Drivers ‘should be liable for cyclist accidents’

But then most car drivers aren't enthusiasts either. A car is just a tool to them to which thy never give a second thought.

which is the problem. A bloke on a bike is unlikely to hurt anyone but themselves. A car is a lethal weapon

Ah, that's ok then. Because a car is a tonne plus of kinetic weapon cyclists can ride like utter tools (and the bulk of them do) with impunity because they aren't such a deadly risk to others.

Whoever causes a collision/incident/crash is at fault and potentially liable to legal action, either criminal or civil regardless of whether their vehicle has an engine or a roof . That's how it is now, and how it should be. Arguing that I should automatically be at fault because I'm in he car that day because I needed to ferry a weeks worth of uniform and kit to work is utterly preposterous. We're lawfully defined by our actions, not by which seat our arses just happen to be it at any one moment in time

Chopper1192":k59x39av said:

Ah, that's ok then. Because a car is a tonne plus of kinetic weapon cyclists can ride like utter tools (and the bulk of them do) with impunity because they aren't such a deadly risk to others.

Whoever causes a collision/incident/crash is at fault and potentially liable to legal action, either criminal or civil regardless of whether their vehicle has an engine or a roof . That's how it is now, and how it should be. Arguing that I should automatically be at fault because I'm in he car that day because I needed to ferry a weeks worth of uniform and kit to work is utterly preposterous. We're lawfully defined by our actions, not by which seat our arses just happen to be it at any one moment in time

Click to expand...

The problem is, disparity in risk.

We can all sit there from various standpoints, and say - "them" you know "them"? Utter cnuts on the road.

I'd agree, that cyclists probably have proportionally as many idiots taking part as any other road user - that's not the point, it's the disparity in risk.

If a car driver and another car driver have a coming together, they can argue the toss about liability, but that won't really matter, what will matter, is the circumstances of the accident, and what the insurers view as being most cost-effective in terms of resolving the matter.

So a bit of metal gets bent back in to shape, or replaced, and some paint gets sprayed. Big deal.

The situation isn't the same with a cyclist on the road - the slightest fender bender in a car, that a driver may not worry about at all costs, could be the different between uninjured and serious injury / death for a cyclist.

At first, when I heard about the idea that cars are given the presumption of liability in a collision betwixt vehicle and cyclist, I thought it abhorrent. But then I considered what's a really good way of creating some incentive that should hopefully highlight the disparity in risk between a cyclist and somebody driving around in a metal box? Presumption of liability may be a blunt, somewhat offensive principle - but it might be the only way to redress the slide in care and consideration given to cyclists from vehicle drivers.

Liked Cliff better......

I am against any presumption of fault. Yet another move away from the right to be presumed innocent.

The way forward is better education and pro active policing, not giving irresponsible cyclists another reason to feel justified.

I'm a few weeks into my new job posting and the associated commute by bicycle, of the 6 mile route only 3 miles are on roads (thank The Lord!) with the other 3 on segregated cycle paths. On the 3 miles of road I ride at a steady 15-20mph in the 'secondary' position at almost all times, always ensuring I am dressed and illuminated appropriately. Despite all of this it is almost a daily event where on the 3 mile stretch of road one driver or another either overtakes far too close and fast, tailgates me and offers verbal abuse for not moving into the gutter, or fails to give way and pulls out of junction in front of me. A couple of months ago I was generally of the opinion that the 'cyclecam' types on YouTube are often just looking for trouble and sometimes encourage it, and maybe this was largely a problem for cyclists that is isolated to city centres and busy conurbations, however the inattention, incompetence and downright illegal driving I now witness on a daily basis on my local roads has got me seriously concerned for my own safety. I intend to get myself a GoPro in a couple of weeks and put my commuting experiences online for all to see, if it just encourages one driver to give cyclists a bit more respect then I will be happy. In the larger scheme of things I don't have an answer though, drivers have maybe become too isolated, comfy, and protected from the outside world in their modern noise insulated and air conditioned vehicles that cyclists and any other 'slower' road user is now just a target to get in front of as quickly as possible without any awareness or concern for the safety of that vulnerable cyclist

highlandsflyer":3i5vfygb said:

I am against any presumption of fault. Yet another move away from the right to be presumed innocent.

The way forward is better education and pro active policing, not giving irresponsible cyclists another reason to feel justified.

Click to expand...

I used to feel much the same.

Then I woke up, listened and read a lot of "normal" people and their views about bikes on the road, things like the validity of it, and took in the general attitude, plus the rampant ignorance by many towards cyclists - often most espoused by the "You don't pay car tax!" crowd.

So many show ignorance of cyclists having rights, cyclists being at risk, and have such a bombastic approach to cyclists. I remain unconvinced education is going to get through to them - they're not looking to broaden their mind, they're looking for something that bolsters their ignorance, preconceptions and bias.

Here's hoping you are not the unfortunate motorist who is framed as a criminal when there are no cameras or witnesses to help clarify what occurred.

That might really 'wake' you up.

Neil":3jb1eupf said:

highlandsflyer":3jb1eupf said:

I am against any presumption of fault. Yet another move away from the right to be presumed innocent.

The way forward is better education and pro active policing, not giving irresponsible cyclists another reason to feel justified.

Click to expand...

I used to feel much the same.

Then I woke up, listened and read a lot of "normal" people and their views about bikes on the road, things like the validity of it, and took in the general attitude, plus the rampant ignorance by many towards cyclists - often most espoused by the "You don't pay car tax!" crowd.

So many show ignorance of cyclists having rights, cyclists being at risk, and have such a bombastic approach to cyclists. I remain unconvinced education is going to get through to them - they're not looking to broaden their mind, they're looking for something that bolsters their ignorance, preconceptions and bias.

Click to expand...

I absolutely agree. I couldn't put it as well, so thank you