the situation where people are deemed criminal responsibility, but could and would sue the innocent party.
*shakes head* you must live in a different world.

kids throwing themselves infront of cars, you joking right?

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

kids throwing themselves infront of cars, you joking right?

Apparently he's not; in his UK everyone is a retard. It's a scary thought.

 

[Glaucus]

kids throwing themselves infront of cars, you joking right?

Nope.
Just look at all the cases where parents have got there kids to steal as they can not be charged.

Just walk in front of a car at a junction or other places where the car is doing 5mph.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

What a stupid idea. It won't last through it's first legal challenge.

 

[Glaucus]

Apparently he's not; in his UK everyone is a retard. It's a scary thought.

Don't answer any of the points raised then.

 

[VoG]

And in a collision between two cyclists...?

he who has the chunkier thighs pays the bills i guess

 

[Pinkeyes]

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?

I may be reading this wrong, or differently. But I don't see it is an issue with who is to blame, and who foots the bill, it's more about not killing people.
What if they wander into your car by accident and you are driving too fast to react ?

I don't really see this any differently than driving under 20 mph in a built up areas where children and pedestrians are at risk.

If the person driving the big 2 tonne thing needs to somehow be shown that they need to think carefully about the boney, very breakable thing at the side of them on a bike, then good.

I'm not sure this is the right way to go about it, but I think something needs to change.

 

[Glaucus]

I'm not sure this is the right way to go about it, but I think something needs to change.

Of course this isn't the way to go about it.

Two things need to change.
People need to realise what is happening. That goes for all users.
Pedestrians need to look and listen before crossing.
cyclists need to obey road laws
and car drivers need to check mirrors.

You then need to combine that with a proper road safety campaign. Not just an anti speeding campaign. You need officers on the road to catch people who aren't paying attention, who are tail gating and all the other things that cause far more accidents compared to speeding. Not to say speeding should be totally neglected. But the focus needs to be re adjusted to take it all the large accident attributes.

 

[Dave M]

The real reason people don't cycle is because we need cars for so many things because public transport is second rate and all the shops are out of town.

If you have a car sat there and (yet again) it's wet and miserable, why cycle?

 

[AtreuS]

I may be reading this wrong, or differently. But I don't see it is an issue with who is to blame, and who foots the bill, it's more about not killing people.
What if they wander into your car by accident and you are driving too fast to react ?

I don't really see this any differently than driving under 20 mph in a built up areas where children and pedestrians are at risk.

If the person driving the big 2 tonne thing needs to somehow be shown that they need to think carefully about the boney, very breakable thing at the side of them on a bike, then good.

I'm not sure this is the right way to go about it, but I think something needs to change.

True but likewise the boney squishy thing on a bike needs to learn that hes going to come off worse in an accident and to act accordingly and NOT run red lights and weave in and out of traffic like i see so many do.

Im all for cycling and if it were upto me and we had lots of cash id redo a lot of roads with good cycle lanes and so on, but its not upto me and we dont have loads of cash spare so for now we have to make do. I like to think of myself as a responsible and courtious driver, i dont suffer from road rage ( i just take a deep breath and get on with my life ) and i will be considerate to both pushbikes and motorbikes and so on.

However i am often on the receiving end of verbal and physical abuse and gestures from cyclists who feel its their god given right to do as they wish on the road and generally be a danager to themselves and others. You know the type... the lycra clad guy with a rucksack and an attitude to match. He weaves in and out of stationary traffic at silly speeds and then zoomed though red lights or just shims up onto the pavement and back down past the light.

Cyclists like car drivers cannot be lumped into the same club, there are good and bad of both. The only differance is that you generally need to pass a test to drive a car, you dont have to with a push bike yet you are allowed onto the road just the same. A bike test, just to show understanding of the highway code, and a license/registration system for bikes is long overdue if you want to use them on the roads. Of course kids in the park and off roaders dont apply.

Any true advocate of cycling and cycling safety would im sure support such a move, assuming it doesnt turn into a monay making scheme for brown and co. If cyclists want more rights then with it go more responsibities in my opinion.

 

[Nexus]

True but likewise the boney squishy thing on a bike needs to learn that hes going to come off worse in an accident and to act accordingly and NOT run red lights and weave in and out of traffic like i see so many do.

Sounds like you are trying to tar them all with the same brush.
I commute by cycle in London and I don't run red lights or break any laws.
Sure there are many who do, but at the sametime, I see just as many motorcyclists and car/taxi/hgv drivers who do.

There are plenty of people who have died in London on cycles as a result of HGV drivers turning left without looking for example, and they weren't doing anything wrong.

 

[AtreuS]

Sounds like you are trying to tar them all with the same brush.
I commute by cycle in London and I don't run red lights or break any laws.
Sure there are many who do, but at the sametime, I see just as many motorcyclists and car/taxi/hgv drivers who do.

There are plenty of people who have died in London on cycles as a result of HGV drivers turning left without looking for example, and they weren't doing anything wrong.

Im not, read the rest of my post

My point is that a bad car driver has to have insurance and a license ( well to be legal of course ) and an accident he causes is investigated and justice done.

This new law would have BAD cyclists causing mayhem and somehow being the wronged party? The good cyclists would be going on as usual of course, but the bad ones would be even more obnoxious knowing that blame would now be on you not them.

It just seems odd to me that people see the roads as a god given right to use, instead of a shared resource that you have to EARN the right to use, by passing a test and following laws. If cyclists want to use the roads why should they not have to prove they understand and have comprehension of the rules?

 

[RDM]

Sounds like you are trying to tar them all with the same brush.

Isn't this law doing pretty much the same but with car drivers?

The proposed law is unfair and therefore should not be put in place. Making someone liable for something that isn't their fault is disgusting and as such should never be implemented.

 

[The Running Man]

hm my sister was at a junction in her car... it was dark ish. cyclist comes from her right hand side and rides straight into the front of her car and goes flying across the bonnet...

car is dented, my sister never moved, she was not to blame...

yet the cyclist can claim from her under new laws? that a joke, im going to get my bike and start ramming cars for compensation,

 

[LordSplodge]

AFAIK it's the law in a number of other European countries and it works quite well; as someone has mentioned, it makes 4x4 drivers actually car about where they are going instead of them doing dumb stuff because they feel they are indestructible.

I believe this is pretty much the case in Holland. I have a few Dutch friends and they all say that if you hit a cyclist, you are liable.

Yes and it makes car drivers far more cycle aware. I'm going to risk getting flamed to death on these forums but I support this kind of law* (and yes I do drive)



* Like the one they have in Holland. Note I have not read the article posted by the OP

 

[Glaucus]

Yes and it makes car drivers far more cycle aware. I'm going to risk getting flamed to death on these forums but I support this kind of law (and yes I do drive)

Then you are silly. laws should tackle the problems nothing more.

 

[LordSplodge]

Then you are silly. laws should tackle the problems nothing more.

Well from what I have experienced first hand in Holland it makes cycling a lot safer and thus more pleasurable experience.

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

Don't answer any of the points raised then.

Sorry, had to go to a meeting and didn't really have time. Anyway, having re-read I don't think it's really worth answering the point as it's absurd; people are not going to be jusping out in front of cars any more than they do now. hypothetically I could walk in front of a car and pay a bloke down the pub to be an independent witness, but I don't because it's dumber than a sack of rocks. Insurance fraud goes on now, if people start diving in front of cars then darwinism should put an end to it quite quickly.

If cyclists want to use the roads why should they not have to prove they understand and have comprehension of the rules?

I'd put money on 95% of the cyclists I know having a drivers licence already; it isn't a magic spell that suddenly stops some people being idiots. I see cyclists and drivers act like they are brainless every day, having a licence doesn't stop that, nor does it make them think about the consequences of their actions or have consideration for other road users.

(I had a van follow me down a straight road this morning beeping and swaring at me for not letting him past. During the 3 minutes this went on, not one vehicle came the other way and there was no one parked on the other carriageway. Some people are simply odd).

yet the cyclist can claim from her under new laws? that a joke, im going to get my bike and start ramming cars for compensation,

Maybe, maybe not since no-one had read the full text of the proposal, but still let's bash the idea anyway based on a load of hypothetical situations which we don't know how the law will cope, but we'll make assumptions anyway.

 

[Glaucus]

Well from what I have experienced first hand in Holland it makes cycling a lot safer and thus more pleasurable experience.

But Holland does not have our culture.
Laws should not be knee jerk reactions. It should be based on facts. This is not. It is blaming innocent people. that should never ever ever happen. that undermines our entire legal system.