Whichever word you choose, it still assumes that the motorist is at fault in a motorist/cyclist collision no?
It's not automatically blaming the driver.
If a pedestrian has been negligent and the motorist has been very careful, the partial liability may be low (e.g. motorist 20%, pedestrian 80%).
However, driving within the speed limit on a residential road in Germany is no excuse if the tonne of metal flattens a child.
A pedestrian can be seriously injured due to a minor oversight, like not noticing an approaching car.
Should a pedestrian crash into a pedestrian (or bicycle) instead, major injuries would be extremely unlikely.
It is time that British motor insurances paid out on this intrinsic risk of motoring.
For example, in the case of a cyclist who entered the opposite lane and crashed into an oncoming car, the court of Neuburg an der Donau refused the motorist’s demand for 100% damages and established a 3/4 liability to the cyclist and 1/4 to the motorist.
The cyclist in this case has to pay 75% of the TOTAL damages and the motorist 25%.
‘TOTAL’ is important here, as damage to the car could be a few scratches and to the cyclist lifelong disability.
When The Daily Mail carried that load of old bum gravy from Petronella Wyatt they had to add on a clarification:
*Petronella Wyatt claims there is a proposal to make motorists responsible for all accidents involving cyclists, regardless of who is actually in the wrong.
This is factually inaccurate and creates animosity towards cyclists.* *
The proposed Strict Liability legislation will always allow a driver the chance to prove a cyclist's guilt. * *
Equally a cyclist who hits a pedestrian would be presumed guilty but will have the chance to prove otherwise.*
It's not automatically blaming the driver.
If a pedestrian has been negligent and the motorist has been very careful, the partial liability may be low (e.g. motorist 20%, pedestrian 80%).
However, driving within the speed limit on a residential road in Germany is no excuse if the tonne of metal flattens a child.
A pedestrian can be seriously injured due to a minor oversight, like not noticing an approaching car.
Should a pedestrian crash into a pedestrian (or bicycle) instead, major injuries would be extremely unlikely.
It is time that British motor insurances paid out on this intrinsic risk of motoring.
For example, in the case of a cyclist who entered the opposite lane and crashed into an oncoming car, the court of Neuburg an der Donau refused the motorist’s demand for 100% damages and established a 3/4 liability to the cyclist and 1/4 to the motorist.
The cyclist in this case has to pay 75% of the TOTAL damages and the motorist 25%.
‘TOTAL’ is important here, as damage to the car could be a few scratches and to the cyclist lifelong disability.
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/87/article9.html
When The Daily Mail carried that load of old bum gravy from Petronella Wyatt they had to add on a clarification:
*Petronella Wyatt claims there is a proposal to make motorists responsible for all accidents involving cyclists, regardless of who is actually in the wrong.
This is factually inaccurate and creates animosity towards cyclists.* *
The proposed Strict Liability legislation will always allow a driver the chance to prove a cyclist's guilt. * *
Equally a cyclist who hits a pedestrian would be presumed guilty but will have the chance to prove otherwise.*
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1250746/Beware-rogue-bicycles--Petronella-Wyatt-attacks-cult-cycling-frail-mother-knocked-down.html#ixzz0ivES9vR3