There’s a big difference between guilty (as in criminal law) and liable (as in civil law and insurance). Presumed liability is a lot less contentious than presumed guilt.
While true to an extent I still don't like it and don't think it's online with our general approach of innocent until proven guilty. Certainly the effect on my insurance over 5 years of someone riding into me and claiming I'd hit them would be significant.
You may not like it but it would make car drivers drive much more cautiously around cyclists if they know they are liable. I am not going to be pulling out in front of cars or riding into them because they are now liable as I am the one who is going to get hurt. Yes there would be chancers just as there are in all aspects of life but that shouldn't stop putting liability in the best place.
While true to an extent I still don’t like it and don’t think it’s online with our general approach of innocent until proven guilty. Certainly the effect on my insurance over 5 years of someone riding into me and claiming I’d hit them would be significant.
Well since someone recently drove their car into the back of me (intentionally), I'm a big fan of 'strict liability' re: being hit from behind by a car. There was no 'proof' that he had done anything wrong - no witnesses etc. Without strict liability I would be paying for the repairs to my bike, and he would have no impact on his insurance, or any impact whatsoever.
Whatever you think about the ethics of presumed liability for car drivers, it a) would be a form of protection for vulnerable road users when contesting claims and b) might make drivers leave a bit more space. It's sad that the thought of an increase in insurance premium is a more powerful motivating factor than injuring another human, but here we are.
It’s sad that the thought of an increase in insurance premium is a more powerful motivating factor than injuring another human, but here we are.
Where did I say that was a factor, because it's not. I wouldn't intend driving into cyclists (or cycling into cars) no matter who was liable. I just don't see why it's fair that (if I was the car driver) I'd be presumed guilty if the other party was actually at fault.
Certainly the effect on my insurance over 5 years of someone riding into me and claiming I’d hit them would be significant.
It’s presumed, not strict.
So as long as you can convince an insurer that you weren’t at fault then you’re fine. It just places the burden of evidence on the person with the fast-moving ton of safety cell around them, and a legally mandated insurance policy, rather the party who invariably comes off worst and is not required to have insurance (remember that this can also be people on foot, and that most people are covered anyway by contents policies). It doesn’t mean that people can crash into you and win cash.
Basically, if you have a dashcam and insurance, you likely have nothing to worry about: your insurance company would simply ask for your video so that they can defend against any spurious claim, job done.
But it would mean that people who aren’t in cars would be better able to claim for smaller incidents, and major incidents would mean far less stress at the time when the last thing people want is the array of hassles that come with a normal liability claim.
All that said, I’m pretty sceptical about the argument that presumed liability makes for noticeably better driving behaviour, because data suggests it doesn’t:
https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/selling-a-dream-at-the-cost-of-reality/
Where did I say that was a factor, because it’s not.
I didn't say you were... I was referencing other countries (like Holland) where car drivers have presumed liability in any collision with cyclists. They may leave more space. (Obviously there are loads of other factors at play in Holland.)
On balance though, I don't believe cyclists take as many risks around cars than vice versa. So for every case of injustice there may be 10 cyclists who benefit. So there's a proportionality argument there - but I accept the tenet of 'innocent until proven guilty'.
We'll all have dashcams soon enough so it's a bit moot.
I just don’t see why it’s fair that (if I was the car driver) I’d be presumed guilty if the other party was actually at fault.
Because tigers:
https://www.darkerside.org/2013/04/strict-liability-an-idiots-guide/
(Also, reminder: liable is not guilty; presumed is not strict. Both important.)
Obviously there are loads of other factors at play in Holland.)
Mainly the likelyhood of getting taken out by a scooter when you're actually riding in a cycle lane.
I'm not a fan of presumed liability either, and if anyone thinks idiot drivers will hold back because of the risk of a higher premium, well, they clearly don't, or threads like this wouldn't be needed.
Adequate enforcement of all traffic rules, no excuse bans at 12 points, and jail when appropriate is the only thing worth campaigning for.
dont want to ruin this thread for those that love a bit of uninformed infighting, so i will just leave this here....
Andy Coles, 56, and Damien Natale, 52
RIP
Andy Coles, 56, and Damien Natale, 52
RIP
RIP indeed
RIP.
One of them is the same age as me, and it really hits home about the potential impact of one day just heading out for a bike ride and not coming back.
Very sad indeed and RIP to both of them.
I keep thinking about the families that they left behind. I'm not so far behind them in age and can't think what it must be like for the wives, kids, grandkids to be told that they won't be coming back from this ride, knowing what it would do to my own family. Truly heartbreaking and my thoughts go out to those left behind.
this.
Its not going to stop me going out but its always a worry and goes towards explaining why cyclist lose their shit when put in danger by some twunt in a car
Two cyclists have died on my local roads in the last few weeks.
One of these on a national speed limit lane that I try and avoid. It's a very busy route which is narrow in places with blind corners and junctions.
I really don't feel safe on UK roads these days so I try and avoid them, stick to TPT, canals and occasional MTB. In my teens and 20's I was 'macho' and probably felt a somewhat invulnerable. Now being a bit older I don't feel so brave. There are a lot of bad drivers about and UK roads are very busy and often narrow. It's a bad combination for cyclists plus the creeping 'racism' against cyclists makes us an easy target.
RIP guys. Thoughts are with your family and friends. It's truly terrible that you can lose your life for doing nothing more than riding your bike on a public road.
A few scenarios going through my head:
1. Maybe the riders did pull out on the car.
2. Maybe the car was going too fast
3. Maybe the driver of the car was distracted (by a bee, passenger, sneezing fit, texting etc)
4. A combination of the above.
But if the driver is at fault then they deserve to receive the sentence as set out by the law (and should have their license removed until the court hearing)
As for presumed guilt or presumed liability (can't remember the exact legal jargon) this is already in our legal system and is used regularly with huge fines and even prison sentences and I for one am glad it is there. It's for H&S breaches that lead to someone getting hurt or even killed. If an employee is hurt or dies at work then the employer has to prove that they were not at fault or face the penalty. Can't see how this couldn't work for our roads.
A few years ago a van mounted the pavement and clipped the buggy that my son was in whilst being pushed by his granny. There was a witness, the police were called and the driver said that he never did it (despite having a mark on the van from the buggy). This went to the procurator fiscal who said there wasn't a case as it was his word against my mother in-laws. Probably helped by the van drivers employer writing a letter that the mark on the door was there before the incident.
If he had been going quicker or had mounted the pavement even more then my son might not be with us anymore yet I don't think they would have received any punishment then either as it would have been still his word against my mother in-laws.
Now tell me that the van driver should not have received a fine, or points added to his licence.
If the presumed guilt thing did come in you'd see everyone who drives a car rush out and buy a dash cam to prove their innocence. Come to think about it I'm now thinking getting a couple of cameras for the bike although won't do me much good if I'm ran over.
Driving standards seem to be so low that I'm getting nervous about going out at all; we are on the threshold of a new time in our lives as I will be retiring at the end of July and we don't want our happiness spoiled by a stupid accident. I'm even driving more slowly.
It's presumed liability not guilt. Civil not criminal.
Netherlands only adopted it fairly recently. Its the norm across Europe. It also applies to pedestrians in collision with bikes (and cars and trucks) and cars in collision with hgvs
Cheers TJ for putting me right. After a bit more reading I think that if presumed liability was brought in I can see a few things changing:
1. Cars drivers giving all vulnerable road users a wide berth and using dash cams more in order to prove that a road accident was not their fault. Buses and trucks too.
2. Car/truck/bus insurance would go up to cover the additional claims.
3. Cyclists would end up having to get insurance too as if they hit a pedestrian they would be presumed liable.
Apparently insurance companies are against it but I could see them making money from it if more people take up cycling and get insurance for it.
Cyclists would end up having to get insurance too as if they hit a pedestrian they would be presumed liable.
Depends how it’s implemented: it’s common for it to be implemented so that a motor vehicle user is presumed liable in a collision with a non-motorised person, but not motor vs motor or non vs non.
Also, non-motorised liability tends to be covered by home insurance, so generally only people without that cover would need additional insurance.
IT may be expensive but would it not be possible to analyse the data from the car ECU's to discover speed at impact, were brakes on and how hard, had the steering been used?
Maybe the traffic police should have data readers to take a dump of the car data after a collision?
Adequate enforcement of all traffic rules
Simply not possible, it often comes down to evidence of 1 or 2 parties only.
Presumed liability is the way ahead. Interesting, the unconscious bias from drivers!
3. Cyclists would end up having to get insurance too as if they hit a pedestrian they would be presumed liable.
It’s not expensive. It’s probably a good thing to have.
And if fewer people on bikes were crushed by impatient and selfish people in cars then I reckon it’s a price worth paying.
Riding on the roads might be less stressful.
All this talk of dangerous roads vexes me: it’s the cars and the behaviour of the people driving them that causes the danger.
IT may be expensive but would it not be possible to analyse the data from the car ECU’s to discover speed at impact, were brakes on and how hard, had the steering been used?
Most cars have this data available in realtime, but very few store it in any way
Update:- driver admitted two counts of causing death by careless driving, received a 2yr suspended sentence and 5yr driving ban.
That's sickening.
Update:- driver admitted two counts of causing death by careless driving, received a 2yr suspended sentence and 5yr driving ban.
So he admitted to killing two people through his own carelessness, and still managed to avoid jail.
****ing joke 🙁
I'll go first then,
Accident causing 2 deaths and no prison time . Not even a month . Those 2 guys will be dead for ever . The relatives will live with this forever , so will the convicted driver I know . So where is the deterent?
Sentancing guidelines must be tougher shurely?
Joke - killed two people, slap on wrist.
can only hope that he does the right thing.
And why the judge handed the sentence he did
As many others have said; the easiest way to kill a fellow human being in this county and suffer minimal consequence is to knock them off a bike with a car.
I knew it would be, but that is really ****ing depressing reading. Its ok to kill people on the road, behind the wheel of your potential death machine long as you oopsy, didn't see them. soz an all that. ****ing ridiculous.
The judge’s explanation sounds very apologist; almost hand-wringing in nature.
“I didn’t mean to accidentally kill two people with a shotgun or a live electricity cable I left hanging around your honour.” Anyone think that would get the perpetrator out of jail time?
Lesser sentance because they clearly died instantly !!
WTAF . Sorry Mr Judge , You werent there . How do know this . Its not a proven point . even if it were , they are still dead . Its ok your Honor , i killed them really quick so they didn't really suffer .
NO mention of phone use , or checking the use off .
I was just driving home from work , not really paying much attention and these cyclists , well they were in the road and I hit them , just a momentary lapse of concentration. Im ok , not hurt at all . They however are smashed to bits but they are just cyclists , no harm really ,so a nice light suspended sentance and home for tea.
Somebody needs to review this . Staggering.
Post deleted. Its the wrong place to discuss the pros and cons of the current laws
A tragic loss for 2 families. My heart goes out to them
That's shit.
This, particularly.
“Mr Coles and Mr Natale were riding perfectly properly. They were not riding abreast of each other, blocking one of the two carriageways of that road. One was slightly ahead of the other, leaving plenty of room to pass and there was no reason at all that Mr Rennie should not have seen them and this accident should not have taken place."
And why the judge handed the sentence he did
Thanks, I hadn't seen that, not sure I fully agree with the judge though, even 6 months in jail (they are horrible places to be) & let out after 3 would have given the driver a proper time to reflect.
Whereas this guy got 3 1/2 years inside ( sentanced ) for just injuring 3 people by hitting a staionary vehicle, plus driving like a moron whilst being recorded on cctv.
But the 3 are all still alive , able to see their kids and grandkids , kiss their wives , speak with their brother and sisters etc
https://www.sussexlive.co.uk/news/sussex-news/shocking-video-shows-texting-lorry-5706977
This is Horrible. Hope the Driver Clifford Rennie & the Crap Judge get their comeuppance.
Condolences to the families of the cyclists
B
I know a lot are aiming it at the judge, but it's the prosecution that have accepted the lesser sentence, and then put the judge in the situation of having to go by the sentencing guidelines and character references in front of him, which was for a 60 year old company director with no criminal or driving convictions, so always going to be a positive for sentencing.
I look at this scenario and on a straight road, cyclists cycling two abreast on a clear day i struggle to see how they came up with the 'few seconds' of inattentive driving, or the rest was proven, i.e. speed, no distractions, etc, but the prosecution accepted all of these arguments, which moved it away from death by dangerous driving to careless driving.
As I understand it, anyone can appeal a sentence on the basis that is too lenient*.
I'm loathe to jump on court decisions based on press releases without checking the actual court reports, because the press reports are usually rubbish, whether on your side or against you. The Police, the CPS and the jury have the full evidence and we don't.
But seems to me on the face of it that British Cycling and Cycling UK should be all over this, and if they aren't, then they aren't doing their job representing the interests of cyclists (yes, I know CUK have run a campaign recently on road laws but this is a huge, real world example of why things need to change). All of us who are members should be asking them what they are doing about this kind of sentencing.
All of us need to be harassing our MPs to get the laws and sentencing guidelines updated and toughened up. The car centric worldview has to change, but preaching to the choir in our bike centric echo chambers won't achieve that
*Damnit, checked and it's only certain offences
https://www.gov.uk/ask-crown-court-sentence-review
Seems to me that unless the police can PROVE an aggravating factor such as being on the phone, drunk or on drugs, you always get a lesser careless driving charge with no jail time.
You'd think driving dangerously and killing someone would be treated the same regardless of any underlying factors.
From the judge:
"Just as Mr Coles and Mr Natale went out for a perfectly normal evening ride this defendant left work that night simply to drive home and spend that evening at home of a pleasant summer’s night. He did not go out to kill anybody. His driving was not dangerous, his inattention that lead to the deaths of these two men was to be counted in seconds. "
WTAF???
