Drivers to "automatically" take blame for all road accidents

[Si Hunt]

Fair?

MINISTERS are considering making motorists legally responsible for accidents involving cyclists or pedestrians, even if they are not at fault.

Government advisers are pushing for changes in the civil law that will make the most powerful vehicle involved in a collision automatically liable for insurance and compensation purposes.

The move, intended to encourage greater take-up of environmentally friendly modes of transport, is likely to anger some drivers, many of whom already perceive themselves to be the victims of moneyspinning speed cameras and overzealous traffic wardens.

Many will argue that it is the risky behaviour of some cyclists — particularly those who jump red lights and ride the wrong way along one-way streets — that is to blame for a significant number of crashes.

Si.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

Is there a news link for this? Personally I think it's a good idea.

I'd love to know who's written this, because as you know I take huge exception to people writing stuff like this,

Many will argue that it is the risky behaviour of some cyclists — particularly those who jump red lights and ride the wrong way along one-way streets — that is to blame for a significant number of crashes.

I get the feeling it was written by one of the 4x4 driving idiots who used to clip me with their wing mirrors. Cyclists are supposed to get the same right of way on roads as any other user, but believe me from 4 years commuting, you rarely get it, and have to be on the ball all the time.

It will also stop the absolutely vile practise of people in a car who have an accident with a cyclist/motorbike/pedestrian and blame them - even though that other party was fatally injured and so obviously can no longer put their view of events forward.

[Lissa]

So does this mean that a car which does something stupid and gets hit by a bus will be let off and the bus will automatically be held responsible as "the most powerful vehicle involved"?

Presuposition of guilt on irrelevant grounds is always a dangerous thing to enshrine in law. In this case it is the motoring equivalent of allowing muggings if the victim was wealthier than the mugger.

[Rob McCow]

You could be the best driver in the world, driving with all due care and attention and you could still have an accident. And that accident could involve a cyclist.

On the other hand, you could be the best cyclist in the world and you could still get knocked off your bike by a passing vehicle.

This is a ludicrous and revolting piece of knee-jerk politics! Cyclists need to be respected and treated well on the road, but this isn't going to achieve it. If anything, the law we need is that cycle helmets and cycling proficiency tests should be mandatory! Helmets save lives. Compensation makes lawyers rich.

I'm not anti-cyclist, but surely the number of dangerous cyclists on the road must be proportionate to the number of dangerous drivers?

[Jason Thompson]

I'd love to know who's written this, because as you know I take huge exception to people writing stuff like this,



I get the feeling it was written by one of the 4x4 driving idiots who used to clip me with their wing mirrors.

Equally it could have been written by me, since in the past couple of weeks on my morning walk to the station I have almost been run over twice by cyclists, one going the wrong way down a one-way street, and one jumping the red light at a pedestrian crossing.

I don't deny there are safe and proficient cyclists such as yourself on the roads. I have been one myself in the past. However, you have to be blind to deny that there are a number of cyclists who think that traffic laws such as road markings and crossings don't apply to them. I see a gang of idiots routinely cycling manically up and down my road, despite it having blind corners at both ends. One day one of them is going to get hit, and it won't be the fault of a motorist.

There have been, are, and always will be careless motorists, careless cyclists and careless pedestrians. You cannot simply decide that one lot is automatically to blame for all accidents just because they have a 'more powerful vehicle'. I think motorists who complain about speed cameras and parking tickets are unjustified in doing so, as you only get those tickets if you actually break the laws you implicitly agreed to abide by when you got your driving licence. However, in this case I think they have every right to be angry about it, as it is basically saying everything will be their fault regardless of the circumstances, which is absurd.

The whole story is a cynical move by ministers to change the laws to make driving cars undesirable. That is NOT the way to go about persuading people to take up environmentally friendly transport and cut down road users. To do that you need to make alternatives more attractive, not make one option unbearable by changing laws to make it really risky to drive a car in terms of your legal liabilities.

If there is any change in the law regarding cyclists that is needed I think it is that cycles should be registered in the same way cars are, because currently any cyclist breaking the law (such as by riding on the pavement) has a good chance of getting off because it's almost impossible to identify him to police so they can pick him up later.

[SiHart]

Excellent post Jason. I agree completely.

Si xx

[WhiteCrowNZ]

Tracked down the source of this story,

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6841326.ece

I recommend reading the whole thing, because there is a lot more being discussed than just this one initial section which Si has jumped on. For instance,

Last week lobbyists for cycling and walking groups met Jessica Matthew, the DfT official in charge of sustainable transport who is drafting the National Cycling Plan. Placing the onus of responsibility on motorists is perhaps the most controversial move under consideration.

Such scheme would place the presumption of blame against whoever was driving the most powerful vehicle involved in an accident, so they or their insurers would be liable for costs or damages.

We're talking about presumption here, not automatic blame. I have to admit it doesn't help the article is badly written, starting off talking about automatic blame, then moving on to say they're talking about the presumption of blame. Which I think is possibly a deliberate attempt to get people's goat. The Times is part of the Sun group now isn't it?

And this bit later on kind of sums up the kind of mentality I've experienced on the roads,

Last week James Martin, the television celebrity chef, described in a newspaper his joy at running a group of cyclists off the road and into a hedge while test-driving a sports car. Martin was forced to apologise after thousands of angry cyclists protested.

Wanker! I do get really furious about this as my music teacher from school got killed by someone doing much the same, and not stopping to help. So forgive me if I sometimes seem to have a complete sense of humour failure on this.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

Actually digging around the internet, I've found a lot of other mentions of this, but they all trace back to the same Times article. Why isn't another paper following this?

And here's food for thought to suggest a presumption of guilt isn't so ridiculous,

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.co...clists-deaths/

More than 52,000 bicyclists have been killed in bicycle traffic accidents in the U.S. over the 80 years the federal government has been keeping records. When it comes to sharing the road with cars, many people seem to assume that such accidents are usually the cyclist’s fault — a result of reckless or aggressive riding. But an analysis of police reports on 2,752 bike-car accidents in Toronto found that clumsy or inattentive driving by motorists was the cause of 90 percent of these crashes. Among the leading causes: running a stop sign or traffic light, turning into a cyclist’s path, or opening a door on a biker. This shouldn’t come as too big a surprise: motorists cause roughly 75 percent of motorcycle crashes too.

[Larry]

Is there a news link for this? Personally I think it's a good idea.

.

it is well known that the vast majority of cyclists do not stop at red lights so lets take this scenario.

a set of traffic lights at a cross roads cars are going over on the green light then suddenly with out warning a cyclists coming from the side road deliberatly jumps a red light and gets hit by a car. can you please explain to me why it is fare that a motorist is to blame for hitting a cyclists who has not only broken the laws of the road but shown utter contempt for it

e=Rob McCow;215999] Cyclists need to be respected and treated well on the road, but this isn't going to achieve it. ?

that works both ways cyclists need to respect and obey the rules of
the road. which 90% of those I have seen don'y/

[Jason Thompson]

We're talking about presumption here, not automatic blame.

That's a very thin semantic distinction, and happens to fly in the face of the basis of the entire legal system, in that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. You are suggesting we should welcome a change that says a motorist is presumed guilty until proven innocent.

Wanker! I do get really furious about this as my music teacher from school got killed by someone doing much the same, and not stopping to help. So forgive me if I sometimes seem to have a complete sense of humour failure on this.

I agree that was absolutely unjustified. I took a job at Pfizer covering for a man who was run off the road by a careless driver and suffered some horrific injuries as a result. I am aware of the dangers, that many drivers show contempt for cyclists, and that in all collisions a cyclist is going to come off worse than a driver, simply because one is encased in a large metal box while the other is not. That is NOT, however, a justification for presuming that in all cases a motorist is to blame for any accident involving a cyclist.

[Jason Thompson]

And here's food for thought to suggest a presumption of guilt isn't so ridiculous,

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.co...clists-deaths/

OK, so 90% of crashes were caused by careless drivers. That still leaves 10% that weren't, and 10% is NOT an insignificant number. It certainly is not low enough to justifiably presume blame lies with the motorist.

Blame should be decided on a case by case basis.

[cyberchris35]

I think it is a totally wrong to automatically blame or persume it's the drivers fault. I do have a drivers licence but I haven't got a car since I have been down in Birmingham, one reason is I can't afford one the other is the bad car drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. I have been in the car with my step dad and seen pedestrians just cross the road with no thought about cars on the road, they cross in dangerous places when there is a crossing just 30 seconds away. There has been times when I have thought that one day there will be an accident. I have also been nearly run down a few times while walking on a path by cyclists. I do agree that there are some downright dangerous drivers on the roads today, I have had my eyes opened since moving to Birmingham, so I think that no one should be blamed until all the facts have been found out.

[Paul Monk]

This is a daft knee jerk policy to avoid the only sensible but costly solution and that is to build cycle paths that are physically separated from the part of the road used by cars. It works in Bloomsbury in London and in Amsterdam but would obviously need a high level of investment

[Si Hunt]

I tried very hard when I started the thread to think up a good analagy, but Lissa nailed it

Presuposition of guilt on irrelevant grounds is always a dangerous thing to enshrine in law. In this case it is the motoring equivalent of allowing muggings if the victim was wealthier than the mugger.

The two things are unrelated. You can't allow Cyclists to have less responsibility on the roads because cycling is more environmentally friendly! It's absurd! And grossly unfair.

Si.

[SiHart]

It works in Bloomsbury in London and in Amsterdam but would obviously need a high level of investment

It makes me very cross that in Bracknell, the town has been designed with speial cycle lanes that enable you to get across the town without using the road for the most part, and yet cyclists still choose to cycle down the busy roads instead of using them. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Si xx

[Jason Thompson]

What used to amaze me in Cambridge were the number of pavements that were divided down the middle into cycle lanes (red with big bicycle icons painted on at intervals) and pedestrian paths (black with pedestrian icons painted on at intervals) on which pedestrians would walk on the cycle path and then complain at ME when I cycled towards them naively expecting them to get on their own side....

[MinaHarker]

I was nearly knocked over by a cyclist today, he rode into a junction without signalling AND the road was no entry anyway (it is a one-way street going the other way).

I routinely see cyclists going the wrong way up one-way streets and riding on the wrong side of the road. I nearly ran over one who chose not to stop at a stop line on a blind corner. I'd go to court before accepting any kind of blame for that.

However, I asked my stepdad about this today, and he said that the body that this suggestion is attributed to have claimed that they never said anything of the sort. They apparently believe this was cooked up by an anti-cyclist group/person in order to stir up trouble.

[Larry]

well how about this for an idea if cyclists want to use the roads then just like motorists have to buy a car tax disc each year then all cyclists should have to do the same and be made to pay for a tax disc to allow them on the roads. also it should be made law that all cyclists like motor bikes must wear protective crash helmets and then failure to have a tax disc or wear the helmets results in big fines.

if cyclists want to have the laws changed to favour them then they shouild be treated exactly the same as any other road user

[Captain Tancredi]

What used to amaze me in Cambridge were the number of pavements that were divided down the middle into cycle lanes (red with big bicycle icons painted on at intervals) and pedestrian paths (black with pedestrian icons painted on at intervals) on which pedestrians would walk on the cycle path and then complain at ME when I cycled towards them naively expecting them to get on their own side....

It came as a bit of a shock to me in Paris last year to find that the cycle lanes were more or less slap in the middle of the pavement. Equally, it's annoying that the ones in Leeds are combined cycle/bus lanes (because that's a good mix at the best of times) so my bus frequently has to hang back behind a cyclist as it's going uphill. Put your backs into it!

In the last couple of decades, though, I think what's happened is that as roads have become busier, parents have become reluctant to let their children cycle in the road so a couple of generations have grown up with the impression that it's OK to cycle on the pavement. What doesn't help is that it's apparently a non-issue as far as the police are concerned given the difficulty in proving that a particular person was doing it at a particular time and place. So there's a mentality among irresponsible cyclists that they can pretty much go where they want and nobody will stop them.

[Si Hunt]

I agree with Larry. Cyclists and Horses use the road, they should pay tax. True, they don't churn it up as much as cars so they should pay less. Particuarly horses - you don't need tax, insurance anything to ride a horse along the road. So if a Horse rears up and causes an accident - you're screwed, no insurance to cover it.

Si.

[SiHart]

They won't do that though, because they want to encourage people to use thier bikes and not their cars. And since, for instance I ride my bike on cycleways in Bracknell and don't use the roads, I wouldn't pay!

Si xx

[Paul Clement]

Also, it wouldn't work as there are also a lot of children who cycle, and would still ride on the road. They would end up being exempt, or would have to cycle on the pavement, which is then a danger to pedestrians.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

I agree with Larry. Cyclists and Horses use the road, they should pay tax.

Ironically so do I. Putting a tax on cyclists would cause people to give it up, and start using a car. The traffic chaos and misery caused by all those extra road users would be fantastic to witness. Have you ever thought of going into local government?

[Jason Thompson]

Putting a tax on cyclists would cause people to give it up, and start using a car.

Sorry, but that's just rubbish. Even with a tax, cycling would still be cheaper than running a car. People don't just cycle because it's free.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

Sounds like some of you should consider moving to Scotland ...

http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/...ver.5642372.jp

A ROAD tax on cyclists is being considered by Scottish Government civil servants.
The prospect of cyclists paying a charge, like motorists, to use roads comes in a document outlining the Scottish Government's vision for cycling.

The draft Cycling Action Plan for Scotland (CAPS), which has been released for public consultation, aims to ensure that, by 2020, 10 per cent of all journeys in Scotland are by bike.

But it also raises the question of cyclists making a financial contribution to roads maintenance. The document states: "Should all road users pay road tax? If so, how much should it be for cyclists and how could it be enforced?"