You are reading a single comment by @NotThamesWater and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
a cyclist wearing normal clothes, in the day time, in ideal conditions - the driver should be able to see the cyclist. If the driver hits the cyclist from behind again, the driver is 100% at fault, and the cyclist has done absolutely nothing wrong.
And, should the driver kill said cyclist, the police will not bother investigating, the CPS will not prosecute, and a jury in a private prosecution will acquit in 12 minutes or so.
NotThamesWater
frankenbike
@skydancer @Greenbank I was trying to take it to the logical extremes. Imagine a cyclist riding down the centre of a straight road, who is hit from behind by a car.
In the case of a perfectly camouflaged cyclist who has somehow made themselves completely invisible to other road users, the driver (who is not breaking any other laws) would be blameless and the cyclist 100% at fault.
At the other extreme - a cyclist wearing normal clothes, in the day time, in ideal conditions - the driver should be able to see the cyclist. If the driver hits the cyclist from behind again, the driver is 100% at fault, and the cyclist has done absolutely nothing wrong.
The point is that in the real world everything falls somewhere between those two scenarios. I don't think you could write a law that says "when it's darker than this amount of illumination, this item of clothing/safety gear is required". So you write an ambiguous law instead, and let a judge decide on a case-by-case basis.