Drivers 'should always be blamed for cycle crashes'

I bet this is a repost but couldn't find anything with search. Daily Heil reports on the liability to be put on 'the most powerful vehicle involved' in collisions.

Hooray! Though this is jsut a proposal by Cycling England and I doubt out courageous government'll ever bow to the car lobby.

A couple of choice quotes from the ever-balanced facist-loving rag (what I really love is these aren't even people's quotes - just polemic 'news' reporting):

"The proposal will infuriate drivers, many of whom are angered by the antics of 'Lycra louts' - cyclists who sail through red lights, go the wrong way up one-way streets and intimidate pedestrians on pavements and zebra crossings."

"The proposal by Cycling England is modelled on regulations in the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany, which are heavily skewed in favour of cyclists."

**
**

I think the solution is to have more cameras, so liability can be more easily determined. We also need cameras in our homes, with a screen. I propose that they should be called Telescreens.

I think we should call them Portals.

Link is not working.
+1 on the for the liability to be put on 'the most powerful vehicle involved' in collisions idea. From personal experience I can say it does work rather well in NL.

i think we should blame car drivers without fail

I think the solution is to have more cameras, so liability can be more easily determined. We also need cameras in our homes, with a screen. I propose that they should be called Telescreens.

“Whether he went on with the RLJing, or whether he did not go on with it, made no difference. The RLJ Police would get him just the same. He had committed— would still have committed, even if he had never edged towards the lights — the essential crime that contained all others in itself. RLJcrime, they called it. RLJcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever.”

Link is not working.
+1 on the for the liability to be put on 'the most powerful vehicle involved' in collisions idea. From personal experience I can say it does work rather well in NL.

sorry

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214856/Motorists-blamed-accidents-cyclists-fault--says-Government-advisor.html

Surely when theres a car crash and people exchange details, both parties to some extent take responsibility? I dont believe in 'accidents' anyway, theres always two parties involved.
Unless this ^^ is taken into consideration there will be endless debate about it, and the motoring lobby will continue to curry a lot of favour.
Personally I think its brilliant, have read the source of where the idea and policy direction comes from which I point to you again:-
http://www.fietsberaad.nl/index.cfm?lang=en

Yea, this is the system in Holland and you'd be amazed by the allowances drivers make for the cyclists. May not work straight away as drivers would have to get used to the idea and there system is generally better than ours in other ways too. Its good to see that such ideas are coming forward!

I think this is similar to Amsterdam where the bike is king. If a colission happens then the car is automatibcally guilty before proven innocent, regardless of circumstance.

I may well be wrong, please correct me if I am.

So if a driver is using the road safely and legally and a cyclist jumps a red light and collides with him the driver should be blamed?

I think the solution is to have more cameras, so liability can be more easily determined. We also need cameras in our homes, with a screen. I propose that they should be called Telescreens.

I think this haz already happened

Shit hyped-up writing as usual.
The purpose of the proposed law is merely to ensure people start paying attention whilst driving their metal lumps along the road.

Yup. By the same token the onus would be on cyclists in collisions with peds ithink.

This similar to the law regarding peds (and cyclists?) here in Norway. I cant decide wether I like it or not TBH. There is of course a positive effect, which may very well have the nett result of saving lives. This is difficult to argue against of course.
There are some negative side effects, in terms of the reckless behavior of some peds and path cyclists. I also find it polarises drivers to some effect ie. most drivers take extra care, but then some still drive like tossers. This makes it a bit more difficult to second guess them (which I probably should'nt do anyway).

Personally I think it's silly idea. It's like with the PC going wrong again.
In many cases it's the rivers who are at fault, but not always. Tell me, that you've never seen cyclists breaking all the rules from the Highway code :-) Should the cycling yoof brigades who crosss the road on the red light or ride on the wrong side of the road for fun be above the law?

This sort of policies will alienate the drivers and bikers. Bullshit!

your response ^^^indicates the level of feeling that is already being created by the suggestion.

In many cases it's the rivers who are at fault

Treacherous torrents, slimy streams. Wouldn't brook any nonsense from them.
They need burning.

Treacherous torrents, slimy streams. Wouldn't brook any nonsense from them.
They need burning.

:-)

If, by alienate, you mean that drivers / bikers would be upset at having to shoulder a little responsibility, I would ask why that's such a problem.

Because then people tend to don't listen

The river backlash has already started:

So if a driver is using the road safely and legally and a cyclist jumps a red light and collides with him the driver should be blamed?

Yes, but you have to know that these incidents are very rare.

In 2008 there were 750 fatal traffic incidents in the Netherlands (population of around 16 million I think). 181 (still too many) of these were cyclists. Fatal accidents per capita in the EU are the second lowest in the Netherlands with the UK in third. The average Dutch person makes 5 journeys a week by bike.

Because then people tend to don't listen

Grammar? Platini please. We need to be the most articulate on the Internet.

'Tend not to listen'.
Innit?

People "tend to don't listen" to what?

To each other? Both sides will start ignoring each others arguments, because they know better. It's just stupid.
There's a need for dialog right now.

Sorry about my grammar - English isn't my first language, but I've read much worse patois powered ghetto talk on here.