[Closed] E-petition for strict liability on drivers

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.

I remain unconvinced there is a systemic problem with civil claims by cyclists.

Ah - just a systemic problem with criminal cases against drivers for hitting cyclists then?

The charity Roadpeace have produced an excellent briefing.

RoadPeace believes the adoption of a stricter liability system is essential not only for fairness and justice but also for the increase in active travel critical for public health and environmental needs.

1. What is it?

Under our current system, vulnerable road users (pedestrians and cyclists) injured by a driver (or their families if they are killed) only qualify for compensation when it can be proved that the driver was at fault.
Under a stricter liability compensation system, the burden of proof is reversed. Injured pedestrians and cyclists are presumed to qualify for civil compensation.

2. Why do we need it?

While we all share the road, we do not share the risk. In 2010, there were nearly 29,000 collisions between cars and cyclists and pedestrians, resulting in 5,130 killed or seriously injured casualties. Of these, 51 (1%) were drivers or car passengers, with only one fatality.

Even when pedestrians and cyclists survive, they can be left with life-changing injuries, and loss of their mobility or their capacity to work, sometimes permanently. The frequency of shock, concussion and head injury also means that they often lose any recollection of the collision. This makes them heavily reliant on the identification of witnesses who are willing to testify, if driver error is to be proven for a civil claim.

The adoption of stricter liability would reduce the unfairness of outcomes and should encourage the insurance industry to invest in reducing the threat posed to vulnerable road users as they already have with occupant safety and vehicle security.
Stricter liability would also help create a safer road environment, promoting active travel. In a recent report for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, on Making walking and cycling normal, changing the civil legal liability system was identified as a key measure (Pooley, 2012).

3. What it is not?

• It is not a blank cheque for cyclists and pedestrians.
Adult pedestrians and cyclists who are shown to have caused or contributed to collisions could have their claim rejected or reduced. Pedestrians darting out from behind parked cars or cyclists running red lights would not have to be compensated.

• It is not a threat to fundamental British liberties

Innocent until proven guilty is a principle shared by all common law and many civil law systems but it applies to criminal prosecution, not civil compensation. Stricter liability only applies to civil law.

4. Which countries have it?

Most countries in the world have a civil liability system whereby pedestrians and cyclists are assumed to qualify for compensation. In Europe this includes Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands, and Spain. In Sweden all casualties qualify for compensation. Stricter liability is the norm outside of Europe and can be found in Asia, including India, Bangladesh, Viet Nam. It was introduced in China less than 10 years ago.

Besides Britain, the other European countries that operate under a fault based system include Ireland, Malta, and Portugal.

5. How does it vary between countries?

In some countries including France and the Netherlands, children, older people and those with impairments will always qualify for compensation, no matter what their actions. Mistakes by them would not affect their right to compensation. RoadPeace supports this principle.

6. Who benefits?

All those who would previously been denied compensation due to lack of proof of driver fault.
Children and older people stand to gain the most. The European Child Safety Alliance scores countries performances and having a compensation system which puts the responsibility on drivers is a key indicator of a good system.

7. Who pays for it?

In collisions where the driver was prosecuted for causing the crash, the driver’s insurance company would be responsible for compensation.
In those cases where the evidence is lacking and it is unclear who is responsible, then the cost would be shared amongst motor insurance policy holders – a system already used for damage caused by uninsured or hit and run drivers.

8. Who else wants this?

Cycling organisations such as CTC and LCC have long appreciated the importance of stricter liability. Living Streets also supports it. The Green Party endorsed stricter liability at their Spring 2012 party conference. Any organisation campaigning on behalf of children and older people, active travel, or the environment should also support it.

9. Is it going to happen soon?

There was an Early Day Motion on stricter liability (EDM 1393) in 2011. Mike Penning, Road Safety Minister, has stated that the government is “not convinced that the introduction of such a system for road traffic incidents would be for the benefit of road safety and it could be unfair to responsible road users”. And so we are left with a system that is unfair to vulnerable road users and undermines active travel promotion.

For further information, see www.roadpeace.org

Aracer, as you know our views on that differ a bit, but yes we don't "catch" enough bad drivers whether they cause accidents or not and we don't prosecute enough of those who are identifiable. However very few people set out to cause accidents so you need to change mindsets which isn't achieved by changing the consequences of an event that you believe will never happen to you.

I'm not sure if the recent change to fixed penalties for s3 will make this better or worse. Likely the police and crown will prosecute more cases because it is easier but the penalties will be at the very bottom of the scale which means some people will get off lightly.

[quote=poly ]very few people set out to cause accidents so you need to change mindsets which isn't achieved by changing the consequences of an event that you believe will never happen to you.
Few people believe they will be involved in a head-on collision in their car but do you not think they would drive a lot more carefully if the airbag was replaced by a metal spike?

poly - neither of us have stats but my guess is an uninsured cyclist will probably cave in when faced with an insured motorist and accompanying lawyers on the other side of a claim - the unfairness that I would hope this legislation would address.

you need to change mindsets which isn't achieved by changing the consequences of an event that you believe will never happen to you.

Given the Mail-style driver-whining I am certainly tired of, I think many drivers DO expect RTCs with cyclists (if that's the point you were seeking to make).

scotroutes - the answer is probably, and I take your point, although I'm not sure you can make a direct analogy between an almost inevitable death and your insurers having to pay a cyclist some money.

al - Well if someone expects to get new legislation I'd expect them to be able to clearly show No of Cycle Accidents > No of cycle related insurance claims > No settled (and what %age of claim value was paid) > No taken to court > No where cyclist won/lost. As you present it, the solution would appear to be for cyclists to carry insurance.

I've never met a single driver who got in the car that day expecting to have a collision. Saying to someone "if you hit that cyclist your insurance will have to pay" isn't going to make any difference to the driver who wasn't planning to hit the cyclist and probably expects that if he is at fault the insurer would pay anyway. I guess if you believe daily mail rhetoric (I thought better of you) then there are some drivers who might expect that at some point in their life they will have a cyclist collision. Those people believe those accidents are the cyclists fault - strict liability doesn't prevent those - because the drivers believe they are protected by one of the genuine defences: that the cyclist's negligence caused the accident.

As an aside, the proposals re old/child RTC victims (the presumption of driver liability NOT being rebuttable, as they are vulnerable) seems odd to me - you are automatically liable if you hit a kid that runs out from behind a parked car WTF?

Someone just stuck this on twitter

I point out to @TheABD that paying VED doesn't give drivers more right to use the road than cyclists. Their reply: https://twitter.com/TheABD/status/374183027053559808 …

basically i don't think you will ever change views on cyclists

you are automatically liable if you hit a kid that runs out from behind a parked car WTF?

oh and ABD sounds a right tool

DONK - it's not just presumed, the driver can't rebut the presumption (proper strict liability).

You'd need to do about 5mph by any line of parked cars to avoid this, ridiculous

[url=

civil stuff yeah I'm still ok with that.[/url]