Cycling plan to blame drivers for all crashes..

[RDM]

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)

Have you got any proof that it was this policy that improved cycling in Holland? To be honest even it was proven to have an impact I would still be against the law on principle, it is not right to force liability on someone when it was not their fault.

 

[RDM]

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.

I will bash the idea because it makes someone liable for something that is not their fault. That is fundamentally wrong.

 

[Glaucus]

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.

that wasn't the only point. But yes it will increase. This makes it essentially legal to do it.

Blaming the big vehicle, does not instil a sense of responsibility or driving safety.

You would also get the situation where people are deemed criminal responsibility, but could and would sue the innocent party.

It also will not get people on to bikes.
some people are scared of being hit, not who's fault it is. Same reason many people dont ride motorbikes, due to safety.

We will bash this law as it undermines are entire legal system and makes someone liable when they are innocent. this can never ever be justified.

 

[D D Danneh]

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.

It might reduce accidents, but it means that the accidents that DO occur are likely to be blamed on innocent people. If you drive a hunk of junk into a ferrari, should the ferrari owner be responsible because his car is more powerful? What if it isn't even moving, should it be his fault?

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

It doesn't make them liable, it make the presumption that they are guilty and they can still prove innocence. Even if they are proved guilty the actions they took to mitigate the accident will have an impact upon any liability.

If you drive a hunk of junk into a ferrari, should the ferrari owner be responsible because his car is more powerful? What if it isn't even moving, should it be his fault?

I don't know. I'm reading the same article as you and it doesn't say, because this is a newspaper article and not the proposal itself. I've already said that once.

 

[Glaucus]

It't doesn't make them liable, it make the presumption that they are guilty and they can still prove innocence. Even if they are proved guilty the actions they took to mitigate the accident will have an impact upon any liability.

great remove the fundamental basis of are legal system.

It is insane.

You may want to take those rose tinted glasses off and actually releasing what you are supporting and the impact it would have.

 

[RDM]

It't doesn't make them liable, it make the presumption that they are guilty and they can still prove innocence. Even if they are proved guilty the actions they took to mitigate the accident will have an impact upon any liability.

Oh right, it doesn't make them liable it just completely undermines one of the cornerstones of UK Common Law. That makes it perfectly fine then. I know I certainly want to be in the situation where I have to prove I was innocent rather than a prosecuter prove I was quilty...

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

great remove the fundamental basis of are legal system.

It is insane.

Oh right, it doesn't make them liable it just completely undermines one of the cornerstones of UK Common Law. That makes it perfectly fine then. I know I certainly want to be in the situation where I have to prove I was innocent rather than a prosecuter prove I was quilty...

In the eyes of civil law, not criminal law, there won't anyone prosecuting. Have you actually read the article or are you just trolling?

You both appear to get angrier when I point out that it doesn't automatically lable you as guilty and close the case, just that it uses that as a starting point. Interesting.

Holland and Germany have adopted similar laws and it will be interesting to see what happens there over the long term.

 

[Glaucus]

In the eyes of civil law, not criminal law, there won't anyone prosecuting. Have you actually read the article or are you just trolling?
.

You noticed we said corner stone of law. Not just criminal law. Being automatic guilty in any law is totally wrong. As I said think before posting rubbish.

The starting point is and should always remain innocent until proven guilty. That is the problem and one of our rights and corner stones. Which you want to freely rip up and throw away. I'm glad there's hundreds of people like you wrecking his county and allowing the government to slowly remove all our rights.
So if it's 50/50 or there's no evidence you are screwed. Yea suddenly I see your point and support it. Maybe not. perhaps I want to retain my basic rights. Not to found guilty with no evidence. regardless of it being civil or criminal.

I suppose you also support the terrorist law where you can be locked up without charged. Or wait terrorists laws have been used on innocent people. That was a surprise, NOT.

Or the hunting ban, when the very report said it caused no more harm or suffering. Yet the law was passed for that exact reason, although the report said it didn't.

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

You noticed we said corner stone of law. Not just criminal law. Being automatic guilty in any law is totally wrong. As I said think before posting rubbish.

It doesn't automatically make you guilty though, that's the point.

And there's no need to be so charming, I suspect you're letting your emotions cloud your judgement. I wasn't accusing you of trolling since you didn't make any mention of prosecution.

 

[Glaucus]

It doesn't automatically make you guilty though, that's the point.
=.

You don't get the point. Innocent till proven guilty. So yes it does make you automatically guilty. you have to prove you are innocent. What happens if there is no evidence either way. You remain guilty. Really wake up.

Yes I am getting emotional, but it's not clouding my judgement. You are trying to throw away or basic rights and seemingly have no problem with that. i suspect you simply haven't realised what you are saying. As you keep saying you can prove you are innocent. Well you can't always. Sometimes there simply isn't the evidence.

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

You don't get the point. Innocent till proven guilty. So yes it does make you automatically guilty. you have to prove you are innocent. What happens if there is no evidence either way. You remain guilty. Really wake up.

Yes I am getting emotional, but it's not clouding my judgement. You are trying to throw away or basic rights and seemingly have no problem with that. i suspect you simply haven't realised what you are saying. As you keep saying you can prove you are innocent. Well you can't always. Sometimes there simply isn't the evidence.[/

I do get the point, just as far as insurance cases in civil law counts, I don't think it's as important as potentially saving lives, especially if drivers (and cyclists who hit pedestrians) are given ample opportunity to prove their innocence.

If you can't prove your innocence then insurance would currently return a 50/50 verdict, which has a similar effect as being guilty on your premiums and insurance history, so where is the difference?

 

[Glaucus]

I do get the point, just as far as insurance case in civil law counts, I don't think it's as important as potentially saving lives, especially if drivers (and cyclists who hit pedestrians) are given ample opportunity to prove their innocence.

you don't see how it's important.

You can only prove innocents if there is evidence. Something which is sometimes very hard or imposable to get. No video cameras, no skid marks. No evidence, so you remain guilty. It really is that simple.

 

[RDM]

In the eyes of civil law, not criminal law, there won't anyone prosecuting. Have you actually read the article or are you just trolling?

I don't care to split the difference. The automatic assumption of guilt rather than innocence is completely wrong.

You both appear to get angrier when I point out that it doesn't automatically lable you as guilty and close the case, just that it uses that as a starting point. Interesting.

Who is angry? I just don't agree with the proposed law. You seem to think it is OK to turn the presumption of innocence on it's head. Fine, I disagree.

Holland and Germany have adopted similar laws and it will be interesting to see what happens there over the long term.

Don't they also have very different legal systems? Also would be interesting to see the figures that back up this law. I know it certainly wouldn't make me take any more care on the roads.

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

I know it certainly wouldn't make me take any more care on the roads.

You assume, but it seems to be having an impact elsewhere, so you don't know that for a fact. Besides, I assume you take the upmost care at all times anyway?

Anyway, it's gone 5 so I'm off home (cycling).

 

[Wicksta]

Holland and Germany have adopted similar laws and it will be interesting to see what happens there over the long term.

Both have excellent cycling lanes/infrastructure, I lived in Germany for 5 years and commuted 9 miles (each way) per day on my bike in a city and I had to cycle on about 2 bits of road in that journey which were about 2 minutes of the total ride. You just cannot compare the countries I'm afraid. I can (as a cyclist with a great deal of experience in both countries) and this idea is a joke for the UK.

Also as acidhell points out, there is none of the American style ambulance chasing over there - it's a completely different culture.

 

[RDM]

You assume, but it seems to be having an impact elsewhere, so you don't know that for a fact.

I am pretty sure that the introduction of this law would make zero difference to the way I drive/ride. Would it make any difference to the way you drive/ride?

Besides, I assume you take the upmost care at all times anyway?

Why the smilie? Are car drivers incapable of taking care?

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

Why the smilie? Are car drivers incapable of taking care?

God, I make a little joke to lighten a discussion that has got far too serious for it's own good and you jump down my throat. What makes you think I don't drive?

Some people need to relax.

AH2, why are my thoughts on the fox hunting and anti terror laws relevant? As it happens I don't support the hunting ban or detaining people for 42 days without charge, mainly because I (and more importantly the relevant experts) saw no benefit in them.

There may be no benefit in this either, and I wouldn't necessarily support the law, I just think it shouldn't be dismissed on the basis of one short article giving very little information since it's kneejerk reaction. Fortunately important legal decisions aren't made in GD.