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

So how many times will you post that link, and make the point that if its so bad why don't the government ban it?

If you are not paying attention/distracted at what point does the distraction become total? Proof being I'm watching tele and messing around on the internet.

It is banned??

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.

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!

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

Very good ad.

I'm not so sure. The first two collisions involved the driver swerving out of their lanes. How many drivers will think 'I can change CDs without leaving my lane, so it's all-right for me to do it.' ? Even the last collision was easily avoidable - cars in front are not hard to spot. How many drivers will think 'the advert is clearly exaggerating, i'm not that dangerous so i don't need to change.'?

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

And? Surely if you agree that drivers arguing against drivers automatically beingn seen as at fault in a driver/ped collision makes it sound like they regularly have collisions with peds. You must believe that cyclsts arguing against cyclists automatically beingn seen as at fault in a cyclist/ped collision makes it sound like they regularly have collisions with peds. No?

I'm not so sure. The first two collisions involved the driver swerving out of their lanes. How many drivers will think 'I can change CDs without leaving my lane, so it's all-right for me to do it.' ? Even the last collision was easily avoidable - cars in front are not hard to spot. How many drivers will think 'the advert is clearly exaggerating, i'm not that dangerous so i don't need to change.'?

You're right about the exaggeration in swerving but I think they way that it's shot in a "Police, Camera, Action" style makes it seem a lot more real than the usual ads of this type.

Moth, I'll agree that it's an exaggeration, but it's a good ad that show something that could happen in an everyday situation, which is far better than seeing an oversized object that a bank robber tend to focus on.

And? Surely if you agree that drivers arguing against drivers automatically beingn seen as at fault in a driver/ped collision makes it sound like they regularly have collisions with peds. You must believe that cyclsts arguing against cyclists automatically beingn seen as at fault in a cyclist/ped collision makes it sound like they regularly have collisions with peds. No?

it's simply a case of 'bigger vehicle = more harm', a bicycles, even though it's simply a peds on a bike, go faster and can cause more harm than a 'peds-on-peds' incident, which usually involved a small discussion on how to 'watch it' and lots of apologising afterware.

it's seemed like the logic choice after all.

Britain is in a group of 4 other countries that don't have a Strict Liability law in .EU - Cyprus, Ireland, Malta and Romania are the others. Great company...

http://ipayroadtax.com/?p=259 has more verbage and this lovely video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_Bq1vxCUvo&feature=player_embedded

And? Surely if you agree that drivers arguing against drivers automatically beingn seen as at fault in a driver/ped collision makes it sound like they regularly have collisions with peds. You must believe that cyclsts arguing against cyclists automatically beingn seen as at fault in a cyclist/ped collision makes it sound like they regularly have collisions with peds. No?

i am not going to play that silly game with you.

If I hurt someone regardless of whose fault it is I know how I will feel. Terrible!

What if you crashed into Peter Andre?

Britain is in a group of 4 other countries that don't have a Strict Liability law in .EU - Cyprus, Ireland, Malta and Romania are the others. Great company...
*

*

been posted already in the first page.

There are already laws in place for this. The fact that the law can't be arsed to investigate and prosecute is more of an issue.

The proposed change would need to make sure that all road users have some form of third party liability insurance, you know, just incase the cyclist/ped were proved to be at fault.
.

it's simply a case of 'bigger vehicle = more harm', a bicycles, even though it's simply a peds on a bike, go faster and can cause more harm than a 'peds-on-peds' incident, which usually involved a small discussion on how to 'watch it' and lots of apologising afterware.

it's seemed like the logic choice after all.

It's this bigger vehicle = more harm thing that gets me. A lot of cyclists think that because usually they don't cause as much harm as a car in an incident, that they have less responsibility. Surely **everyone **on the road should be making the same effort to avoid the incident in the first place! It's all well and good saying how you only caused some cuts & bruises as opposed to breaking someone's leg, the point is, you fucking crashed into someone! Surely everyone on the road should be equally responsible for their actions?

i am not going to play that silly game with you.

If I hurt someone regardless of whose fault it is I know how I will feel. Terrible!

I agree.

Edit: With the exception of the case Balki presented.

What if you crashed into Peter Andre?

hehehe that would be a good title for a thread "I almost crashed into Peter Andre". Mmmcarthy would go wild "what if it had been Mr S, would you have used your brakes more efficiently" etc... Half the forum would hail me as a hero, the other half would hang me.

edit: With the exception of the case balki presented.

shocking!

hehehe that would be a good title for a thread "I almost crashed into Peter Andre". Mmmcarthy would go wild "what if it had been Mr S, would you have used your brakes more efficiently" etc... Half the forum would hail me as a hero, the other half would hang me.

But why would you even thing of crashing into Mr. Shick?!

=P

I reckon I'd be inclined to hold my line if I saw that witless Harry Hill step out from behind a bus too...

Balki - Battersea Park Road would be an area you might want to cycle in. Just sayin.

(Might get varous Geldof's too if you're lucky).

Surely **everyone **on the road should be making the same effort to avoid the incident in the first place!

No one is saying people should not avoid accidents. Greater power, greater potential for damage, greater responsibility. A duty of care to those further down the chain.

No one is saying people should not avoid accidents. Greater power, greater potential for damage, greater responsibility. A duty of care to those further down the chain.

That's the thing I don't like, by saying that car drivers have greater responsibility, you're saying that cyclists don't have to be as responsible as car drivers. Which to me sounds like a bit of a get out of jail free card. What's wrong with all road users (peds included) behaving as responsibly as each other?

he's not saying that people don't have to be responsible, he is saying that they have greater responsibility. A train driver has greater responsibility than a car driver, a plane pilot has greater responsibility than a train driver, etc...

A space rocket astronaut pilot has more responsibility than a plane pilot...

It's fundamental rule to most other industry and indeed life, more power more responsibility.

A space rocket astronaut pilot has more responsibility than a plane pilot...

What about Laika?

What about Laika?

Diminished responsibility on account of being merely a passenger

he's not saying that people don't have to be responsible, he is saying that they have greater responsibility. A train driver has greater responsibility than a car driver, a plane pilot has greater responsibility than a train driver, etc...

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?