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

Astonishing--was this added post-publication (and consequently didn't appear in the paper on the day), or did it appear on the day? If the former, why didn't they check factual accuracy in the first place, and if the latter, why did they publish it?

Because that's what sections of the wonderful British press do - publish a load of shite about some individual or section of society that they are prejudiced against (eg cyclists) then print a little retraction on page 23 two weeks later. Especially the Daily Mail.

Astonishing--was this added post-publication (and consequently didn't appear in the paper on the day), or did it appear on the day? If the former, why didn't they check factual accuracy in the first place, and if the latter, why did they publish it?

They banned comments on that article. The addendum appeared way after and only online. If anyone finishes the Daily Mail and doesn't hate someone they've failed. It's their job to appeal to reactionary knee-jerk chuffing knobbers who spew piffle about "road tax" whilst discussing cyclists. Speaking of piffle, Petronella has seen Boris's cum-face, an experience not to be dwelt upon but, I think you'll find, a lingering image.

I have had some beer, apologies.

Good work in this thread all the same, spindrift.

Are you retarded?

If there were only two modes of transport available to you to cross London - one of which was a normal family car and the other of which was a gigantic cannon that only one person had ever been fired from (and instantly killed) - would you say ah-hah, but the giant cannon has only caused one death and hundreds, if not thousands of people die in cars every year; so clearly the cannon is the safer option?

No I'm not. Feel free to read the second sentence that you quoted.

Quit the daily mail links please, as clicking them makes the baby jebus cry.

http://thebikeshow.net/lorry-hgv-lgv-an-appeal-to-london-listeners/

Lorries/HGVs/LGVs killing cyclists: an appeal to London listeners March 22nd, 2010 by Jack · Comment

                        Last Thursday, on what felt like a warm, sunny first day of  Spring, I was witness to the immediate aftermath of a collision  involving a cyclist and a 32 tonne articulated lorry. It was a truly  horrible, chilling sight. The lorry was stopped in the middle of the  road and the crushed remains of a bicycle were clearly visible under its  wheels. The cyclist, a woman in her twenties, was on a stretcher,  receiving treatment from the fantastic and heroic paramedics of the  London Ambulance Service. I gather than woman was was taken to the Royal  London Hospital with serious leg injuries. I don’t know the extent of  her injuries and whether she’ll be able to make a full recovery, but  while she was desperately unlucky to be hit, she was probably very lucky  to have survived.

Too many cyclists are being killed each year by lorries on the streets of London. Something has got to be done.
The Bike Show has been campaigning on this issue for years and this year I’m planning to crank up the volume. As a first step I’m encouraging everyone who can make it to come along to Critical Mass this Friday to join a mass ride that is going to show London’s cyclists making a united stand on the issue. I’m not the greatest fan of Critical Mass, but this month, with spate of deaths caused by lorries, I’m making an exception. This is a call not just from me but from a united platform of London bike campaigners and bike bloggers (including the London Cycling Campaign, Southwark Cyclists, ibikelondon, Bike Tart, Moving Target, Cycle Chic, Cyclodelic, VeLo City and Real Cycling).
If you come along on Friday, you’ll be among friends, you’ll be able to put a few faces to familiar Bike Show voices. Meet from 6.30pm on Friday 26th March on the South Bank, right under Waterloo Bridge.

http://thebikeshow.net/lorry-hgv-lgv-an-appeal-to-london-listeners/

Lorries/HGVs/LGVs killing cyclists: an appeal to London listeners March 22nd, 2010 by Jack · Comment

                        Last Thursday, on what felt like a warm, sunny first day of  Spring, I was witness to the immediate aftermath of a collision  involving a cyclist and a 32 tonne articulated lorry. It was a truly  horrible, chilling sight. The lorry was stopped in the middle of the  road and the crushed remains of a bicycle were clearly visible under its  wheels. The cyclist, a woman in her twenties, was on a stretcher,  receiving treatment from the fantastic and heroic paramedics of the  London Ambulance Service. I gather than woman was was taken to the Royal  London Hospital with serious leg injuries. I don’t know the extent of  her injuries and whether she’ll be able to make a full recovery, but  while she was desperately unlucky to be hit, she was probably very lucky  to have survived.

Too many cyclists are being killed each year by lorries on the streets of London. Something has got to be done.
The Bike Show has been campaigning on this issue for years and this year I’m planning to crank up the volume. As a first step I’m encouraging everyone who can make it to come along to Critical Mass this Friday to join a mass ride that is going to show London’s cyclists making a united stand on the issue. I’m not the greatest fan of Critical Mass, but this month, with spate of deaths caused by lorries, I’m making an exception. This is a call not just from me but from a united platform of London bike campaigners and bike bloggers (including the London Cycling Campaign, Southwark Cyclists, ibikelondon, Bike Tart, Moving Target, Cycle Chic, Cyclodelic, VeLo City and Real Cycling).
If you come along on Friday, you’ll be among friends, you’ll be able to put a few faces to familiar Bike Show voices. Meet from 6.30pm on Friday 26th March on the South Bank, right under Waterloo Bridge.

The Bike Show - Lorries/HGVs/LGVs killing cyclists: an appeal to London listeners:

http://thebikeshow.net/lorry-hgv-lgv-an-appeal-to-london-listeners/

Speaking of piffle, Petronella has seen Boris's cum-face, an experience not to be dwelt upon but, I think you'll find, a lingering image.

I have had some beer, apologies.

Came very close to releasing an espresso aerosol over my laptop there.

Legal Presumptions of Liability
"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." I think this is the only sensible way to approach it, really.

Note sure about this bit though....."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"

Surely if you were acting the tw@t and got hurt, you should be liable for your own bills.

I'm down for the presumption but not strict liability.

Legal Presumptions of Liability
"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." I think this is the only sensible way to approach it, really.

Note sure about this bit though....."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"

Surely if you were acting the tw@t and got hurt, you should be liable for your own bills.

I'm down for the presumption but not strict liability.

So drivers will get penalised, even if the blame lies with the cyclist or ped.
Would all road users would need third party liability insurance to let this sytem work fairly?

I wasn't going to come to critical mass, being the geared chap I am I didn't think I'd be so welcome (sob), but having read this I'm in Erudin.

http://thebikeshow.net/lorry-hgv-lgv-an-appeal-to-london-listeners/

Unless I'm still here debating with Lynx about giant cannons, which is also plausible.

So drivers will get penalised, even if the blame lies with the cyclist or ped.
Would all road users would need third party liability insurance to let this sytem work fairly?

Would you agree to taking on liability for, say, hitting Petronella's mother in the arm, if you in turn received such protection against being hit by motorists?

I reckon so. Everyone in a vehicle (anything with wheels that can hurt other people?) has responsibility and liability. Sounds pretty fair to me.

I drive, cycle and walk. I have insurance to cover cycling and driving. I have had a cyclist damage my car through his own ineptitude, I had to pay to get it fixed, fair, I think not.

I am quite happy to take responsibility for my actions and drive, cycle and walk accordingly. I'd just like others to be able to do the same. Cyclist RLJ's hits me whilst driving I want them to pay for damage to my car, I personally couldn't care less if they are injured and it was due to their own stupidity, I also don't see why I should cover their medical costs.

I don't like the idea of insurance for all, but if i stand to be out of pocket then I am rightly going to get pissed off if you have no way of paying for damages caused. My situation is not the same as those who cycle in large cities, so this does effect my view point.

Don't tar all cyclists with the same brush - if I damage your car through my own ineptitude my insurance pays. Given you live on the IoM this doesn't seem that likely though.

I'm not, I'm just saying what most car owners will be thinking.

Sorry you had to fork out Andy - I don't think you're tarring cyclists with the same brush. There are some fools riding about who give the rest of us a bad name and cause more than their fair share of accidents, sure, but at the same time there huge numbers of responsible riders who need a bit of legal protection. At least more than there is at the moment. Strict Liability doesn't automatically assume the guilt of the motorist, it just forces a decent explanation from them.

So going back to the Dutch system, the excuse of: "I didn't see them" doesn't hold water.

Cyclist RLJ's hits me whilst driving I want them to pay for damage to my car,

It's interesting that cyclist (mis) behaviour is rarely to blame in vehicle/cyclist collisions. More cyclists have been killed by vehicles jumping red lights than by the cyclists jumping the red lights themselves.

If the argument is purely financial then the insurance company's view is that premiums have not risen in countries that have adopted strict liability. Drivers simply take more care.

Uninsured cars cost the rest of us half a billion pounds a year, as many as 1 in 8 cars in East London are uninsured.

A change in the law on liability would lead to enforcing liability insurance on cars as insurance cover will be required even for accidents where the driver is not at fault (the problem of uninsured cars does not exist on German or Dutch roads). With an alleged 1.2 million uninsured drivers on Britain’s roads and a new risk concept (i.e. operational risk) to cover, the cycling campaigners’ ally on this could well be the insurance industry.

Most importantly, establishing ‘operating risk’ in law should help to instill the fact in motorists’ brains that operating a heavy and powerful motor vehicle is a much greater risk to others than e.g. riding a bicycle. This might help to prevent drivers from invading cycle lanes and advanced stop lines and might even make motorists respect urban speed limits as the ‘upper limit’.
**http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/87/article9.html
**

If only a few more of the accidents with cars that lead to permanent disability or death every year resulted in motor insurers having to pay damages and maintenance for a lifetime, instead of leaving vulnerable road users (or their dependants) impoverished and inadequately maintained by social services or the tax payer, then this change would be worth making.

I don't get how people don't understand that by driving a car or HGV, you are using a tool that has the potential to easily kill someone else, and therefore your responsibility to avoid accidents is greater than if you are walking or cycling. Is it acceptable for you or me to be drunk while playing "Operation"? (Yes.) Is it acceptable for a surgeon to be drunk while performing open-heart surgery? (No.) The difference is that in one case someone is much more likely to die due to another's impaired performance.

There's nothing wrong with drivers being forced to take on more responsibility for keeping roads safe, as their choice of transport is responsible for making them dangerous in the first place.

Having read the thread (most of it), it does in theory sound like a good idea (My first post on this thread was No.), but I'm a cyclist so it would. I think that alot of people will take a lot of persuading.

Don't worry, I'm going to carry on using ridiculous analogies until everyone admits that the presumption of liability is basically a good thing, and using a mobile phone while driving is basically a bad thing.

Think of insurance companies like a volcano full of jelly - cyclists have to decide whether or not to drop an enormously fat person into the volcano, to save the lives of a group of Italian tourists.

There's nothing wrong with drivers being forced to take on more responsibility for keeping roads safe, as their choice of transport is responsible for making them dangerous in the first place.
Bang on Seeds. And two nice analogies to boot. See how much progress can be made when Lynx is out?

Having read the thread (most of it), it does in theory sound like a good idea (My first post on this thread was No.), but I'm a cyclist so it would. I think that alot of people will take a lot of persuading.
Well let's get persuading then. It's not like we don't have some friends in interesting places on here.

Yes lets, as always though, you'll need to get the press on side*.

• Plans to climb everest in bermuda shorts and flip flops, taking Timmy Mallet as my guide.
  

Everest Expedition 2010
sponsored by the Daily Mail

1. andy.w
   
2. ocdc
   
3. Timmy Mallett
   
4. Petronella Wyatt
   
5. Lynx
   

I
, as their choice of transport is responsible for making them dangerous in the first place.

So the car /hgv/lgv/bus that is the killer? Or the person in control it? Its like banning hand guns and all the handgun shootings have stopped.

I agree with andip points.

Have you guys heard of vision zero? How its currently being used against motorcyclist? Wha to stop the same thing happenng to cyclists?

So the car /hgv/lgv/bus that is the killer? Or the person in control it?

There isn't a "killer". And there isn't an analogy with the handgun debate either. A handgun has no practical purpose other than killing people, so it's reasonable to ban them, whereas motor traffic has obvious benefits as well as dangers.

Once more, for the slow of thinking: Choosing any of the options above, rather than walking or cycling, gives you the potential to cause a lot of damage. With that potential comes a responsibility not to do so.

by driving a car or HGV, you are using a tool that has the potential to easily kill someone else, and therefore your responsibility to avoid accidents is greater than if you are walking or cycling.
...

There's nothing wrong with drivers being forced to take on more responsibility for keeping roads safe, as their choice of transport is responsible for making them dangerous in the first place.