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

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.

So using the handgun analogy, has there banning stopped people being shot/killed or injured by handguns?

cycling also causes injury and death lets not forget that one.

Everything has the potential to kill or injure (I have yet to injure myself with a tea cosy but people do) You have to look at the whole scene not selective bits.

Is the liability for medical expenses only? As reading I get this impression

Also the other countries in Europe have different medical and vehicular insurance system does that make a difference that the law is required?

From Oliver's link on the first page:

At present, our civil compensation system for personal injury is fault based. Thus in a collision, driver error must be proven. Because the default assumption is that the driver has not contributed to the crash, their insurance company is not automatically liable for compensation. Often what will follow is a lengthy and stressful fight for compensation by the victim.

It might seem like a remote possibility, but any of us on the forum, or anywhere else for that matter, may one day be in the situation above.

By lobbying for a change to the law we are:

1. Helping protect cyclists
   
2. Creating a shift in culture, whereby cyclists are viewed as having rights on the road
   
3. Bringing the media's attention to the matter in a positive light.
   
   

With respect to your points Lynx, the more we bang on about hand guns and tea cosies the less gets done.

I agree with your three points, but disagree with this law.

I like the idea of innocent till proven guilty.

Again, straight from Oliver's RoadPeace link:

The basic principle of "innocent until proven guilty" applies to criminal prosecution, not civil compensation. Stricter liability does not affect criminal prosecution charging standards. And this isn’t about ‘driver persecution’ - it’s the driver’s insurance company that will pay out, not the driver themselves.

Again, straight from Oliver's RoadPeace link:

I meant 'innocent till proven guilty' in the sense that fault has to be proved to be held liable.

Again, straight from Oliver's RoadPeace link:

If there is a claim against your insurance, your premiums will go up. It may not be so elsewhere, but in the UK they will go up.

As so often seems to be the case "lazy journalism" (OStm) appears to be one of the major problems.

Is there any journalists on here (Sparky)?

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.

I meant 'innocent till proven guilty' in the sense that fault has to be proved to be held liable.

Lynx - Read the highlighted point. I agree that you should be innocent until proven guilty, but it appears that the law will not change in this case.

Alot of what has been written on the forum regarding incidents is that not enough effort has gone into apportioning blame (or atleast trying to), to me (IMO) this looks like a lack of effort from the police (generalisation?). If this proposed change makes them and others stop and think and possibly even act differently then it is a positive change, and one which we should actively encourage.

Lynx - Read the highlighted point. I agree that you should be innocent until proven guilty, but it appears that the law will not change in this case.

Alot of what has been written on the forum regarding incidents is that not enough effort has gone into apportioning blame (or atleast trying to), to me (IMO) this looks like a lack of effort from the police (generalisation?). If this proposed change makes them and others stop and think and possibly even act differently then it is a positive change, and one which we should actively encourage.

I fear that your point about the police is correct, I fear that having the automatic liability for medical costs will affect insurance premiums, which gets me, but not actual change attitude to other road users. Yes then there is the comment if they have insurance.

I also fear that this will cause more people to drive off and leave the scene of accidents.

I believe we should take the rage out of road use and make people more polite to each other. But have no idea how, I try by say good morning and hello to people and trying to have a smile for everyone. But people think I am a loon.

I also fear that this will cause more people to drive off and leave the scene of accidents.

I believe we should take the rage out of road use and make people more polite to each other. But have no idea how, I try by say good morning and hello to people and trying to have a smile for everyone. But people think I am a loon.

Excellent! It really helps to not behave like a colossal bell-end on the road. You are a massive loon though.

Your point about encouraging drive-offs though - you could say that about car insurance. It's not a reason not to have it.

The point is that when you drive recklessly (and we've all been guilty of this) I bet you the thought of your insurance premium pops into your head at some point.

Same thing with Strict Liability - it raises awareness in the mind of the driver. Nothing like a bit of fiscal outlay to focus thoughts.

Nothing like a bit of fiscal outlay to focus thoughts.

+1

I'm rather of the opinion that if strict liability came in it might also encourage the kind of reckless pricks who ride at full pelt through busy pedestrian crossings or shopping areas to ride with a bit more responsibility and care. They would do this not only because they would be automatically liable for any pedestrians they hit, but also because the danger from motor traffic that causes people to think it is safer to jump red lights even when there are people crossing the road would diminish.

Blimey - is this one still going on?

4 pages and counting.

Anyone see this? More radical insight from the Guardian's Cycling Blog.

We should just ban cars completely! They murder people! Haven't you seen John Carpenter's documentry Christine?!?!

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

Oh for christ sake you're blowing this out of proportion.

why aren't you're complaining about the peds who have strict liability?

Ban everything

Twice.

Ban banning

4 pages and counting.

Anyone see this? More radical insight from the Guardian's Cycling Blog.

A national road risk perception survey!? What an excellent idea.

So using the handgun analogy, has there banning stopped people being shot/killed or injured by handguns?

Well, actually, yes - compare statistics on death by shooting in the UK and in the US. But given the current state of the British press I don't think that there's much hope of changing the law regarding driver liability. The tabloids would have an absolute shit-fit and whoever was in government would lie down and fawn at their feet like they always do.

It work perfectly well with peds here in England, the last thing a motorists want is to run a peds down and end up being prosecuted for it, especially when it could easily put their insurance premium up, points in their license, or worse, banned from driving for a certain period of time.

Ed, to be honest, when I drive a car I really don't care about it.
I generally try to avoid running down people and animals.

But I'd welcome the law allowing me to hit and run around certain estates where other drivers, "cyclists" and gangs on foot treat the road like their front room.

I generally try to avoid running down people and animals.

Strict Liability for rabbits FTW.

Rabbit stew FTW.

Just for shits and giggles lynx, go read this:
Wikipedia (Links)
Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety

I seem to remember some sort of crude Top Gear or 5th Gear nonsense where they set out to emulate this test, adding in sleep deprivation as well. What surprises me is the lack of research into the impact that hands-free kits have on driver awareness. I think a great deal of public perception is that it is the physical act of holding / balancing the phone that contributes to bad driving. I'll be interested to see if this gets followed up.

Meanwhile, in Whitehall:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/cycling/13382.aspx

Thanks for quoting from the RoadPeace link, ocdc.

I fear that your point about the police is correct, I fear that having the automatic liability for medical costs will affect insurance premiums, which gets me, but not actual change attitude to other road users.

There's a lot of evidence from the Continent that this does change attitudes to other road users.

I also fear that this will cause more people to drive off and leave the scene of accidents.

Well, the idea is to have fewer crashes in the first place. The hit-and-run rate in London is already pretty high, anyway. With the old prevention effect, there is every chance that such instances will actually decrease.