Drivers 'should always be blamed for cycle crashes'

Whether or not it's polarising, cyclists are dying under the wheels of more powerful vehicles. Not vice versa.

Drivers who have killed cyclists are getting off insanely lightly.

If these suggestions are made law, drivers will take more care. We might finally see all lorries with extra mirrors/cameras/whatever it takes to prevent accidents.

Everything else should be secondary to saving lives.

this is typical media hype. the law (in germany at least) assumes that given equal responsiblity for a collision, the motorist is to be found at fault. if a bike breaks the law (by running a red light, for example) it's clearly not a case of equal responsibility.

it is a very very effective law that means many fewer cyclist deaths and injuries, and makes for a rather nice riding environment for cyclists.

Whether or not it's polarising, cyclists are dying under the wheels of more powerful vehicles. Not vice versa.
(...)

Everything else should be secondary to saving lives.

Agree. As long as the drivers are at fault.
Those who travel in cars are also peopleand their lives are not of lesser value and also worth saving.
It's about how you send the message. Shouting Drivers 'should always be blamed for cycle crashes' is just so wrong on many levels - it's like giving a licence to kill to some idiots who happened to ride a bicycle. The rules are there and all the users of public roads should adhere to them - either drivers, pedestrians or cyclists.

Agree. As long as the drivers are at fault.
Those who travel in cars are also peopleand their lives are not of lesser value and also worth saving.
It's about how you send the message. **Shouting Drivers 'should always be blamed for cycle crashes' **is just so wrong on many levels - it's like giving a licence to kill to some idiots who happened to ride a bicycle. The rules are there and all the users of public roads should adhere to them - either drivers, pedestrians or cyclists.

I don't think this line was in the draft proposal.

If the rules are set at opposition to the safety of vulnerable road users then why should rigid adherence to them be expected?

I think people should be made to account for the consequences of their actions, whether they be on foot, in a lorry, on a bike or on a segway, whatever they happen to be driving, riding/not riding.

Thoughtlessness, selfishness, arrogance and downright aggression are the things that cause collisions, not a particular type of vehicle, they just dictate (to a certain extent) the risk of the situation and the severity of the outcome.

Now, go ride your bikes.

I know it's not, but this a great example how it's going to be interpreted by some cyclist and drivers.
We need dialog right now. There's no point of going all Gaza Strip in the times when people are being crushed by lorries.

I think people should be made to account for the consequences of their actions, whether they be on foot, in a lorry, on a bike or on a segway, whatever they happen to be driving, riding/not riding.

Thoughtlessness, selfishness, arrogance and downright aggression are the things that cause collisions, not a particular type of vehicle, they just dictate (to a certain extent) the risk of the situation and the severity of the outcome.

Now, go ride your bikes.

Amen!

I think people should be made to account for the consequences of their actions, whether they be on foot, in a lorry, on a bike or on a segway, whatever they happen to be driving, riding/not riding.

Thoughtlessness, selfishness, arrogance and downright aggression are the things that cause collisions, not a particular type of vehicle, they just dictate (to a certain extent) the risk of the situation and the severity of the outcome.

Now, go ride your bikes.

om shanti

Whether or not it's polarising, cyclists are dying under the wheels of more powerful vehicles. Not vice versa.

If you are referring to my post, then I was just suggesting that more extreme rules/conditions tend to lead to a wider spectrum of behavior. This could lead to more accidents.

An example of a negative result would be when I nearly gave my 3yo whiplash. I was driving home from a shopping trip when a cyclist on the path crossed a zebra crossing in front of me, without slowing or giving any warning. I'm happy to say that I reacted instantly. The fact is though, had I hit this cyclist, it would have been deemed my fault. This, and the fact that I had to listen to my son sobbing in the back untill I could stop, did not help me feel pity for 'the more vunrable party'.

Absolving people of personal responibility is a dangerous game.

Although I agree totally with this.

Everything else should be secondary to saving lives.

If you are referring to my post, then I was just suggesting that more extreme rules/conditions tend to lead to a wider spectrum of behavior. This could lead to more accidents.

this isn't what Denmark or the Netherlands has seen from having this enshrined in law. They're way safer to cycle in than here.

An example of a negative result would be when I nearly gave my 3yo whiplash. I was driving home from a shopping trip when a cyclist on the path crossed a zebra crossing in front of me, without slowing or giving any warning. I'm happy to say that I reacted instantly. The fact is though, had I hit this cyclist, it would have been deemed my fault. This, and the fact that I had to listen to my son sobbing in the back untill I could stop, did not help me feel pity for 'the more vunrable party'.

in the latter case, try doing that in the Netherlands or Denmark and see if the stupid vulnerable party gets any less blame. I don't think so. Your witnesses would say 'cyclist nutter' and given a change in law this will happen IMHO and you are OK.

Absolving people of personal responibility is a dangerous game.

Although I agree totally with this.

it's not saying that, it's just shifting liability on a Civil law basis. Get your cameras installed in your c*rs(!)

I think it will take time for society to adjust and there will be extreme cases reported in the press. On the whole, this should help in the future with attitudes on the road, and for my niece + nephew's sake I'm thankful. Might not happen in my lifetime.

i think it is a good proposal. it is about levels of risk.

if a cyclist crashes (whether breaking the stupic hc or not) into a third party. all invovled will probably live on etc.

if a driver crashes (whether breaking the stupid hc or not) into a third party there could well be death. if the third party is a cyclist or a pedestrian they could well be killed. people who decide to drive should be made to think more about the consequences of their actions and the risks they are exposing themselves to and others to. (as should the oil and motor industry).

Pff, I would be happy if the CPS would at least look into incidents ... but as seen with the HGV accidents, they can't even be bothered.

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.

doubleplusgood idea

I think people should be made to account for the consequences of their actions, whether they be on foot, in a lorry, on a bike or on a segway, whatever they happen to be driving, riding/not riding.

Thoughtlessness, selfishness, arrogance and downright aggression are the things that cause collisions, not a particular type of vehicle, they just dictate (to a certain extent) the risk of the situation and the severity of the outcome.

Now, go ride your bikes.

+1 and the consequence for using a segway should be death.

I like segways.

speaking of segways...

that^ right there is fucking embarrasing.

"Drivers 'should always be blamed for cycle crashes:"

Classic Daily Mail reporting

The Law actually states that Motorists should be at fault unless it can be proved otherwise.

The truth sometimes is.

I like segways.

They're very compact disc.

I think you mean non sequitur ;)

secateur?

non-secateur?

also non-secateurs