-
1/
I know we don't have automatic liability for rear collisions, notice the words "almost invariably"?
2/
The plural of anecdote is not data. Cyclists are subject to the same laws and liabilities as anyone else, and since cyclists are usually wealthier http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2500754.ece it should not be a problem reclaiming uninsured losses from them.
In Europe, these laws work. They make the roads safer. They save drivers money through reduced premiums. You reach what is called "The Virtuous Cycle" which involves a higher rate of cycling but a drop in the accident rate. The law change would encourage cycling and the more cyclists there are the safer the roads become.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080903112034.htm
ok
So its just these laws is it? Not the different cultures of transport.
-
ok
So its just these laws is it? Not the different cultures of transport.
It's not just these laws, no.
Germany for instance has a similar car ownership level as the UK, yet walking and cycling rates are much higher and cycling casualty rates are half what they are here. This imbalance means the UK's dismal record in road safety, especially among cyclists and children, is actually much worse than it seems since cycling rates are so low here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8038661.stm
We're 17th out of 24 European countries in the rankings for child pedestrian deaths.
A 2003 study of cycling habits in Bonn, Germany, showed that the more cyclists out there on the road, made all of them less likely to be injured or killed. The lower the risk, the more likely commuters are to chose two wheels over four, further lowering the risk and encouraging even more riders to hit the roads … und so weiter, und so weiter.
-
Some really interesting points about strict liability from several people on here, particularly Ed, Soper and Spindrift, marred by a tedious debate about the impact of mobile phones.
None of us want a litigious society where we all get to sue the shit out of drivers. However unfortunate it may be, I feel that the threat of financial implication hanging over the head of drivers is one way to make London a safer place to ride - that's what it's about innit?
Two other things:
I hate to admit it, but I didn't actually mind that Daily Mail article. He's a hateful Tory prig and I disagree with everything he stands for BUT he's got a point about the manners of some riders.
If Strict Liability is being misrepresented by the press then we need to do something about it. Fight fire with fire. Write a strongly worded letter to the Guardian etc etc.
And two: Lynx, your posts are mostly unintelligible to me, but I do kind of admire your obstinate advocacy of the opposite of sense.
-
It's not just these laws, no.
Germany for instance has a similar car ownership level as the UK, yet walking and cycling rates are much higher and cycling casualty rates are half what they are here. This imbalance means the UK's dismal record in road safety, especially among cyclists and children, is actually much worse than it seems since cycling rates are so low here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8038661.stm
We're 17th out of 24 European countries in the rankings for child pedestrian deaths.
A 2003 study of cycling habits in Bonn, Germany, showed that the more cyclists out there on the road, made all of them less likely to be injured or killed. The lower the risk, the more likely commuters are to chose two wheels over four, further lowering the risk and encouraging even more riders to hit the roads … und so weiter, und so weiter.
Ever cycled or lived in these countries?
-
Where are we off too now on the syntactic merry-go-round? I've lived in France and cycled in Berlin and I felt safer in both. I'm suspicious of empirical data confirming opinions, but those BBC casualty stats are pretty believable.
Trying to find the reason why you felt safer, IMO partly it's because people in other european countries ride scooter and cycles when growing up and partly a different style of driving tests.
-
Ever cycled or lived in these countries?
I was born in Germany, cycled around Berlin for a few days last year. As I mentioned I cycled in Amsterdam, and through France and Spain, Italy, Greece and the Czech Republic and Poland.
In Berlin the courtesy shown by drivers was astonishing, a right-turning vehicle will overtake you, the cyclist as you are in your lane, then wait for you to pass before turning! Very unlike east London, I promise you!
But the principle holds true in this country too- increased cycling rates means fewer accidents:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/may/07/cycling-safety-york-calderdale
Studies in many countries have shown consistently that the number of motorists colliding with walkers or cyclists doesn't increase equally with the number of people walking or bicycling.
For example, a community that doubles its cycling numbers can expect a one-third drop in the per-cyclist frequency of a crash with a motor vehicle.
-
I felt like there was more respect from drivers, but I don't know enough yet to say conclusively whether that was ingrained cycling culture or the result of better driving instruction.
A hell of a lot of kids ride bikes growing up in this country. Some of those kids turn into asshole drivers, some into inconsiderate riders - that's life.
In Berlin the courtesy shown by drivers was astonishing, a right-turning vehicle will overtake you, the cyclist as you are in your lane, then wait for you to pass before turning! Very unlike east London, I promise you!
Yep ditto this for Lyon. How does this get so ingrained?
Can I suggest introducing Strict Liability until the point that we can prove we have a culture of driving instruction / vehicle responsibility that stops people having to post in Rider Down?
-
I was born in Germany, cycled around Berlin for a few days last year. As I mentioned I cycled in Amsterdam, and through France and Spain, Italy, Greece and the Czech Republic and Poland.
In Berlin the courtesy shown by drivers was astonishing, a right-turning vehicle will overtake you, the cyclist as you are in your lane, then wait for you to pass before turning! Very unlike east London, I promise you!
But the principle holds true in this country too- increased cycling rates means fewer accidents:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/may/07/cycling-safety-york-calderdale
Studies in many countries have shown consistently that the number of motorists colliding with walkers or cyclists doesn't increase equally with the number of people walking or bicycling.
For example, a community that doubles its cycling numbers can expect a one-third drop in the per-cyclist frequency of a crash with a motor vehicle.
But the actual number of incidents increases. Is that correct? Therefore to reduce overall numbers if cycling is completely removed there will be no cycling deaths? THIS IS NOT MY POINT OF VIEW This is one of the current discussion in European parliament about motorcyling. So beware of using stats about injury.
The turning thing is courtesy and paying attention of what is going on around you.
I felt like there was more respect from drivers, but I don't know enough yet to say conclusively whether that was ingrained cycling culture or the result of better driving instruction.
A hell of a lot of kids ride bikes growing up in this country. Some of those kids turn into asshole drivers, some into inconsiderate riders - that's life.
Yep ditto this for Lyon. How does this get so ingrained?
Can I suggest introducing Strict Liability until the point that we can prove we have a culture of driving instruction / vehicle responsibility that stops people having to post in Rider Down?
Then the answer to this could be as mentioned earlier by others and I'll repeat, compulsory basic training and compulsory third party insurance for cyclists and peds. Is this unreasonable to expect as all other road users are expected to pass a minimum competency to use the roads.
-
compulsory third party insurance for cyclists and peds
Peds? That means you basically need to be insured to walk the streets though. We can't have that. If Strict Liability bites downwards, wouldn't you be willing to assume responsibility for the safety of pedestrians in order to receive such protection in kind from drivers?
-
Therefore to reduce overall numbers if cycling is completely removed there will be no cycling deaths? THIS IS NOT MY POINT OF VIEW This is one of the current discussion in European parliament about motorcyling. So beware of using stats about injury.
I can't make sense out of the first sentence, nobody is suggesting banning cycling, and even if they had I'm not sure how that would discredit the stats that show more cyclists = safer roads.
-
Peds? That means you basically need to be insured to walk the streets though. We can't have that. If Strict Liability bites downwards, wouldn't you be willing to assume responsibility for the safety of pedestrians in order to receive such protection in kind from drivers?
Cyclist not driver.
Oh and the mobile comments were pointing out that use of mobiles behind the wheel is allowed just not holding them. The surveys make little difference between the two. Yet still allowed to have a phone conversation while driving.
-
I can't make sense out of the first sentence, nobody is suggesting banning cycling, and even if they had I'm not sure how that would discredit the stats that show more cyclists = safer roads.
Doubles in cycling numbers can expect a one-third drop in the per-cyclist frequency of a crash with a motor vehicle therefore the total number increases.
-
Cyclist not driver.
Arg no, I meant what I said. Driver not cyclist.
What I meant was: cyclists are hesitant about assuming liability because it then means that they themselves become liable if they hit a pedestrian.
Yet if you look at the probabilities involved between:
a: hitting a litigious pedestrian
b: being hit by a carI know which one I'd take.
-
Arg no, I meant what I said. Driver not cyclist.
What I meant was: cyclists are hesitant about assuming liability because it then means that they themselves become liable if they hit a pedestrian.
Yet if you look at the probabilities involved between:
a: hitting a litigious pedestrian
b: being hit by a carI know which one I'd take.
Yep I'm hesitant too.
-
How do more injuries equate to safer roads?
By making the chances of having an accident smaller. It's safer because you are less likely to have an accident.
London, ten years ago had half the cycling rate and double the casualty rate. More people cycle now so the number of accidents has risen, but the accident rate has declined.
-
By making the chances of having an accident smaller. It's safer because you are less likely to have an accident.
London, ten years ago had half the cycling rate and double the casualty rate. More people cycle now so the number of accidents has risen, but the accident rate has declined.
Repeating the facts in different ways (same way as earlier) does not change the facts does it.
Am off out now.
-
How do more injuries equate to safer roads?
Again - This is the argument that will be used as it is the one currently being used against motorcyclists.
Cycling is not just about risk, it has benefit too, roughly proportional to the amount of cycling that goes on. So, if doubling the cycling decreases the per cycling risk by 1/3, then society gets twice the benefit for only 4/3 of the total risk.
-
How do more injuries equate to safer roads?
Again - This is the argument that will be used as it is the one currently being used against motorcyclists.
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?
-
I agree, I think you'll find it wasn't I who brought trains and planes into the argument.
I can't follow your train of thought. You must be on a different plane of consciousness.
-
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.*
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?
lynx
spindrift
ocdc
moth
Seeds
Oliver Schick-
Post a reply
About
Hypothetical law change? Lorry on bike: lorry's fault. Bike on ped: bike's fault
Posted by
1/
I know we don't have automatic liability for rear collisions, notice the words "almost invariably"?
2/
The plural of anecdote is not data. Cyclists are subject to the same laws and liabilities as anyone else, and since cyclists are usually wealthier http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2500754.ece it should not be a problem reclaiming uninsured losses from them.
In Europe, these laws work. They make the roads safer. They save drivers money through reduced premiums. You reach what is called "The Virtuous Cycle" which involves a higher rate of cycling but a drop in the accident rate. The law change would encourage cycling and the more cyclists there are the safer the roads become.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080903112034.htm