The House Of Commons debate on cycle safety #cyclesafe

surely accidents happen eg on icy roads/sun blinding both parties where no one is actually at fault. What happens then? Is the motorist always presumed to be liable?

Yep – not unreasonable if the excuse used is icy roads or getting blinded by the sun IMHO.

driver slides on ice bike slides on ice both hit..neither speeding both driving appropriately

oxymoron

No – whoever is at fault is liable.

car driver dazzled buy low sun? slow down, clean screen, etc etc

Icy road – whoever loses control of their vehicle.

Seriously – all collisions someone has made a mistake otherwise there would be no collisions. this is why they are RTCs now not RTAs

If both are fault then liability is shared – apportioned as it is now.

all that it means is a reversed burden of proof when a vulnerable road user it hit by one less vulnerable.

it also works for perdestrians and bikes – and cars and trucks, and motorcycles and cars

driver slides on ice bike slides on ice both hit..neither speeding both driving appropriately – if they were cars it would be knock fo knock
now with bikes what happens?

Both are going too fast if they lost control. Both liable – blame would be apportioned as it is now.

Forget fault for a moment. Say these hypothetical incidents happen in the absence of witnesses. Who is deemed culpable if the driver cannot prove, say, that the cyclist went through a red light and hit him?

The driver (or their insurer) would have to argue their case that they were not liable in court and it would be down to the court to decide.

this is not for criminal liability ie for dangerous driving or the like – just for civil liability

Say these hypothetical incidents happen in the absence of witnesses. Who is deemed culpable if the driver cannot prove, say, that the cyclist went through a red light and hit him?

RTC investigators tend to rely on evidence other than witness reports.

Yep – not unreasonable if the excuse used is icy roads or getting blinded by the sun IMHO.

driver slides on ice bike slides on ice both hit..neither speeding both driving appropriately
oxymoron
❓
It is either an “excuse” or it is not.

And you accuse me of contradiction

And RTC investigators address every collision whilst the evidence is still there to be collected do they?

I’m not in favour of any assumption of blame or liability where there is less than 100% guarantee that all necessary evidence will be available. Address that hurdle then fair enough, but not until.

It is either an “excuse” or it is not.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/excuse

BUT. Have you ever tried driving at 20mph? It’s really quite hard to do below 25mph, you spend more time looking at the speedo than you do at the road.

Really? I’m not a hugely experienced driver and I don’t find it remotely difficult to do 20 through the zones round here.

If you have trouble staying below then leave it in 2nd!

Seriously – all collisions someone has made a mistake otherwise there would be no collisions.

Mechanical faults? Car hits a nail. Tree blown over in the wind. Bridge collapses. Meteor strike.

Graham – still too close to the other vehicle if those things make them hit another vehicle. OK ocasional acts of god but most of what people call accidents actually is the result of a mistake

I fail to see why ice is both an excuse and also not an excuse

tempting though it is to debate which of the definitions you actually meant with the word excuse i will forgo the pin dance tonight

TJ [aracer possibly?]i think we are confusing the fact that all accidents are theoretically avoidable [ dont be there stay at home, don’t drive when there may be ice, use ice tyres or chains etc, stay still at all times..if we did this we would never collide] with blame here.
You can be doing 3 mph and just slide on ice. you could come round a bend at 15 mph in a 60 mph zone and find a tree across the road.
All avoidable in theory but not in reality if you have the misfortune of being there. It just depends on the scenario and how absolute you wish to be..sometimes there are just “no fault” accidents.

TandemJeremy – Member
If both are fault then liability is shared – apportioned as it is now.

all that it means is a reversed burden of proof when a vulnerable road user it hit by one less vulnerable.Why should the burden of proof be on the “least vulnerable”? I’m failing to see a logical argument to support this. If I’m driving or cycling along a road and a random pedestrian steps out in front of me. why should I be “at fault” unless I can find a witness to support my version of events?

That would make primary position about 2 fooot from the central reservation/whit lines ..that would please the drivers 😉

Again in your example you would not be at fault or have to show anything – collision occurs in the road – pedestrian at fault. No witness needed.

To protect the vulnerable thats why. Car drivers kill cyclists, cyclists do not kill car drivers – and its only civil not criminal.

Its also about sending a signal to be careful of vulnerable road users. One of the obvious contrasts is that in other European countries cyclists are given priority an treated cautiously – here they are not.

Junkyard – all of those examples you give there is fault – if it could be avoided then there is a mistake been made.

TJ – I have a far better answer which should save a lot of time:

Why should the burden of proof be on the “least vulnerable”? I’m failing to see a logical argument to support this. If I’m driving or cycling along a road and a random pedestrian steps out in front of me. why should I be “at fault” unless I can find a witness to support my version of events?

Strange how it works so well in lots of other countries then.

aracer – Member

Strange how it works so well in lots of other countries then.Define “works so well”.

As its civil it balance of probabilites not beyond reasonable doubt

Define “works so well”.

Less cyclist casualties, cyclists treated with respect and given priority.

everything can be avoided TJ but it will take hindsight to achieve this.

TandemJeremy – Member

Less cyclist casualties, cyclists treated with respect and given priority.You’re assuming cause and effect?

Its a part of it Druidh. it sets a tone / promotes an attitude.

You’re saying that you have no evidence whatsoever that assumed liability has any impact on road safety?

Junkyard – all of those examples you give there is fault – if it could be avoided then there is a mistake been made.

I’ve said it before TJ it’s your absolute statements that make it so hard to have a reasoned conversation with you.

Can we agree that there are some (rare) accidents that could not be reasonably avoided by road users devoid of psychic ability.

Is your MP on the list?

Well I’ll be damned. I wrote to mine asking him to attend the debate yesterday, and he actually showed up. I’m not sure how to process this, I think I need to have a little sit down… 😯

If I’m driving or cycling along a road and a random pedestrian steps out in front of me. why should I be “at fault” unless I can find a witness to support my version of events?

Because when a pedestrian looks like they might step out in front of you your response is likely to be more cautious. So a few drivers are going to be out of pocket. Cry me a **** river 🙄

You can be doing 3 mph and just slide on ice. you could come round a bend at 15 mph in a 60 mph zone and find a tree across the road.

@3mph you’re unlikely to damage anyone or anything, but hey! someone made the vehicle move, right? other than ‘derestricted’ roads, ie single track lanes, i’ve yet to find an open 60mph road that has a bend tight enough on it for you not to be able to see a tree across the road in a vehicle travelling at 15mph, and even if you can point to such a road, it’s still currently incumbent on a driver to be able to stop within the distance you can see. these examples aren’t all that great if you’re trying to prove something TBH.
you forget, what’s proposed is civil – ie who coughs up from who’s insurance. insurers do ‘knock for knock’ under the current system, and will continue to do so. in a lot of cases it’s not worth their while to slug it out in court.

there’s a point here a lot of you have missed…

All car drivers are obliged to carry insurance (with the associated legal back up), how many cyclists are actually going to be able to fight their case anyway if it’s dubious whose fault it is?

So car drivers have nothing to worry about

thats a part of the point of the assumed liability. Insurance at the moment can fob you off – little you can do. Once its incumbent on them to show they are not at fault its much easier to get the compo you are owed. Abuse is not an issue in other countries where this works

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a supporter of assumed liability, just a bit sceptical of how it’ll actually make any difference when it one persons word against the other.

It can but help though…

how many cyclists are actually going to be able to fight their case anyway

All the ones who have legal cover on their insurance for a start – ie most of them.

i’ve yet to find an open 60mph road that has a bend tight enough on it for you not to be able to see a tree across the road in a vehicle travelling at 15mph

Wow I can think of hundreds of national speed limit country lanes where this would be the case – you would be madman to do 60 mph on them though it is legal. If you want every driver to drive so they can stop in the distance they can see it is going to be a very slow method of transport- what 3 mph whenever there is a pedestrian there who may randomly step into the road for example who is only say 2 foot from the kerb.

the original 3 mph involved both vehicles sliding on ice so both are moving.

I agree only non stationary bodies collide but to decide in advance of the accident which non stationary body was to fault seems to be a daft way of deciding who /what was to blame in an accident.
I can see why folk would want to do it but I dont think it is that great an idea and it is never going to be made law here anyway
I am not sure how you are proving it is not abused abroad TJ…obviously the insurance system is abused here to some degree[ whiplash injuries etc] currently and this will be abused as well

I’ll try again…

If I’m driving or cycling along a road and a random pedestrian steps out in front of me. why should I be “at fault” unless I can find a witness to support my version of events?

druidh – Member
You’re saying that you have no evidence whatsoever that assumed liability has any impact on road safety?

I’d have thought that it would be fairly simple to compile a table of road accident statistics involving cyclists and pedestrians, sort it by accidents per head of population and then everywhere below a certain rate would be those countries with assumed liability?

And I’ll tell you again. Thats not how it works. If the incident is in the road then you will not be found at fault. You had right of way.

Liability is assumed unless there is evidence to show otherwise.

Seriously Druidh – you have the wrong end of the stick about this. It does not give carte blanche to cyclists and pedestrians to throw themselves in cars.

Druidh – that will be so. the countries with assumed liability do have lower cyclist injury rates. However no causal link can be shown.

TandemJeremy – Member
Liability is assumed unless there is evidence to show otherwise.

I know that – there is no need to repeat it. However, I’ll ask again – why? To what benefit? What logical argument can you put forward for assuming anything in the event of a lack of evidence?

TandemJeremy – Member
Druidh – that will be so. the countries with assumed liability do have lower cyclist injury rates.

Cool. Do you have somewhere I can look this up?

However no causal link can be shown.

Ah – so maybe it’s just that they drive on the other side of the road?

hmmmm… I wonder if it’s weak mps getting their faces known on a current out-there issue and bandying around the usual bumphf. Every cyclist knows the seriousness of these issues. MP’s care for face- value and kudos. I’m interested to see what happens with this as I’m naturally cynical..

I know that – there is no need to repeat it.

Why repeat the same fallacy then if you understand this point??

druidh
If I’m driving or cycling along a road and a random pedestrian steps out in front of me. why should I be “at fault” unless I can find a witness to support my version of events?

The reason for it is to protect the vulnerable and to redress the inbuilt bias. Car drivers kill cyclists and pedestrians. It sends a signal to car drivers that they need to look out for and consider vulnerable road users.

Every cyclist knows the seriousness of these issues. MP’s care for face- value and kudos.

Maybe… maybe some MPs… are also… cyclists?

Nah, that’s clearly ridiculous, carry on.