The House Of Commons debate on cycle safety #cyclesafe

TJ – sorry for disagreeing with you again (and thanks for explaining AL) but I think druidh has a perfectly valid point:

What logical argument can you put forward for assuming anything in the event of a lack of evidence?

Plus we may all like sending signals to car drivers but is that really the basis for law?

The concept of guilty until proven innocent is new and strange to me too.
TJ which other countries have this road legislation?

Right – the simple answer on assumed liability is that there is an inbuilt bias against the more vulnerable road user on the basis of the likelihood of them being the victim compared to the likelihood of them winning a claim for compensation. Assumed liability attempts to correct this – on average the liability is attributed correctly more often.

Yes there will be some cases where the driver is found responsible for a RTC they didn’t cause, but there will be less of them than currently are found not liable for RTCs they are responsible for. Isn’t that better justice?

holland but comparing their cycling culture to ours would be like comparing their hills to ours

TJ there was no fallacy he knows what the term means he needs to understand why- many of us are confused as to why without any knowledge of the events at all we automatically assume one vehicle is guilty and we wonder why this is fair.
We all want safer roads and this may work but so would many other “fairer” options

EDIT:

on average the liability is attributed correctly more often.

I have no idea how you would prove this to be the case. I am not saying it is true or false just that I dont understand how you could prove it one way or the other. someone decides who is to blame how do we then judge it has been attributed correctly when they have already ruled?

The concept of guilty until proven innocent is new and strange to me too.

It’s civil law – there is no guilty or innocent, just liability.

Its only a valid point if you don’t want to stop the killing and want to remain second class citizens on the roads.

Its tried and tested and works well over most of Europe – the reason is clear – if you don’t want to see it then its up to you.

Its to protect the vulnerable. Its to redress the balance. Lots of law is weighted. Its pragmatic.

car drivers kil cyclists and pedestrians. Cyclists don’t kill car drivers. Car drivers do not fufill their duty of care towards vulnerable users – assumed liability makes them do so

Surely liability implies responsibility, and responsibility suggests somebody was in the wrong whilst the other innocent?

hugor – Member

The concept of guilty until proven innocent is new and strange to me too.
TJ which other countries have this road legislation?

Its civil law – no guilty or innocent.

Most of Europe. All the low countries, france, Germany IIRC. Its not even controversial there. its just accepted.

Junkyard

TJ there was no fallacy he knows what the term means he needs to understand why

he said “why would he need a witness” – the answer is he wouldn’t. thats the fallacy

If this were to come into play, some of the nob car drivers who use their invulnerability to force my hand when I’m commuting by bike might change their behaviour. That’s good enough for me.

If, in the absence of any evidence, the law is ruling against me, I would need a witness to “prove” it was not my fault.

Ok so as a civil matter this legislation is just about settling insurance and compensation disputes otherwise not reconciled by objective evidence?
i.e. the driver is not really held to blame but the driver’s insurance company has to foot the bill?

druidh – Member

If, in the absence of any evidence, the law is ruling against me, I would need a witness to “prove” it was not my fault.
If there is no evidence then yes – thats how assumed liability works. However this is a very very rare occurrence compared to the reverse which is the norm now. whereby if you are knocked off your bike by a car yo have to prove its their fault having to fight against a insurance co. the vast majority of collisions between bikes and cars the car is at fault

it does not apply in the example you used above where the very fact of being on the road is enough evidence

I cannot think of any incident where you would not be at fault and would not have any evidence – remeber its civil – balance of probabilities not beyond doubt

TJ do you REALLY believe that the different attitudes shown by drivers to cyclists in many continental countries is because if the liability issue?

Personally I’d have said it was because cycling is much more widely practised in Europe and so more drivers are also cyclists. That coupled with the huge road racing culture means that cyclists are respected and not hated.

I also suspect that most UK drivers have no idea what the assumed liability is in this country. I sure no driver thinks “I’ll pass this cyclist with just a few mm to spare because there is no presumed liability that if I hit him it’ll be my fault”. I suspect they do it because they have never been a cyclist and don’t realise how scary it is, or because they are on the phone, or because they can’t be bothered to slow down and wait for a few seconds, or because they are looking at the mini-skirted girl, or thinking about the row they had with the wife.

I really don’t believe the liability issue will make a blind bit of difference to accident rates. It may make it easier to get compensation, but frankly that’s the last thing I’d be thinking of when flying through the air!

the vast majority of collisions between bikes and cars the car is at fault

This. Hence why assuming that the motorist is at fault until proved otherwise is likely to be correct more often than assuming that fault is equal. It’s not rocket science. I’m sure it would be quite straightforward to prove if you wanted to junky – in fact I’d be surprised if somebody hasn’t already done such a study, GIYF.

TandemJeremy – Member
it does not apply in the example you used above where the very fact of being on the road is enough evidence

Being on the road always makes it the pedestrians fault?

boriselbrus – Member

TJ do you REALLY believe that the different attitudes shown by drivers to cyclists in many continental countries is because if the liability issue?

I beleive it is a part of it. Yes other factors exist

I also suspect that most UK drivers have no idea what the assumed
I really don’t believe the liability issue will make a blind bit of difference to accident rates. It may make it easier to get compensation,

I believe over time it would make a difference – hitting people in the pocket drives behaviour change – and even if all it does it make it easier to get compensation thats good enough for me

druidh – Member

“TandemJeremy – Member
it does not apply in the example you used above where the very fact of being on the road is enough evidence”

Being on the road always makes it the pedestrians fault?

civil remember – balance of probabilities. In the absence of any other evidence then a collision between a bike and a pedestrian in the road one would say the bike had right of way in the BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES

I believe over time it would make a difference – hitting people in the pocket drives behaviour change

+1 (just in case it wasn’t clear TJ isn’t alone on this one).

It was really heart warming to see my old dead buddy and occasional shop mechanic Rob Jefferies get a mention in the debate.

It’s time they do something to stop the killing.

His killer got community service. He had already picked up points for speeding on the same road only months earlier.

He loved this bike, a right odd mix of bits. 26er MTB frame, 700c, discs, unmatched rims, spinachi bars and bar bag.. It upset so many people… But worked well.

I find it quite amazing how anti bike people are on a supposed bike forum.

a well proven and widely used legal principle that would help cyclists is shouted down on the basis of scaremongering and a lack of understanding of how it works

A couple of points

How many of us have been knocked off our bikes by careless drivers?
How many of us have been ridden into in our cars by careless cyclists?

Assumed liability – I give you an example of when this already applies in motoring law in the UK . if yo run into the back of someone you will be assumed to be at fault unless you can show there is a reason why its not your fault.

IMO we need 3 things:
1. Cyclists to be given due respect and courtesy on the roads
2. Car drivers to be prevented wherever possible from driving in a way which puts cyclists in danger
3. Those who do not respect cyclists are punished for it

Primarily driver behaviour change is what’s required. That means a change in their thought processes. Changes to the law will not deliver this entirely but will, so long as it’s enforced, begin that journey.

In the main the national debate about cycling is shrill, emotional, ill-informed and often psychopathic. This parliamentary discussion is forcing the issue to be debated publicly in a measured and adult manner. Again, it’s a start.

British Cycling are soon to be picking up a lobbying role I believe, as well as CTC. That will also help.

I’m hopeful in time that cycling in the UK will become safe and stress free and whilst I don’t seek to be treated as a hero for riding a bike, an absence of being treated like a 2nd-class citizen will be enough…

Charlie, sorry for your loss. I hope none of my friends and family have to go through that too.

How many of us have been knocked off our bikes by careless drivers?

TJ it was only last week that you were campaining that road cycling was one of the safest things you could do in Britain.

You flamed loads of people who said they thought it was dangerous and chose to use the footpath on occasions.

I find it quite amazing how anti bike people are on a supposed bike forum.

+1

Assumed liability – I give you an example of when this already applies in motoring law in the UK . if yo run into the back of someone you will be assumed to be at fault unless you can show there is a reason why its not your fault.

So if by some miracle they did introduce assumed liability for motorists, who would be at fault if you ran into the back of a car on your bike? 👿

(not a total hypothetical – such an incident happened to me, and it wasn’t my fault!)

TandemJeremy – Member
I find it quite amazing how anti bike people are on a supposed bike forum.

Name and shame.

I read an interesting blog post about the liability thing the other day. It was written by a Dutch chap, explaining why ‘strict liability’ isn’t all it’s cracked up to be – drivers simply don’t think about the potential penalty when they’re contemplating a manoeuvre that will result in their mowing a cyclist down. It’s the same reason why the death penalty in the US doesn’t lead to a lower murder rate. He wasn’t saying strict liability is a bad thing, he was just saying that it won’t fix the UK for cyclists.

He also explained why the Netherlands are so ace for cyclists. Hint: it’s not strict liability. It’s ‘sustainable safety’. Basically this is legislation enforcing sane, intelligent road design, combined with better road-user education, leading to mutual respect. Unfortunately, in comparison to flipping the statutory switch on liability, it’s **** expensive and it takes time and titanic levels of willpower from those in charge. So obviously it’ll never happen here. Nice dream, though, eh?

For some reason the blog has been taken offline, but there’s a Google cache here. It’s a fascinating read.

TJ it was only last week that you were campaining that road cycling was one of the safest things you could do in Britain.

But that’s not what people perceive. In any case, it would help a lot if you didn’t quote out of context – TJ’s statement you picked out is meaningless without the other part.

Hugor – thats not what I said then nor is asking how many of us have been knocked off by careless drivers saying its unsafe – its all about relative risk.

I agree mintimperial – its only one part of the package. It is a apart of it and while of course people don’t actively think about it it could help change attitudes over time

Druidh – do you now accept / understand this is not true?

druidh – Member

TJ – assumed liability is giving carte blanche to the tossers who cycle through red lights. Liability should be determined by the relevant authorities, never assumed.

Why are you against 20 mph speed limits in residentaial areas?

I hope they don’t put more cycle lanes in. ie those that are a white line painted in to the side of a busy main road, that start and stop at random, feed you up and down pavements and are more dangerous than they are good. Ah yes, that will be all cycle lanes.

Hugor – thats not what I said then nor is asking how many of us have been knocked off by careless drivers saying its unsafe – its all about relative risk.

Your question was rhetoric but the obvious answer is that almost everybody who rides on the road gets knocked off of run off by a car at some point. Every cyclist I know has had many incidents.

Back to topic
Point is that I don’t think all drivers are to blame for every unexplained car vs bike accident.
There are other factors beyond everybodies control – like road conditions, infrastructure, visibility etc.
I believe in many circumstances shit happens and its not necessarily anybodies fault.
Its not fair to blame the driver unless evidence is proven to the contrary.

well hugor – the researches suggests in 90% of car bike collisions the car driver is at fault.

Circumstances where “shit happens” are very rare indeed. almost always someone has made an error. visibility for example is never an excuse for a collision. If you hit someone ‘cos you cannot see you are driving too fast for the conditions

I am not sure people are being anti bike on this thread – though I agree the forum is often anti bike
What we are discussing is the best method of making the roads safer and disagreeing about the method.
+1 for what brooess said and sympathies Mr bike monger
Perhaps it would help perhaps it would hinder.
one of the problems is that car drivers see it as and us and them and I am not sure that this wont make that worse. They will still view us as unregulated, uninsured and above the law.
we need to change attitudes but i am not sure this will achieve it

well hugor – the researches suggests in 90% of car bike collisions the car driver is at fault.

reference?

Up to 90% sorry – and I cannot find the refs now

this one has a bit

The most frequent accident type among collisions between cyclists and cars at bicycle crossings was a driver turning right and a bicycle coming from the driver’s right along a cycle track. The result confirmed an earlier finding (Accident Analysis and Prevention 28, 147-153, 1996) that drivers turning right hit cyclists because they looked left for cars during the critical phase. Only 11% of drivers noticed the cyclist before impact.

finland so for right read left

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9678219

Edit – as usual the quality of the data is poor

CTC on liability

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4686

I’m not sure that that reference supports your 90% statement.
I couldn’t find anything conclusive either.
If I find anything one way or the other I’ll be back.
🙂

Accepted – most of the data I can find is not very rigourous. for example

http://www.borealisoutdoor.com/content/can-bike/crash3.htm

canadian so are they on teh other side of the road?

shows a huge differnce between children and teens and adults.

Rank Ordering of Car-Bike Collision Frequency
by age of cyclist and location of accident (most frequent at top of list)

E. Adult – Urban
1. Motorist turning left
2. Signal light change
3. Motorist turning right
4. Motorist restarting from stop sign
5. Motorist exiting commercial driveway
6. Motorist overtaking unseen cyclist (mostly in darkness)
7. Motorist overtaking too closely
8. Cyclist hitting slower-moving car

New yourk so how typical is questionable

The study showed that drivers were largely culpable in 74 per cent of all of accidents and partially culpable in another 16 per cent. Interestingly, one of the big findings was … that 97 per cent of the drivers in cases of fatal accidents involving cyclists were male. It is highly unlikely to get that kind of statistic by random chance. One of the things we know about young men is that they tend to be the most aggressive drivers on the road. If you take a look at statistics around street racing and other indicators of aggressive driving, young males are the group that are overrepresented. This says there is something about the way particular groups of people drive that puts vulnerable road users at higher risk.

does not separate out cyclist and pedestrians mainly – when it does its 70% car driver at fault

http://rightofway.org/research/kba_text.pdf

While there is a public perception that cyclists are usually the cause of accidents between cars and bikes, an analysis of Toronto police collision reports shows otherwise: The most common type of crash in this study involved a motorist entering an intersection and either failing to stop properly or proceeding before it was safe to do so. The second most common crash type involved a motorist overtaking unsafely. The third involved a motorist opening a door onto an oncoming cyclist. The study concluded that cyclists are the cause of less than 10 percent of bike-car accidents in this study.

No methodolgy shown

http://www.research.utoronto.ca/behind_the_headlines/smart-cycling/