compositepro – Member

Are you stating here the legislation means that cyclists will be liable for running into pedestrians

Yes

molgrips – Member

I am very much in favour of changing behaviour, I am just not convinced that this is a good way of doing it, or that it will even work.

The fact that the majority of countries in Europe have it is not evidence that it changes attitudes, but if everyone apart from Romania, Ireland, Malta, Cyprus and us has it, surely there’s something to it.

Easier to type and say.

No I mean when your nearby and they are talking about how they nearly got taken down by a stupid Ped or how the ped was nearly handlebar fodder ,seems theres a different grouping of animals different rules if a pedestrian gets in your way eh,

I’m all for it if it stops cyclists mowing down pedestrians then..ill take the risk of being sued in case i ever hit anyone driving

What this thread ably reveals is that the vast majority of people against presumed liability have no idea what it actually means 😀

I can’t think, off the top of my head, of another situation in Civil law where strict liability applies in Scotland.

My understanding is that there are a number of existing applications of strict liability in Scotland, including workplace regulations, consumer protection and control of animals.

why will motorist take more care? it won’t really hurt them financially their insurers will pay.

I assume that your premiums are going to rise if you are found to be liable for an accident. Hitting people in the wallet is an effective nudge factor, so I think that strict liability could genuinely make careless motorists (and cyclists) think twice about how they behave around more vulnerable road users.

It’s going to be an uphill struggle on this one, because Keith Brown (Minister of Transport) obviously has no interest in taking real action that is seen as a threat by the majority group of non-cycling voters (see the execrable “Nice Way Code” as an example of spending money on something that makes it look like you’re doing something without actually achieving anything useful).
Originally KB rejected strict liability as unnecessary because cycling casualties were “falling anyway”. Unfortunately a few weeks later the latest accident figures showed a significant rise in cycling casualties, so now he’s rejecting it because

[strict liability] would remove the incentive for road users to act responsibly, which could have an undesirable effect on road safety and could add the compensation culture which has dogged the insurance industry in recent years.

So obviously KB thinks cyclists are just going to start hurling themselves into the path of passing 4x4s in the hope of picking up some compensation if strict liability is introduced.

Some more info about the campaign here:
http://www.cycling-accident-compensation.co.uk/strict-liability.aspx
(and yes, I am aware that a bunch of lawyers will have a vested interest in promoting a strict liability campaign. Doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea, though)

GrahamS – Member

What this thread ably reveals is that the vast majority of people against presumed liability have no idea what it actually means

Whilst I’m all for it, I do accept that there are some good counter arguments http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki/dutch-cycle-because-strict-liability-made-everybody-drive-safely-and-play-nice

But if the Daily Mail is against it, then that’s a clincher for me 🙂

Whilst I’m all for it, I do accept that there are some good counter arguments

I’m sure there are plenty but they tend to get drowned out by people wittering on about how they should be innocent until proven guilty and they don’t want to end up in jail because a reckless cyclist crashed into them. 🙄

yup

If an accident happens it should be innocent until proven guilty.

You, sir, are legally illiterate. If you don’t understand the difference between civil and criminal law, step away from this thread. M’kay?

There’s a great explanation of strict liability here, and why cycle campaigners are better off focusing on other things.

http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2012/01/campaign-for-sustainable-safety-not.html

Personally I’ve got nothing against strict liability as a concept, but as this thread makes clear, it’s a very hard sell.

You, sir, are legally illiterate

Keep reading Mr Agreeable. He goes on to say;

It should be up to the facts to prove liability than merely assume it otherwise people go to prison for things they didn’t do. We’re not a backwards country so why act like one.

🙄

All those backward countries in the rest of Europe eh, what are they like. 😀

kcr – “My understanding is that there are a number of existing applications of strict liability in Scotland, including workplace regulations, consumer protection and control of animals.”

Workplace regulations are generally not civil law. You are right there are specific bits of consumer and animal law which apply strict liability. However, as with the cases where it applies in criminal law they seem to be to redress an imbalance in the likelihood of one party being able to prove fault on the part of the other not because one comes off worse as a result of the failure.

“I assume that your premiums are going to rise if you are found to be liable for an accident. Hitting people in the wallet is an effective nudge factor, so I think that strict liability could genuinely make careless motorists (and cyclists) think twice about how they behave around more vulnerable road users.”

Mmm… so we think people wilfully hit vulnerable road users (i) certain there will be no payout (ii) expecting no damage to their vehicle (iii) naively believing that any damage will be paid by the quite probably uninsured vulnerable party (iv) expecting that even if a “no fault” accident it won’t impact premiums? OR actually people don’t believe they will collide and give absolutely no thought whatsoever to vulnerable road users. I’ve said it before but I will say it again – to reduce accidents you need to take action against the mistakes which don’t result in an accident.

“The fact that the majority of countries in Europe have it is not evidence that it changes attitudes, but if everyone apart from Romania, Ireland, Malta, Cyprus and us has it, surely there’s something to it.”

Is there good evidence that accident rates are much higher in those countries without it? otherwise if it doesn’t work for safety its stated objective is pointless?

“What this thread ably reveals is that the vast majority of people against presumed liability have no idea what it actually means “

And that many of those who think it is the solution haven’t really thought about what the “problem” it solves is. I’m keener not to get squashed than to have an easier fight for a new bike and lycra.

So, since this seems to be being promoted by a legal firm in Scotland who specialise in bike related matters:

– is there evidence that existing laws consistently fail to award cyclists fair compensation for their civil liabilities? As noted above most cases should be winnable.
– is there a reason why this legal firm can’t use the “normal” route for a lawyer wanting to make a point and pursue cases in the courts to create legal president? Or am I being too cynical and thinking that case law would help cyclists but not promote the lawyers in the cycling press?

And that many of those who think it is the solution haven’t really thought about what the “problem” it solves is. I’m keener not to get squashed than to have an easier fight for a new bike and lycra.

Oh so am I. But I’m also aware that cyclists face huge legal injustices when they are caught in road collisions
e.g. where Dangerous Driving is automatically reduced to Careless, and Careless is just dismissed out right.

Anything that helps that situation is good. If those cyclists can at least make successful civil claims then that is a step forward.

Also I think its implementation would send a useful message that cyclists are legally entitled to use the road and have legal protection whilst doing so.

Something that some drivers seem to have forgotten.

So I was thinking – if this applies to pedestrians as well, it’s going to be even harder to prove you weren’t at fault if a pedestrian walks out infront of your car.

I honestly do not think it is socially acceptable at the moment

check out cyclehate on twitter to see how much of an underclass cyclists are (skewed twitter demographics may play a part)

I’m all for it if it stops cyclists mowing down pedestrians then..

where are these killer cyclists mowing down pedestrians in their hundreds? Dangerous aggressive cycling, pavement based or otherwise is a pita and it pisses me off too, but afaik ksi numbers for people hit by cyclists are <10 p.a. Each of which is tragic and we should be working to get it to zero however compare it to the thousands of ksi caused by motor vehicles and it starts to look a bit silly worrying about all these wreckless killer bikers.

Oh and plenty of people seem keen to push helmet compulsion (on cyclists only naturally) despite little evidence to support they help short or long term but strict liability that’s been adopted by many countries and seems to be working but will also affect drivers seems to be roundly dismissed. Strange.

so we think people wilfully hit vulnerable road users

I don’t believe this is the case. I think there is a significant minority of motorists who give little or no thought to whether their behaviour puts vulnerable road users at risk. I had a chat with a driver this week who pulled out in front of me onto the roundabout I was already crossing, watching me all the way, and eventually stopping with his rear wheels beyond the give way line, as I braked and swerved to avoid him. His response was “I was just letting you out”
I think he just didn’t care enough about the potential consequences to make a safe judgement about his behaviour. I think the prospect of civil liability might make someone like that think twice.

to reduce accidents you need to take action against the mistakes which don’t result in an accident

I agree with that. Doesn’t stop us from introducing strict liability as well, though.

Or am I being too cynical and thinking that case law would help cyclists but not promote the lawyers in the cycling press?

Of course the lawyers behind Roadshare have a financial interest in the campaign, but what do you expect? they’re lawyers! No offence to current and former cycling lawyers, of course…

check out cyclehate on twitter to see how much of an underclass cyclists are

What proportion of Twitter users post under that tag?

The fact that this debate went at all, let alone is still raging, on a cycling forum of all places, tells me how ingrained pro-driver/anti cyclist sentiment is in the UK.

THIS LEGISLATION WORKS FINE THROUGHOUT MUCH OF EUROPE.

poly

…but since the burden of proof is only to Balance of Probabilities level, its not that hard to prove anyway

You aren’t actually a lawyer, correct?

The problem is witnesses – often there are 2 only, 1 for each have side – makes proof pretty difficult.

Signed. Would be nice to have justice for hundreds of families who lose loved ones to the actions of careless Shit driving. Put pressure on drivers to take more care by whatever means.

> check out cyclehate on twitter to see how much of an underclass cyclists are
What proportion of Twitter users post under that tag?

Doesn’t work like that. The CycleHatred guy is a cyclist who regularly scours twitter for examples of aggression and hatred towards cyclists which he then retweets. The result is a disturbing insight into how some drivers view cyclists.

Tweets by CycleHatred

The result is a disturbing insight into how some drivers view cyclists.

aye, also see the comments on any cycle stories on….oh pretty much any news website, and of course some of the comments on this website from “fellow cyclists” who don’t ride on the road. I tried to make it clear I wasn’t referring to all or even a majority of drivers, but there’s a whole bunch who seem to irrationally hate cyclists – SL isn’t going to remedy that and yeah it probably won’t improve their opinion of us but if they are worried about getting hit in the pocket for “only clipping a cyclist” they may actually make more of an effort not to.

SL is just one tiny part of a whole raft of measures that we could really do with (IMO)

SL is just one tiny part of a whole raft of measures that we could really do with

Completely agree!

Wow, I’m amazed that on a cycling forum there’s so many against strict liability. For me it’s about changing behaviour to make it safer for all vulnerable road users, cyclists and pedestrians.

To be fair it’s probably not a cycling forum, but a forum for motorists who cycle a bit.
Obviously there’s plenty of exceptions on here, but I imagine if you were to poll the user base the proportion who drive more than they cycle vastly outnumbers the cycle more than drive contingent.

To be fair it’s probably not a cycling forum, but a forum for motorists who cycle a bit.

Yes, but even on the CTC forum you get a similar spectrum. Has anyone had a look to see what’s being said on LFGSS, for example?

The fact that this debate went at all, let alone is still raging, on a cycling forum of all places, tells me how ingrained pro-driver/anti cyclist sentiment is in the UK.

Do not talk such utter shite.

I’m not anti-cyclist. I am very much pro cycling. However, I am also pro fairness and pro intelligent legislation. It is NOT clear that this legislation is going to a) be fair and b) help drivers’ attitudes towards cyclists.

I am sceptical that it will change anyone’s behaviour to be honest. And as for being used in most other countries – great, good for them. Those countries are not ours, many of them have a different set of ingrained ideas. Yes, it’s shit that there is such animosity between cyclists and motorists, but I struggle to see how this will do anything to change that.

Some of the posters in favour of this idea seem to like it because it helps them, not because it’s actually fair or a sound idea, and I think that some of them think this subconsciously. I bet if there was proposed legislation to mandate cyclists be served in pubs before motorists some of you would find earnest arguments to justify it.

To be fair it’s probably not a cycling forum, but a forum for motorists who cycle a bit.

🙄 do you even read the forum?

aye, also see the comments on any cycle stories on….oh pretty much any news website

Really, don’t. Ever. On this issue or any other. Those places are populated with rabid morons who are not representative of wider society.

Actually – here’s an idea. Any students want to do a dissertation on attitudes to cyclists? It’d be quite useful to stand on a high street and survey people about their attitudes to cyclists. I bet you’d find most people would not actually hate them or wish them ill, but would rather they all stuck to the rules.

To be fair it’s probably not a cycling forum, but a forum for motorists who cycle a bit.

do you even read the forum?to be fair molgrips he might be oevr stating it a bit but there do seem to be a fair amount of people who are part time cyclists (offroad and trail centre only) but full time drivers and I know a few STWers who are of the same opinion.

if there was proposed legislation to mandate cyclists be served in pubs before motorists

I’m teh most awesumz in the pub so I don’t need legislation to get served first, being 6’2″ and devilishly handsome helps too 🙂

Those places are populated with rabid morons who are not representative of wider society.

good point but I do hear “bloody cyclists” muttered a lot in real life(tm) places too.

It is NOT clear that this legislation is going to a) be fair and b) help drivers’ attitudes towards cyclists.

What IS clear from your replies though is that you really don’t understand the proposed legislation, so for that reason AHM OOOT. No point having a debate with someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about!

B molgrips, we have different viewpoints, please don’t just call mine “utter shite”.

Those countries are not ours, many of them have a different set of ingrained ideas.

That’s kind of my point – cyclists are in general treated better.

To me this legislation would re balance the unfairness in drivers being HUGELY less vulnerable in any collision, feeling that they “own” the road and cyclists are just in the way, and having nsurer/army of aggressive lawyers on their side after any RTC.

With the number of cyclists bring killed on our roads, surely this or something has to be worth a try?

Finally point: the Daily Mail is against this measure. I rest my case!

What don’t I understand?

I thought this was a proposal to make the larger vehicle at fault in civil claims unless evidence can be provided otherwise. Is that wrong?

there do seem to be a fair amount of people who are part time cyclists

Yes but there are also a lot of hardcore militant cycle freaks and everyone in between.

Al – your opnion that we are anti-cyclist IS utter shite, becuase I am obviously NOT anti cyclist.

That’s kind of my point – cyclists are in general treated better.

Yes, but that’s cultural not as a result of liability rules.

With the number of cyclists bring killed on our roads, surely this or something has to be worth a try?

Yes, of course, but I’d go with ‘or something’. Where’s the public information campaign? They can do it for seatbelts, level crossings, drink driving, why not cycling?

It is NOT clear that this legislation is going to a) be fair

Research by City of Westminster Council showed that drivers were at faulty in 68 percent of all crashes between cars and bikes.

Cyclists were at fault in 20 percent and 12 percent were shared fault.

But despite that if you’re hit by a car under the current system then you’ll be lucky to get anything in a civil case and insurers will go 50/50 at best.

So the current system isn’t exactly fair either.

So the current system isn’t exactly far less fair either.

I suspect the City of Westminster has a higher proportion of cyclists behaving badly than the average for the country as a whole – which makes sense given what i understand of cyclists in London – as the stats I’ve seen suggested a much higher proportion of drivers at fault than that.

But despite that if you’re hit by a car under the current system then you’ll be lucky to get anything in a civil case

So why is that, then? If there’s enough evidence for the study to determine fault, why is there not enough for the insurers?

Turns out insurers don’t like paying out on their policies. Who knew?

How do they get out of it then?

Have you never dealt with insurers mol?
They say “Oh well it’s your word against theirs. We’ll just do a knock-for-knock”

They are never interested in investigating further because ultimately that costs them money.

I imagine they say “claim denied” and don’t give out any money. They probably don’t find that very difficult.

http://www.worthingrevolutions.org.uk/sites/worthingrevolutions.org.uk/files/PPR445.pdf might be of interest

So why is that, then? If there’s enough evidence for the study to determine fault, why is there not enough for the insurers?

I got knocked off; driver admitted fault and so things were all processed fairly speedily.

My friend got knocked off in similar circumstances; driver didn’t admit fault (despite turning right across traffic without looking and hitting him); it took two years to settle and even then he was out of pocket.

It doesn’t take much to stall a claim under the current system as it always boils down to he-said-she-said, even though the stats show that in the majority of cases the driver was at fault.

Very similar stats for Edinburgh 2004-2010. In 72% of serious pedal cyclist injuries, the contributory factors were assigned to motor vehicles.

I got knocked off, driver admitted fault and made a statement to the police at the scene. Insurance company still pissed me around (I suspect if I hadn’t used bikeline I’d never have got anything, which is why I always recommend getting lawyered up when dealing with motorists’ insurers).