Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Severus

@&#$ing cyclists version 2

226 posts in this topic

You have to ask yourself why in those situations it may be safer to go through on red than wait for the light to turn green.

But, playing that game, I went for a walk at lunchtime and as is my want I crossed Marylebone Road. Number of cars going through red lights: 9; Number of bikes: 2.

Really? You should know better!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Equally, we could just assume the lunatic without insurance on two wheels is to blame unless proven otherwise. :rolleyes:

Perhaps the best solution is simply to not apportion blame until the evidence has been examined, and then realise that sometimes, accidents are exactly that, and no-one is at fault. B)

The concept is based on the idea that if a pedestrian is hit by a cyclist you should assume the cyclist is to blame and look for reasons why not; then if a cyclist is hit by a car you'd assume the car is to blame and look for reasons why not; if the car is hit by a lorry you'd look for reasons not to blame the lorry; and finally if the lorry is hit by a bolt of lightning from the almighty you'd have to look for reasons why that's not because Washington State has allowed gay marriage.

There are plenty of equivalents in driving - if you go into the back of someone it'll be assumed to be your fault unless you can show otherwise, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4. We should switch to the system used in some countries where the cad drives is assumed to be responsible for the car/bike collision unless the driver can prove otherwise.

So what happens if the cyclist is killed and there is no other witness. What if the cyclist was at fault.

You could have a innocent person going to prison.

And you think that is the way to go?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically, it is strict liability or presumption of liability. This puts it far better than I can: presumption of liability – a rule that a motorist will be liable for a crash with a cyclist unless the motorist can show that the cyclist was at fault....A presumption of liability would normally work by shifting the burden of proof. So after a crash, a cyclist wouldn’t need to prove that the driver did something wrong; it would be for the driver to prove that he didn’t do anything wrong (or that the collision was caused by the cyclist doing something wrong).

Beyond that, the usual rules would normally apply.

see http://ukcyclerules.com/2010/11/16/strict-liability-and-legal-protection-for-cyclists/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what happens if the cyclist is killed and there is no other witness. What if the cyclist was at fault.

You could have a innocent person going to prison.

And you think that is the way to go?

How do you think they determine what happened in a fatal car crash?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically, it is strict liability or presumption of liability. This puts it far better than I can: presumption of liability – a rule that a motorist will be liable for a crash with a cyclist unlessthe motorist can showthat the cyclist was at fault....A presumption of liability would normally work by shifting the burden of proof. So after a crash, a cyclist wouldn’t need to prove that the driver did something wrong; it would be for the driver to prove that he didn’t do anything wrong (or that the collision was caused by the cyclist doing something wrong).

Beyond that, the usual rules would normally apply.

see http://ukcyclerules....n-for-cyclists/

Doesn't that go against our general principle of law though, that you are innocent until proved guilty? The burden of proof being with the prosecution not the defence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its not as general is we might think. In theUK about 1,500,000 speeding tickets are issued each year on a guilty until proven innocent basis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you think they determine what happened in a fatal car crash?

Lots of different ways.

But the point John made was the driver was to blame until otherwise proved. This is clearly wrong and only the biking mafia seem to think its a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its not as general is we might think. In theUK about 1,500,000 speeding tickets are issued each year on a guilty until proven innocent basis

I would imagine that on the whole speeding tickets are issued on a guilty because you're proven guilty by the machine basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HorseheadPillow2.jpg

"This is clearly wrong"

Not so sure.I think its a good starting point. The Netherlands and Denmark have a law of ‘strict liability’ to protect vulnerable road users from more powerful road users. Under this law, in crashes involving vulnerable road users, unless it can be clearly proven that the vulnerable road user was at fault, the more powerful road user is found liable by default. This makes Dutch and Danish drivers more cautious around cyclists and pedestrians and is responsible for their safe roads.” see http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki/dutch-cycle-because-strict-liability-made-everybody-drive-safely-and-play-nice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HorseheadPillow2.jpg

"This is clearly wrong"

Not so sure.I think its a good starting point. The Netherlands and Denmark have a law of ‘strict liability’ to protect vulnerable road users from more powerful road users. Under this law, in crashes involving vulnerable road users, unless it can be clearly proven that the vulnerable road user was at fault, the more powerful road user is found liable by default. This makes Dutch and Danish drivers more cautious around cyclists and pedestrians and is responsible for their safe roads.” see http://www.cycling-e...y-and-play-nice

So you would be happy to go to prison if you killed someone on a bike.

Even if it wasnt your fault?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but what has that got to do with it?

In this country, “strict liability” is often portrayed as a very strong legal tool. In fact, it is very weak. It does not refer to criminal liability, only to civil liability — i.e., primarily to matters of insurance in the event of injury. It is often mistakenly believed that “strict liability” would be relevant in the cases of cyclist deaths in which the motorists involved have received no or lenient punishment. In fact, the personal consequences of strict liability for the motorist are minimal to none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but what has that got to do with it?

You made the point that the law should change so the car is driver is at fault until proven otherwise. Its a silly idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good programme on BBC1 now about the cycle v cars situation. Idiots on both sides IMO. The guy doing the filming on his cycle helmet is a prat and seems intent on stirring it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its not as general is we might think. In theUK about 1,500,000 speeding tickets are issued each year on a guilty until proven innocent basis

But that is a law based on a definite rule, there is no interpretation of a parking zone it either is one or it isn't. If you park your car in a no parking zone you are guilty of illegal parking.

If however you can prove a technicality, missing signs, yellow lines eroded etc. then though you have still technically committed the offence you can be let off because it is excusable to make an error where the usual indicators are not present or are incorrect. It doesn't change the fact though that the area is designated as a no parking zone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good programme on BBC1 now about the cycle v cars situation. Idiots on both sides IMO. The guy doing the filming on his cycle helmet is a prat and seems intent on stirring it.

I haven't seen the programme yet (on my sky +) but there are a couple of things that concern me. 1. The title of the programme is clearly designed to stir up feelings for both drivers and cyclists. 2. the fella who wears the cycle cam helmet has already stated in twitter that he is unhappy at the way he has been portrayed and that the production crew gave him the impression that the programme would be different from the end product.

The helmet cam guy produces the silly cyclist YouTube videos that show stupid things done by cyclists and give general safety tips that I've found useful. Cyclists just want to be able to cycle safely from A to B, being involved in a collision is not a enviable outcome for us.

According to the latest email from British Cycling, 99% of British Cycling members are also car drivers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... the production crew gave him the impression that the programme would be different from the end product.

Well, that'd be a first....not. I have direct experience of how they gently and incrementally lead you unwittingly down their path. Also for me by concentrating on the capital, they were unrepresentative. However, the woman whose daughter was killed by the concrete mixer lorry driver was quite remarkable.

Because of the general attitude of the police and the judicial system wich does not in my opinion protect cyclists, I would support the introduction of strict liability, mandatory cycle training for provisional car licence holders, mandatory hellmets for all car drivers and a real clampdown on irresponsible cyclists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen the programme yet (on my sky +) but there are a couple of things that concern me. 1. The title of the programme is clearly designed to stir up feelings for both drivers and cyclists. 2. the fella who wears the cycle cam helmet has already stated in twitter that he is unhappy at the way he has been portrayed and that the production crew gave him the impression that the programme would be different from the end product.

The helmet cam guy produces the silly cyclist YouTube videos that show stupid things done by cyclists and give general safety tips that I've found useful. Cyclists just want to be able to cycle safely from A to B, being involved in a collision is not a enviable outcome for us.

According to the latest email from British Cycling, 99% of British Cycling members are also car drivers.

It wasn't just the bits where he was on the road though, his general manner was pretty arrogant IMO. He was OTT in banging on that cab drivers roof for instance and then goading him by clapping? He was lucky not to get a punch I reckon.

That's not to say cyclists don't have a case, they do. Idiots are idiots though whether on a bike or in a car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because of the general attitude of the police and the judicial system wich does not in my opinion protect cyclists, I would support the introduction of strict liability, mandatory cycle training for provisional car licence holders, mandatory hellmets for all car drivers and a real clampdown on irresponsible cyclists.

How would a disabled person in a wheelchair. Do the mandatory cycle training for provisional car licence holders?

How would a very tall person who drives a small car have enough space above there head?

If you are going to come up with a idea try thinking it through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have thought it through. You just disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would a disabled person in a wheelchair. Do the mandatory cycle training for provisional car licence holders?

How would a very tall person who drives a small car have enough space above there head?

If you are going to come up with a idea try thinking it through.

Mandatory cycle training doesn't mean they need to be able to ride a bike. A wheelchair user is probably more than aware of people not noticing them. To experience being on a road as a cyclist they could sit in a rickshaw.

As for the car helmet a tall person will need to buy a bigger car.

By the way I don't think either idea is necessary especially the car helmet. All motorists and cyclists need to use is COMMON SENSE! Something that appears to be sadly lacking in a lot of today's society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly WR. All it takes is common sense. We all want to get from A-B, there shouldn't be a war over it.

The guy who did the filming with his helmet-cam (name escapes me) was doing things like cycling in the middle of the road purely to block cars getting past. His logic being 'I'm just as important as them'. It's dicks like this (on both sides) that actually cause most of the problems on the roads. if you're on a bike it makes sense to move in a bit and let the car past....what good is making a point if you end up splattered all over the kerb? Dingbat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - April 2017

League Express - Mon 10th April 2017