This headline has turned up in several of the broadsheets this weekend. Several of the cycling groups are asking for this change in the law to be made as part of the governments National Cycling Plan and Active Transport Strategy.
OK - so in the majority of cases it is the fault of the driver and since cyclists are soft and squishy then they are almost always going to come off the worse. However, this kind of legislation is madness - it simply gives the idiot cyclist the benefit doubt in all cases even where they are 100% to blame for collision. It will mean that those who cycle at night without lights, jump red lights, or simply ride around like lunatics will be able to do so safe in the knowledge that should they hit anything or cause an accident then they will be 100% blameless for their actions.
{Typo in header corrected}
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 21/09/2009 at 00:21
|
|
I expect the drunken pedestrian protection groups will be on that bandwagon too!
Edited by Old Navy on 20/09/2009 at 18:16
|
|
|
It seems a very odd move. I note that its only to be applied to civil cases, presumbaly because it would make no sense in criminal matters and would be destroyed by the judiciary.
tt
|
|
|
I was going to reply with something political but I then remembered its banned on here.
Anyway I am sick of all this crap, the government(s) just tell us all to get out of our car and do nothing about it. Example is an area where I often work at night three miles away, ten minutes by car upto an hour by bus due to the fact they are not regular after 7pm. 15 years ago they were much much more regular.
Although there has been investment in public transport there has no where near been enough. Its the same about bikes the government want us all to cycle but until they make proper off road cycle tracks they are having a laugh. I actually want more cyclists to be fined for their bad cycling, far too many of them just skip lights etc. I have been nearly run over a few times by them and of course they are not insured.
|
Rattle - forgot to mention that another part of the legislation would make cyclists 100% responsible for running over pedestrians.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 21/09/2009 at 00:21
|
Judging by the holier than thou postings that have been such a feature here of late I imagine this will be very popular with a few BR posters.
But it is complete pony.
|
|
|
|
and of course they are not insured.
My house insurance (Swiftcover) covers me. I think that's quite common (but correct me if I'm wrong).
|
|
|
|
Quote from online Telegraph report:
But a spokesman for the Department of Transport said the proposals were not being considered by ministers and added: ?Cyclists are traffic and are subject to the same laws as other traffic. They are responsible for their own actions and whether insured or not are liable for the consequences of their actions.?
|
|
This seems like some sort of awful idea from the infamous Tavistock Institute.
|
|
|
|
As others have noted in the backroom, the Telegraph seems to be making a few efforts to follow the Daily Mail into tabloid sensationalism, serving up pre-packaged opportunities for indignation to people who can't be bothered finding something of their own to be indignant about.
The Sunday Times report is a lot more balanced, though the headline "Cycling plan to blame drivers for all crashes" is still too simplistic. It appears that the proposal is more subtle that "all cyclist are automatically innocent" -- the suggestion appears to be a broader one to shift the burden of proof onto the less vulnerable of the two parties to an collision, so that for example a cyclist would be presumed to be guilty if they collide with a pedestrian, unless they can prove otherwise.
|
Since the Times article makes it clear that the criminal law would remain unchanged then it is clear we are actually talking about the civil law and liability rather than guilt - civil law does not deal with guilt.
So what is actually being proposed is if a car driver hits a cyclist and he sues you for negligence there would be a presumption of negligence on the part of the car driver unless he can prove otherwise.
In actual fact this is not very far away form how the civil law works at the moment. If a car driver hits a pedestrian or a cycle that very fact will mean that in most cases the doctrine of rea ipsa loquitur will apply - (the fact speaks for itself) and the car driver would have to prove why he wasn't negligent
So no real change then and no real story
|
|
|
|
A while back I said to Mrs M "how did you get the dent in the front wing then?"
"Oh, that must have been the cyclist in Cambridge" she said. She was was in a queue at the head of which were crossing lights. After the lights changed and the queue moved, she set off - at that instant, a fast moving cyclist came off the pavement into her front wing - obviously aiming for the gap which had been there a moment before. Hit the car heavily, causing material damage (a dent a foot across), came off bike, got up, remounted, and pedalled off furiously, leaving Mrs M (who stopped instanter from about 10mph) open-mouthed.
Imagine what would have happened if the blame had been automatic for the driver. Whiplash would just have been the start of it.
Edited by Manatee on 20/09/2009 at 19:43
|
Of course, those members of the Cabinet who don't drive, will not care...what drivers think...
|
Of course those members of the Cabinet who don't drive will not care...what drivers think...
How many members of the current cabinet, apart from GB, who is known to have a sight problem, are non drivers? And while I'm sure plenty of them are too keen to dismiss public opinion I'm unconvinced of any realtionship with their own activity.
There are actually quite a lot of folks out there who cannot drive. In my central London office in a staff of 11 only 8 hold driving licences (and one of those passed her test within the last two years). And not all the drivers own, or have use of,a car.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 20/09/2009 at 23:56
|
Central London offices are rarely representative of the rest of the UK though when it comes to driving! London is the only city in the UK where I would consider using the peasant wagon and I suspect the same could be said for many other drivers that I know.
|
"Drviers Should be Blamed for All Crashes"
This is largely the case in France, as a result of which car drivers treat cyclists with a bit more respect. And as a result they don't tend to need stupid cycle lanes to segregate cyclists from the rest of the traffic.
I hear all the protests from people on the forum, but it may not be such a daft idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From what I've seen there are more collisions between cyclists and pedestrians on pavements and in pedestrianised areas than there are between cars and cyclists on the roads.
|
This is the law in Germany.. where ALL cyclists have compulsory insurance..
Try to implement that here when 1 million cars are uninsured?
|
>>until they make proper off road cycle tracks they are having a laugh.
A bad idea. Firstly the fewer cyclists on the road, the less respect drivers have for them (the "what are they doing on my road" attitude).
Secondly off road cycle tracks are generally rubbish. Either they are shared with pedestrians, and a bike wacking along at 20mph and pedestrian don't mix any better than a car and a bike. They also tend to be designed so that every junction, drive, path, etc, the priority is against the cycle path, which is not very useful when you want to maintain momentum.
Even when you do have off road cycle paths, car drivers when they are parking, seem to have some mental block over what the solid white lines mean.
And yes there are a lot of moronic cyclists around flouting the law, but they are idiots, deserve all they get, and are probably outnumbered 1000 to 1 by motorists breaking the law.
Edited by Altarf on 21/09/2009 at 19:46
|
|
|
This is the law in Germany.. where ALL cyclists have compulsory insurance.. Try to implement that here when 1 million cars are uninsured?
Simple. Change the law so that if you do not insurance you cannot claim off anyone else. Make it apply to cyclist, motorist, any road user.
|
Make it apply to cyclist motorist any road user.
Interesting idea - including kids?
|
|
|
>>Change the law so that if you do not insurance you cannot claim off anyone else. Make it apply to cyclist, motorist, any road user.
Including pedestrians?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds fair enough to me, motorists get exploited by the tax system and clampers and so on ad infinitum why not let the cyclists have some as well? soon everyone will be throwing themselves under cars including the odd pheasant and we will have to pay up.
|
|
|
