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

I give up....

been posted already in the first page.

indeed. mea culpa.

can't believe some people still don't 'get' it. did you enjoy your ride in the sunshine?

And therefore a car driver has less responsibility than a train driver. Should that mean that the car driver can act with less responsibility than a train driver?

I don't see trains in central London waiting at the lights to turn left funnily enough.

I don't see trains in central London waiting at the lights to turn left funnily enough.

And I don't see your point.

It is banned??

Talking on the phone isn't banned just holding it (yes a simplification I know) the conversation is the distractor is it not.

there is no such think as total distraction, it's about the effect on your reaction times and your concentration levels. every person is different.

Very true

Some people who have slept badly could find making a decision on a busy road junction with a number of conflicting signs a serious challenge. enough to take all their concentration and for the entire approach to that junction fail to look in their mirrors, and fail to signal. this is fatal!

This CAN be fatal?

There is no fine for absent minded drivers as it can't be measured. but taking away obvious distractions that require usage of any of the senses is pretty straight forward thinking

If there is an incident there are laws.

And I don't see your point.

it's about roads.

pedestrian > bike > motorbike > car > HGV

that's it. no trains.

--

People have strict liability in .fr and .nl and seem to cope with driving vehicles.
it's rather nicer to cycle in those countries than here, spot the link yet?

Personally I think the current laws we have are just about right, the problem is that non of us pay attention to them 100% of the time and they often aren't enforcable.

given some of the recent outcomes of cases you're wrong.

pedestrian > bike > motorbike > car > HGV > train > plane > space rocket

People have strict liability in .fr and .nl and seem to cope with driving vehicles.
it's rather nicer to cycle in those countries than here, spot the link yet?

.

it's about roads.

pedestrian > bike > motorbike > car > HGV

that's it. no trains.

I agree, I think you'll find it wasn't I who brought trains and planes into the argument.

People have strict liability in .fr and .nl and seem to cope with driving vehicles.
it's rather nicer to cycle in those countries than here, spot the link yet?

...you're trying to say the reason it's nicer to cycle in France/Holland is because the motorists are always seen to be at fault? Seriously?

If a cyclist collides with a ped they both could be badly injured or worse (which is not true in a car).

True.

@mmcarthy, liability, not fault.

Call an insurance company and ask them to explain the differences.

@mmcarthy, liability, not fault.

Call an insurance company and ask them to explain the differences.

Whichever word you choose, it still assumes that the motorist is at fault in a motorist/cyclist collision no?

Don't fuck with the Doctor, Lynx.

yeah! make love to him instead.

Surely our issues with peds would be solved when Apple release that 'app' to make folk cross the road responsibly?

People should just stop cycling in London, it's the best way to lower the number of collisions. Bikes are shit anyway.

Surely our issues with peds would be solved when Apple release that 'app' to make folk cross the road responsibly?

Theres an app for that. Theres a walking one that that means you can walk and text at the same time as it shows the floor so you don't trip.

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.

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

I agree, I think you'll find it wasn't I who brought trains and planes into the argument.

...you're trying to say the reason it's nicer to cycle in France/Holland is because the motorists are always seen to be at fault? Seriously?

hey have a different attitude to bikes and I believe (as do others) that Strict Liability plays a part in this.

They seem to cope with this.

At worst it means they have to carry cameras etc to prove they weren't at fault despite the fact they would be liable in a court

• which is the opposite to what we have to do now. When there are incidents involving cyclists the driver will be the one looking for witnesses rather than the cyclist.
  
  

Cameras: This is easy for them, they have power easily available and don't have to go for waterproof systems.

it's just changing the balance round to protect the vulnerable from inattention.
AKA Responsibility for Actions.

yes, it's that simple. We need to watch for pedestrians, bikes + cars + lorries need to watch for pedestrians and us. no biggy. I ride + drive and am happy with this change.

Surely our issues with peds would be solved when Apple release that 'app' to make folk cross the road responsibly?

I dunno what happened to the green cross code man.
The Green Cross code man was uber and kept all problems of society away. Really.

(probably declared rascist, sexist and homophobic by a council somewhere)

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

I put a section in bold, so if a cyclist breaks the highway code and has a collision as the innocent party is still expected to suffer a loss?

also how does the cyclist pay?

I put a section in bold, so if a cyclist breaks the highway code and has a collision as the innocent party is still expected to suffer a loss?

also how does the cyclist pay?

ref the highway code - the court would split the costs as described earlier as the car driver should expect cyclists to do crazy things.

(go to the first page and watch the Strict liability video again, this explains it from the Dutch perspective - the point is at 30secs in)

The cyclist would pay the way anyone in court has to settle a debt - by selling their house/property etc - unless they had 3rd party insurance.

Of course as a member of the LCC/CTC etc, you have this as part of your membership. You are a member of one/both aren't you?

=

I put a section in bold, so if a cyclist breaks the highway code and has a collision as the innocent party is still expected to suffer a loss?

also how does the cyclist pay?

Yes, because the potential to cause harm is far greater with the driver the greater responsibility rests with them. We already have a kind of assumed liability with rear-end vehicle collisions, almost invariably the following driver is assumed to be at fault.

I don't understand the question about paying, the cyclist pays like anyone else pays. Third party insurances comes with most household policies and membership of the CTC or LCC includes 3rd party liability insurance.

ref the highway code - the court would split the costs as described earlier as the car driver should expect cyclists to do crazy things.

(go to the first page and watch the Strict liability video again, this explains it from the Dutch perspective - the point is at 30secs in)

If this is the case, I can see why it is wrong.

The cyclist would pay the way anyone in court has to settle a debt - by selling their house/property etc - unless they had 3rd party insurance.

Of course as a member of the LCC/CTC etc, you have this as part of your membership. You are a member of one/both aren't you?

Never been involved in an accident with an uninsured party? Then you'll know how pointless this is. Oh and not a member of the LCC/CTC as I'm against a few of their policies.

Yes, because the potential to cause harm is far greater with the driver the greater responsibility rests with them. We already have a kind of assumed liability with rear-end vehicle collisions, almost invariably the following driver is assumed to be at fault.

You are on very shakey ground with this one. Oh and no 'we' (UK don't) dont have automatic liability for rear collisions.

I don't understand the question about paying, the cyclist pays like anyone else pays. Third party insurances comes with most household policies and membership of the CTC or LCC includes 3rd party liability insurance.

See earlier comment.