Drivers ‘should be liable for cyclist accidents’

[legrandefromage]

Drivers are cocooned in 2 tonnes of safety cage, cyclists are not.

Lets ban cycling under 'health and safety' instead.

 

[Neil]

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.

There's a significant imbalance in terms of general opinion of cyclists on the road. Your counter is that education is the way - I don't believe the people with entrenched views are viable subjects of such education.

If this happens, would I be completely comfortable with it? No. When I first heard about it I hated the notion. But I honestly don't believe anything else is going to get through to people so secure in their metal box, that cyclists aren't just like other vehicles that can be treated with contempt, but are living, breathing, bags of fluid, muscle and bone, that are very much more vulnerable to the whims of their ignorant attitudes, posturing, and "care" whilst driving.

As to the suggestion I might fall victim to a fraudulent claim - well there's always that - but then I do tend to try and put myself in a cyclists shoes when driving in their vicinity - and perhaps it will mean many more drivers will go with dashboard cameras, in much the same way many cyclists do.

What I don't think is the answer, is segregation, more white lines - it's never going to be sufficiently ubiquitous, and in the meantime, engenders the problematic attitudes in drivers. Nor do I think that they're a willing and impressionable audience for "education".

Much as I'm not fully comfortable with the notion, I'm balancing lives and injury with a default position or assumption of liability / negligence. Perhaps a blunt tool - but maybe would redress the balance somewhat.

 

[Neil]

Righto, I've got an alternative.

It's just come to me in a vision - if anybody asks, I came up with the idea first.

Cyclists all have to carry some sort of proximity sensor. Drivers all have to wear some device attaching electodes to parts of their anatomy - I'm sure somebody with a medical bent can find somewhere suitable.

Vehicles won't operate unless the driver is wearing the "apparatus" themselves.

When a cyclist gets too close, they get an electric shock. The intensity of the shock, varies with the proximity to, and danger to the cyclist.

Has the added advantage that a sufficiently motivated cyclist could pursue a driver he or she feels has wronged them.

There.

Done.

I'm a genius.

I'll take a bow.

Does the Nobel prize payout in cash?

 

[The History Man]

Is this another of your jokes?

 

[Neil]

Is this another of your jokes?

I'm deadly serious.

Really.

BOOM!

Can I get a "Hell Yeah!"?

 

[highlandsflyer]

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.

There's a significant imbalance in terms of general opinion of cyclists on the road. Your counter is that education is the way - I don't believe the people with entrenched views are viable subjects of such education.

If this happens, would I be completely comfortable with it? No. When I first heard about it I hated the notion. But I honestly don't believe anything else is going to get through to people so secure in their metal box, that cyclists aren't just like other vehicles that can be treated with contempt, but are living, breathing, bags of fluid, muscle and bone, that are very much more vulnerable to the whims of their ignorant attitudes, posturing, and "care" whilst driving.

As to the suggestion I might fall victim to a fraudulent claim - well there's always that - but then I do tend to try and put myself in a cyclists shoes when driving in their vicinity - and perhaps it will mean many more drivers will go with dashboard cameras, in much the same way many cyclists do.

What I don't think is the answer, is segregation, more white lines - it's never going to be sufficiently ubiquitous, and in the meantime, engenders the problematic attitudes in drivers. Nor do I think that they're a willing and impressionable audience for "education".

Much as I'm not fully comfortable with the notion, I'm balancing lives and injury with a default position or assumption of liability / negligence. Perhaps a blunt tool - but maybe would redress the balance somewhat.

I don't think people with entrenched views are going to take a blind bit of notice to the possibility of being presumed at fault if they hit a cyclist.

Too late for the cyclist in many cases.

I don't have the answers, but I know this kind of pre judging legislation is more divisive than anything else.

What next, a similar law apportioning blame to lorry drivers for crashes involving cars, 4x4s for crashes involving cars, vans for crashes involving cars or 4x4s, six foot tall people for walking into five foot tall people on the pavement?

Do I keep away from the pub because, being over six feet, I attract the attention of the drunk hard midget who is out to make a point, lest I be blamed?

Where exactly does it end when you remove common sense and the right to the presumption of innocence?

 

[Neil]

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.

There's a significant imbalance in terms of general opinion of cyclists on the road. Your counter is that education is the way - I don't believe the people with entrenched views are viable subjects of such education.

If this happens, would I be completely comfortable with it? No. When I first heard about it I hated the notion. But I honestly don't believe anything else is going to get through to people so secure in their metal box, that cyclists aren't just like other vehicles that can be treated with contempt, but are living, breathing, bags of fluid, muscle and bone, that are very much more vulnerable to the whims of their ignorant attitudes, posturing, and "care" whilst driving.

As to the suggestion I might fall victim to a fraudulent claim - well there's always that - but then I do tend to try and put myself in a cyclists shoes when driving in their vicinity - and perhaps it will mean many more drivers will go with dashboard cameras, in much the same way many cyclists do.

What I don't think is the answer, is segregation, more white lines - it's never going to be sufficiently ubiquitous, and in the meantime, engenders the problematic attitudes in drivers. Nor do I think that they're a willing and impressionable audience for "education".

Much as I'm not fully comfortable with the notion, I'm balancing lives and injury with a default position or assumption of liability / negligence. Perhaps a blunt tool - but maybe would redress the balance somewhat.

I don't think people with entrenched views are going to take a blind bit of notice to the possibility of being presumed at fault if they hit a cyclist.

Oh, I do. It may take a while, but look at the premise behind widespread speed enforcement.

Too late for the cyclist in many cases.

Personally I'm not about to give up on cycling just yet.

I don't have the answers, but I know this kind of pre judging legislation is more divisive than anything else.

The exact same principle has been used pretty successfully in other types of road law enforcement.

What next, a similar law apportioning blame to lorry drivers for crashes involving cars, 4x4s for crashes involving cars, vans for crashes involving cars or 4x4s, six foot tall people for walking into five foot tall people on the pavement?

No - because there's nothing like the same imbalance, or risk.

Do I keep away from the pub because, being over six feet, I attract the attention of the drunk hard midget who is out to make a point, lest I be blamed?

Personally, I prefer to believe that "drunk hard midget" is just confused over his feelings for you.

Where exactly does it end when you remove common sense and the right to the presumption of innocence?

I think GATSOs pretty much started it - although in a metaphorical game of "Top Trumps" I'm willing to be trumped with something earlier.

 

[Pyro Tim]

When a car gets hit, it's obvious where they got hit, and who was at fault. A cyclist isn't so compliant, especially a dead one. They can be cut and bruised all over, or not show any marks at all. That's why I think the argument about large vehicles hitting smaller ones isn't necessary.

 

[highlandsflyer]

I see absolutely no reason for moving away from considering matters on a case by case basis.

Speed cameras gather evidence. Everyone has the opportunity to dispute the evidence prior to conviction.

Who said I had given up on cycling? I merely pointed out that the type of drivers who don't give a toss about cyclists now will be the type who continue to drive the way they do regardless of any change in the laws.

Perhaps cycle awareness courses would have had an effect on such a driver, but a potential bypass of their right to be considered at equal fault won't make one iota of difference.

People with entrenched views do not do nuance. The only point where they would even take note of the change in law would be once they had hit a cyclist, and that would certainly be too late.

Nor do I write off separation as an approach.

It may not be ideal where there are large numbers of junctions, but getting cyclists off fast flowing roads onto dedicated lanes would be a start.

 

[Neil]

I see absolutely no reason for moving away from considering matters on a case by case basis.

Speed cameras gather evidence. Everyone has the opportunity to dispute the evidence prior to conviction.

Yes - just like the suggested changes - with speed cameras, the default assumption, is that the RK is the one what dunnit.

And if that's NOT the case, it's down to the RK to say who it was. When that person is nominated, the default assumption will be that they done it. Say, for an example, a situation in a family, where the dad is the registered keeper, mum is also insured and allowed to drive, as are two "grown-up" kids. If the dad genuinely doesn't know who's driving, and nobody else is admitting it, it would either naturally assumed to be him, or he'd have to make his case as to why it's reasonable that he cannot nominate the driver.

Who said I had given up on cycling?

That was in response to:-

Too late for the cyclist in many cases.

I merely pointed out that the type of drivers who don't give a toss about cyclists now will be the type who continue to drive the way they do regardless of any change in the laws.

But as I've said - given the scenario with speed cameras as an example, over time, it makes people aware. It doesn't necessarily mean it makes them 100% compliant - but it ensures it's on the RADAR (in a way, quite literally).

Perhaps cycle awareness courses would have had an effect on such a driver, but a potential bypass of their right to be considered at equal fault won't make one iota of difference.

I disagree. Perhaps at first it will make precious little difference - but I think over time, recent history shows something different - attitudes can be changed somewhat - as, largely, they have regarding things like drink driving. Yes, there's still a hardcore that always will, but suddenly, it can be the norm to find it unacceptable, rather than an old fashioned "'ees alright, just wind the window down a bit and take it steady".

People with entrenched views do not do nuance. The only point where they would even take note of the change in law would be once they had hit a cyclist, and that would certainly be too late.

No - you're absolutely right - people with entrenched views do not do nuance - it took a while for things like the drink-driving campaigns and anti-speed stuff to find purchase. But it does, over time. These people can't be finessed, they need beating over the head with a clue-by-four.

Nor do I write off separation as an approach.

It may not be ideal where there are large numbers of junctions, but getting cyclists off fast flowing roads onto dedicated lanes would be a start.

It just gives those "You've got no right to be here, you've not paid car tax..." lot another reason to support their stance. It sends the message that they don't have to consider cycles as traffic, and that they shouldn't really be on the road at all.