[Closed] E-petition for strict liability on drivers

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.

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 [url= http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki/dutch-cycle-because-strict-liability-made-everybody-drive-safely-and-play-nice ]http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki/dutch-cycle-because-strict-liability-made-everybody-drive-safely-and-play-nice[/url]

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

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

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

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

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

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.

https://twitter.com/CycleHatred

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

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?

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

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

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

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

[url= http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3758677.ece ]Research by City of Westminster Council[/url] 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 is[s]n't exactly[/s] far less fair[s] either.[/s]

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.

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).

Despite driving for a living I can see the logic in the proposed legislation. I'm just not sure it'll improve anything on the roads for cyclists in this country. As others said we aren't the rest of europe our driving culture is completly different.
Regarding insurance claims, the biggest problem is that nearly everyone lies !! I've had two at fault collisions and filled the forms in accurately and truthfully. Everything was sorted asap. Everytime someones run into me they've lied. Been to court twice won both times, once my insurers settled 50/50 against my wishes and I'm still paying extra premiums because of it.

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

The two are not unrelated IMO.

Quite, but which is cause and which is effect?

where are these killer cyclists mowing down pedestrians in their hundreds?

I was kind of being tongue in cheek but im sure it happens

maybe insurance companies should be forced to pay out in the favour of the claimant then claim it back through the system if later the claimant was proved to be at fault?

Duly signed!

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?

Dear rolly eyes, what did the rest of my post say?
Let me refresh you.

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.

This was in response to a person who was surprised that not all people on here were pro default liability. The point stands that people who drive more than ride are liable in general to hold a different viewpoint on subjects relating to driving than those who ride more than drive. It's just the way we are. In highlighting this there is no value judgement passed on either viewpoint.

The point stands that people who drive more than ride are liable in general to hold a different viewpoint on subjects relating to driving than those who ride more than drive.

So if everyone's going to be purely self-interested then this is a silly debate isn't it?

Quite possibly - but that's possibly a bit of an existential view on worth.
Just in having such debates you get to hear other peoples viewpoints and justifications which is often interesting / educational / amusing.
If you didn't have such debates, it's easy to become ignorant to other views.

Typically on the roads I use, whether in the huge van, a car or on a bike, it is a very regular occurance that the larger vehicles bully and intimidate the smaller.

The only rationale I can ascribe to this is that they feel safer in their larger vehicle and are more willing to enter a 'risk of collision' incident because of this percieved safety. Anything that reduces this willingness to engage in risk taking seems a good idea in my book.

Well ok, but if people are only interested in what benefits them personally, then we'd have no debate and we'd be in a pretty poor position because no minorities would ever get what they want.

Maybe I'm reading/understanding this wrong but I think this is a terrible idea.

I live in Cambridge, and I also have the non pleasure of driving through Cambridge. The driving standards here may not be fantastic but at least worst case they'll vaguely be following the highway code.

The large majority of cyclists round here do not. They pull out into roads/traffic without even looking at what's coming, go straight through red lights and just think they own the road (which is amusing as they don't pay any road tax towards it but that's hoping off point).

So if this law were to pass here, it would be on the driver at all times to prove that it was the cyclist that didn't pay any attention to the road/traffic/highway code as the cyclist is presumed to have done no wrong...

So what we are saying is if this law is introduced then I'd have to take extra care around vulnerable road users.

In areas with a lot of these users like city centres I might even have to slow down quite a lot, drive a lot more defensively and generally have a good idea of what is happening round about to avoid any potential accidents.

What a ****ing nightmare

Hmm.. so how about a multi-faceted approach.

Could we introduce strict liability whilst at the same time improving cycling standards?

Well ok, but if people are only interested in what benefits them personally, then we'd have no debate and we'd be in a pretty poor position because no minorities would ever get what they want.

I think self interest is more complicated than that though.
So for instance people tend to be altruistic not because it makes them feel horrible about themselves but because it makes them feel good. In other words it's in their self-interest, and thus for many people it's in their self-interest to be helpful to minority groups, even if such help might have some detriment on some other aspects of the helper's life. If the net result is that you feel better sacrificing something in your life than by not doing so, then it's in your self interest to do so.
However if self-interest was purely limited to say fiscal aspects life then yes I agree, we'd be in a pretty poor position.

(which is amusing as they don't pay any road tax towards it but that's hoping off point)

gaz552 - Member

...They ... think they own the road (which is amusing as [b]they don't pay any road tax[/b] towards it but that's hoping off point).

er...

(you all the know the image i want to insert, so i won't trouble you all with the extra scrolling to get past it)

The large majority of cyclists ... just think they own the road (which is amusing as they don't pay any road tax towards it

Neither do you. Around here getting confused about issues like that makes the whole of your point totally invalid (I have to assume that if you don't know that then you're unlikely to have read or comprehended what this proposed measure actually means).

So if everyone's going to be purely self-interested then this is a silly debate isn't it?

Excuse me that my self interest is that less cyclists get hit by cars. Clearly it's just my biased perspective, but IMHO cyclists being injured is a more important issue than car paintwork getting scratched.

Could we introduce strict liability whilst at the same time improving cycling standards?

Like I said there's a raft of stuff that should help but while we are getting the promise of (a little) money thrown at Get Britain Cycling the really meaty stuff is taking it's time appearing and seeing as how one little piece of the puzzle causes this much argument getting a load of changes at once seems a little like high hopes.

Been a few RLJ operations by the police on oxford rd lately, good stuff, didn't notice them stopping any drivers for rlj/ASL infringements tho 🙁

The self interest angle is there sure but this isn't cyclists vs the world it's vulnerable users [i]supposedly[/i] getting better treatment when up against the less vulnerable.

Actually, I'm a cyclist who drives occasionally. I do more miles per year by bicycle than by car. I have six bikes, three in my lounge, one under my bed and two in the awning. I am a cyclist, right down to my funny cycling suntan lines.

BUT I don't support this piece of legislation.

Why? Read all the links, it didn't make any difference in Holland (it was introduced after cycle deaths had reduced), nor in Canada (to pick just two countries).

If there is an amount of money available to be spent I'd rather it was spent on tv ads dispelling current myths (road tax) and reminding drivers that cyclists have as much (or as little, if you like) right to use the roads as any other unit of traffic - including pedestrians.

Victory in a civil case for compensation would follow the criminal case anyway - yes, I know there are cases where this hasn't happened. And this new law won't fix those.

I was knocked off my bike by a man who opened his door into my path. I broke my collarbone and some ribs. My solicitor got to work and I got compensated for loss of earnings, damage to bike and ancillary, and for pain and suffering.

To make the roads safer for all we need education, better road design, more prosecutions (under existing laws) - for (as I said yesterday) miscreants of the four and two-wheel kind.

Politicians need to step up with some proper pro-cycling rhetoric, but of course the road lobby is very powerful - I haven't got time to check how much they contribute to party funds, but I'd guess it's a lot more than cycling organisations.

Excuse me that my self interest is that less cyclists get hit by cars. Clearly it's just my biased perspective, but IMHO cyclists being injured is a more important issue than car paintwork getting scratched.

You seem totally convinced that SL would reduce road accidents. I don't think you can be quite so confident. If it would definitely reduce accidents then of course I'd be all for it, but I am not convinced that it would.

how about introducing SL whilst improving all road users standards

Or just improving standards generally? I agree whole-heartedly with Karinofnine. We've all seen the Think Bike adverts, where's the cycle safety campaign? That'd be easy - there's clearly a road safety budget, just get on the blower to an ad agency, job done. I've said it before many times on here, I'd like to see a campaign aimed at both drivers and cyclists, given that there's bad behaviour on both sides. I think most people are reasonable, let's just get the debate going and people talking reasonably - once drivers can see that most cyclists are normal folk, and cyclists realise most drivers aren't out to kill them, we'll be off to a great start.

Simply introducing SL is likey to divide the road using population even further, I reckon.

I think self interest is more complicated than that though.

Well that's an altogether more philosophical point!

just think they own the road (which is amusing as they don't pay any road tax towards it but that's hoping off point).

Jeeebus! Two points:

1) They DO own the road, we ALL do, and we ALL pay for it.

2) You don't pay Road Tax either. No one does. It doesn't exist.

The driving standards here may not be fantastic but at least worst case they'll vaguely be following the highway code.

So if the drivers are so much more careful than the cyclists where does the 68% of car/bike crashes are the drivers fault stat come from?

Hmm.. so how about a multi-faceted approach.
Could we introduce strict liability whilst at the same time improving cycling standards?

I'm all for that, but I'm not sure I see the connection. Or how you'd achieve it?
Most cities already have free Bikeability schemes available to residents.

Like I said there's a raft of stuff that should help but while we are getting the promise of (a little) money thrown at Get Britain Cycling...

Have you seen the official gov response to the Get Britain Cycling report ahead of the debate on the 2nd Sept?

It's not exactly encouraging: http://road.cc/content/news/91513-government-responds-get-britain-cycling-report-no-targets-no-minimum-spend-no

🙁

Or how you'd achieve it?

As above - start with some public information ad slots.

Nice to see some people getting all self righteous and therefore assuming I know nothing and my points are invalid.
I didn't say I owned the road, I pointed out that the way a lot of cyclists get on around Cambridge is that they think they own the road, I then proceeded to point out the correlation that that is an amusing notion for them to have as the do not pay any road tax (which all motorists have to in the form of the road fund licence) which contributes towards it (I'm referring to when on a bicycle). I also pointed out that I was going off point. Everyone rants a bit but doesn't mean what they say is invalid.

Dismiss me all you want but as I pointed out in my last post, driving standards may not be great but it pales in comparison to the general cycling standards in the city and general disregard for the highway code and those around them.

So supporting this change to make it so the motorist is always assumed to be the one at fault and the cyclist is innocent is a mistake and far from the reality of day to day life in some of our cities.

P.s. In case it matters I do also cycle through Cambridge, but I do actually pay attention to the highway code that applies to all road users, because I know how dangerous it can be to drive around Cambridge due to cyclists doing as they please.

no-one pays any road tax, it doesn't exist, there's no such thing.

So supporting this change to make it so the motorist is always assumed to be the one at fault and the cyclist is innocent is a mistake and [b]far from the reality[/b] of day to day life in some of our cities.

in the studies we've see so far, the motorist WAS at fault in about 70% of incidents.

(sorry, did i just feed it?)

I then proceeded to point out the correlation that that is an amusing notion for them to have as the do not pay any road tax which contributes towards it

Roads are funded out of general taxation, not VED, so they do all pay for the roads yes.

gaz552 earlier:

[img] [/img]

It does exist it isn't called road fund licence just for the sake of it.

Also it's nice that having only posted twice in this thread (once to defend myself) makes me seen as a troll.

As for the stats that are being quote I'm assuming they are for the whole country. I'm pointing out that it is not the same everywhere in the country and that you can't always assume it's the motorists fault. I'm speaking purely from the point of view of where I live and adding it to the discussion. I'd assume things are radically different worse in central London where by all accounts it is a war between motorists and cyclists.

P.s. As has been pointed out the roads to come from a tax pot, road fund licence contributes to it, but yes my general statement was not clear and was more of a rant.
So how about people quite knit picking and look at the other points I and others have made.

the do not pay any road tax (which all motorists have to in the form of the road fund licence)

It does exist it isn't called road fund licence just for the sake of it.

He said "road fund licence"

[img] [/img]

What's the "road fund licence" grandad?

[b]Do you mean the road fund that was scrapped in 1955?[/b]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_Fund

It does exist it isn't called road fund licence just for the sake of it.

It isn't called Road Fund License, it's called Vehicle Excise Duty or VED.

I'd assume things are radically different worse in central London where by all accounts it is a war between motorists and cyclists.

Actually it's not. It's pretty decent in reality, given how crowded it is. Motorists are all on their toes, they have to be, and there are loads of cyclists. MOST of whom are actually being pretty sensible.

It's far worse in other parts of the SE, where there aren't enough cyclists and too many chav boneheads in Corsas.

it isn't called road fund licence [s]just for the sake of it.[/s]

FTFY - though I am wondering if this is actually gaz552 earlier (I mean surely nobody can be that stupid):

[img] [/img]

@molgrips - thank you for the correction.
And I'm glad to hear that about London, wish it was that way here. The huge number of students and foreign students we get here every year who probably don't know or in some cases care about the uk's highway code probably just adds to the already poor situation. And no this is not something against students before someone decides to have a go at me about that but you can't dismiss the impact of an extra ~17k cyclists in Cambridge come September time.

gaz552 - Member

So how about people quite knit picking and look at the other points I and others have made.

you haven't really raised any points, just had a daily-mail-esque rant about cyclists being dangerous, and not paying road tax.

1) they're not, really. or do we need to compare ksi numbers for vehicles vs bikes again? (per year, it's something like 20,000 vs 10)

2) no one does.

So how about people quite knit picking and look at the other points I and others have made.

I've been back and checked and realised you did do a good job of proving my point

Around here getting confused about issues like that makes the whole of your point totally invalid (I have to assume that if you don't know that then you're unlikely to have read or comprehended what this proposed measure actually means).

gaz552 - I was going to raise this earlier, but only just got round to it. I don't think you can use Cambridge as a reasonable example of "cyclists in a city". Cambridge (and to a lesser extent Oxford) is almost a pure University town, and (as you rightly point out) the majority of cyclists aren't responsible types, but students racing to and from lectures.

The standard of cycling in Cambridge is *appalling* - worse than anywhere else I've ever cycled. I do however think it's a one-off - most other places the cyclists are better behaved, or at least not quite so congregated onto a very small number of streets at very specific times of day.

So how about people quite knit picking and look at the other points I and others have made.

Who me?

[img] [/img]

😀

How about you make some valid points and we'll answer them. If your "valid point" is that sometimes the cyclist will be to blame then yes, of course they will. The stats mentioned earlier show cyclists are at fault for about 20% of car/bike crashes.

The Presumed Liability doesn't change that in the slightest. The cyclist can, and will, still be found at fault.

It's exactly the same as the presumed liability used when you are reared ended by another car.
The default [i]presumption[/i] is that it was the car behinds fault and he must show otherwise.

@samb - That's my point, (yes I ranted a bit too but doesn't everyone from time to time). You could not make a sweeping change assuming standards are equal and that the motorist is always to blame unless proven otherwise.
Is investigating the cause of the accident not a matter of course rather than blaming the motorist and putting it on them to prove otherwise?

The standard of cycling in Cambridge is *appalling* - worse than anywhere else I've ever cycled. I do however think it's a one-off - most other places the cyclists are better behaved, or at least not quite so congregated onto a very small number of streets at very specific times of day.

The standard of cycling is possibly only beaten by the standard of pedestrianism - I had several close encounters with peds stepping off the pavement. If you're going to use Cambridge as an example of a flaw with this proposed measure then that's a far better reason than any issue between cyclists and cars. I've driven and cycled (and walked) around Cambridge quite a bit - granted that was a longish time ago, but when I've been back more recently the traffic doesn't appear to have changed that significantly. Never came close to hitting a cyclists - or one hitting me - whilst driving, but had a couple of incidents where I was pranged by a car whilst on a bike, both of which might have been worth putting in a claim under strict liability, but not under our current system. So my experiences even of Cambridge would suggest the propose measure would be a good thing (for pure self interest).

The other point is that if you have to drive regularly down the roads in Cambridge where the cyclists are at their worst then my sympathies - but most people shouldn't actually need to, the more major roads used by cars to get around being rather less used by cyclists. As you point out, the cycling problem has a fairly limited area.

gaz552 - if you're seriously trying to argue this, then you could try reading some of the links where your "points" are debunked.

Is investigating the cause of the accident not a matter of course rather than blaming the motorist and putting it on them to prove otherwise?

That'd be nice, but the reality is that if no one is seriously hurt or killed then there is unlikely to be any kind of accident investigation at all.

Even then, [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15354914 ]past experience[/url] suggests that accident investigation can be pretty casual when it is a cyclist that has been injured or killed.

cynic-al - Member
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.

Of course most claims never get to court because insurers settle out of court. I remain unconvinced there is a systemic problem with civil claims by cyclists.