Home Forums Bike Forum The House Of Commons debate on cycle safety #cyclesafe

Viewing 4 posts - 121 through 124 (of 124 total)
  • The House Of Commons debate on cycle safety #cyclesafe
  • unstableJ
    Free Member

    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!

    I think you’ll find you’ll be thinking about compensation when you’re sat at home in plaster not able to work or enjoy the sport you love for months…

    I unfortunately speak from bitter experience of going into the back of a car that turned left on me and then argued their way out of liability saying I should have given them more space!

    3 months in plaster with a broken scaphoid 👿

    AlexSimon
    Full Member

    With regard to Assumed Liability and rear-ending in a car.
    I think it works quite well.
    It might not make *everyone* leave a huge gap when in a queue, but it does take a lot of the difficulty out of the situation when an incident does happen. All that needs to happen is an exchange of details. No police, no shouting, no blaming.

    I’ve been involved in a couple (one each way) and they’ve been slightly sad (dealing with insurance is painful after all) but calm situations.

    I’ve also been knocked off my bike by someone who knew he was completely to blame and that was similarly calm.

    Assumed liability would hopefully lead to more of those, and less fear on the behalf of the cyclist that he was going to have to fight for his rights (which is always going to inflame the situation).

    D0NK
    Full Member

    Jesus H Sugworth, I can’t believe so many on here have a problem with assumed liability.
    If a car is rear ended everyone assumes* the rear car is at fault and rightly so, in odd circumstances – eg those nasty buggers going for insurance whiplash claims – evidence will show other factors at play but it’s a reasonable assumption.

    Cyclists (and pedestrians) aren’t in the habit of throwing themselves under the wheels of cars**, other evidence – RLJing, stepping off kerb without looking etc – may show other factors at play but car hit bike/person is a reasonable assumption to make.

    Why is this a contentious issue?

    *dunno is this is just common sense or there’s legislation about assuming it

    **again you may get insurance scams but riskier than the whiplash ones.

    GrahamS
    Full Member

    Cyclists (and pedestrians) aren’t in the habit of throwing themselves under the wheels of cars

    Just for giggles, watch the scene ~8:57 in this video:

    😀

Viewing 4 posts - 121 through 124 (of 124 total)

The topic ‘The House Of Commons debate on cycle safety #cyclesafe’ is closed to new replies.