Hypothetical law change? Lorry on bike: lorry's fault. Bike on ped: bike's fault

Would the following be fair if enacted as a new law? It is a package and can't be split.

In a lorry/car on bike accident there would be a presumption of fault on the part of the lorry/car.

In return for:

In a bike on ped accident there would be a presumption of fault on the part of the bike

It would be a presumption, i.e a strong enough case (a really strong case) could reverse it. Otherwise the fault would go with the presumption.

No connection to or linkage with any current situation is intended.

No.

If you ride past a moving vehicle on it's left side, your in the wrong.

That's how lorries often kill cyclists and that's not the drivers fault.

Would the following be fair if enacted as a new law? It is a package and can't be split.

In a lorry/car on bike accident there would be a presumption of fault on the part of the lorry/car.

In return for:

In a bike on ped accident there would be a presumption of fault on the part of the bike

It would be a presumption, i.e a strong enough case (a really strong case) could reverse it. Otherwise the fault would go with the presumption.

No connection to or linkage with any current situation is intended.

Are you sugesting some sort of hierarchy of 'duty of care' here ?

And helmets for pedestrians.

If you ride past a moving vehicle on it's left side, your in the wrong.
Always? Even if there's a green/marked cycle lane? Serious question - I don't know. Everyone passes moving vehicles on the left. And I don't mean "everyone" like "everyone runs red lights" I mean every single other cyclist I see on my daily commute.

Always? Even if there's a green/marked cycle lane? Serious question - I don't know. Everyone passes moving vehicles on the left. And I don't mean "everyone" like "everyone runs red lights" I mean every single other cyclist I see on my daily commute.

"

The new Highway Code has cleared up the uncertainty. Old rule 129 has been replaced by new rule 151, which has a new bullet-point on the end:
151 In slow-moving traffic. You should
• […] • be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side
So cyclists and motorcyclists overtaking slow-moving traffic on either the left or the right can now say that this is sanctioned by the Highway Code, as it alerts drivers to both possibilities. "

If you ride past a moving vehicle on it's left side, your in the wrong.

you are in the wrong. it's not against the law to filter and some road layouts will mean traffic is often moving past stationary vehicles on the left.

only if jaywalking becomes a criminal offense

I think the person at fault should be at fault.

I think the person at fault should be at fault.

Radical.

"

The new Highway Code has cleared up the uncertainty. Old rule 129 has been replaced by new rule 151, which has a new bullet-point on the end:
151 In slow-moving traffic. You should
• […] • be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side
So cyclists and motorcyclists overtaking slow-moving traffic on either the left or the right can now say that this is sanctioned by the Highway Code, as it alerts drivers to both possibilities. "

That's a bit weak. Acknowledging something happens is not agreement.

On the other hand,
163 .... stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left ...

and i personally take that to include bike lanes and the case where the cars are queued up but the bike lane is empty. I still do it cautiously though, and not past lorries where there is any possibility they could move left.

Also, when cars overtake cyclists then brake sharply, often the only reasonable thing to do is pass on the left.

Re: the op: No. I don't like presumptions about who's at fault, but i would like it assumed that when someone dies something is wrong and it can't just be written off as an accident. If no individuals are at fault then the systems that constructed the circumstances of the death are guilty.

there is a genuine debate to be had about the rebuttable presumption being used in this case, and we all know how difficult it can be to get a just outcome when there is a road traffic incident involving a cyclist:

**

[B]Legal Presumptions of Liability**
Let’s take a look at what happens when a driver injures a cyclist in the Netherlands, and then let’s compare that to what happens when a driver injures a cyclist in the United States.
In the Netherlands, the law imposes a rebuttable presumption of liability on drivers—if a motorist is involved in a crash with a cyclist, the law presumes that the motorist is liable for the crash, unless the motorist can rebut that presumption with evidence to the contrary. The reason for this shift is that the Dutch recognized that the cyclist will virtually always be the injured party in a collision with an automobile, and by putting the onus of fault on the driver, have provided motorists with a powerful legal incentive to pay more attention to the presence of cyclists. Thus, it wouldn’t be legally sufficient for a Dutch driver to merely claim “I didn’t see him”—the most common excuse drivers use in the United States—in order to escape liability. Instead, the Dutch driver would have to prove that the cyclist’s own negligence was the cause of the collision. And even if the Dutch driver can successfully rebut the presumption of liability, the driver’s insurance is still required to pay the cyclist’s medical bills.

[/B]

http://bicycling.com/blogs/roadrights/2009/06/22/why-we-need-cycling-insurance/

Also a good briefing:

http://rp.ludwood.info/change/safer_streets/stricter_liability/index.html

I think the person at fault should be at fault.

Student.

I think the person at fault should be at fault.

+1

Also a good briefing:

http://rp.ludwood.info/change/safer_streets/stricter_liability/index.html

Disagree with you. There is no need for any new law, especially not one dreamt up by some green equality-obsessed think tank :) It will be discriminating against the majority to protect the minority, which isn't right. Drivers insurance premiums will go up if this comes into effect.. meanwhile we don't have to pay for insurance or road tax, or be licensed. Not fair on motorists. I think it's stuff like this that makes drivers hate cyclists more.

The current law just needs to be enforced better and more efficiently.

The UK is the only country in Europe as far as I know that doesn't have that liability law for cyclist.

it work brilliantly for peds, why shouldn't it work for cyclists? after all they're far more vulnerable than motorists.

The UK is the only country in Europe as far as I know that doesn't have that liability law for cyclist.

it work brilliantly for peds, why shouldn't it work for cyclists? after all they're far more vulnerable than motorists.

Uk has a better idea than europe?

Have had a motobike accident involving a cyclists and the cyclist was at fault I had a few issues to prove my innocence even with witnesses. Have also been knocked off the bike by other cyclists so whose at fault there?

Biggest and/or most expensive vehicle is in the right all the time. Simples.

If I'm someone is driving in my their massive 4x4 I want all mo fos out of my way, or they pay.

Simples.

Uk has a better idea than europe?

Far from it, I feel it definitely reduce the likeihood of motorists not taking proper care on the road, i.e. the very common and popular 'SMIDSY'.

Far from it, I feel it definitely reduce the likeihood of motorists not taking proper care on the road, i.e. the very common and popular 'SMIDSY'.

Do they happen less in europe? What factors could influence that?

NO NO NO

as someone who cycles every day and occasionally drives bigger things... there are idiot peds - idiot lory drivers, if its someones fault it is their fault.

It work perfectly well with peds here in England, the last thing a motorists want is to run a peds down and end up being prosecuted for it, especially when it could easily put their insurance premium up, points in their license, or worse, banned from driving for a certain period of time.

Bring it on.

YouTube- STRICT LIABILITY - Drive carefully

• The UK is only one of four Western European countries that doesnt have 'strict liability' to protect cyclists and pedestrians.
  
• Strict liability entitles a crash victim to compensation unless the driver can prove the cyclist or pedestrian was at fault.
  
• Strict liability encourages more careful driving (and cycling, because a cyclist would be deemed to be at fault for crashing into a pedestrian).
  
• Strict liability would be a matter of civil rather than criminal law so would not affect criminal prosecutions.
  
  

(one of four Western European country, not just the one, whoop).

NO NO NO

as someone who cycles every day and occasionally drives bigger things... there are idiot peds - idiot lory drivers, if its someones fault it is their fault.

peds may be idiot, but it force us to be aware of them, and that's better than not being aware of them and end up having an accident if they cross the road unexpectedly.