Cycling UK Forum

Stevek76 wrote: ↑26 Apr 2021, 10:57pm https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013 ... therlands/

Apologies if already posted but the above is a good summary of how it works in the Netherlands.

It's not the panacea often made out to be. Gets attention because it appears an easy solution.

Excellent thank you for posting this from the link it says

the driver can also argue the non-motorised road user was at fault. This is only possible for road users from the age of 14. If that road user was indeed at fault, the driver is still liable for 50% of the damage

IMHO presumed liability law can put this at 100% of the drivers fault regardless of who is at fault and has my full support. Removing the court element can easily save court costs and time too. As i have mentioned before this can make the whole process easier.

Jdsk wrote: ↑26 Apr 2021, 6:54pm

Mike Sales wrote: ↑26 Apr 2021, 6:48pm

Jdsk wrote: ↑26 Apr 2021, 11:00am Regardless of fault?

So if I cycle on the wrong side of the road and crash into a legally parked unoccupied car they should pay?

I understood that if fault on the cyclist's part could be proved, that would be a complete defence.
In your hypothetical case it would surely be simple to prove who was at fault.

I think that you're talking about presumption of liability which can be overturned by evidence of fault.

My question was about the quite different proposal that it should not be able to be overturned regardless of fault:

emt15 wrote: ↑25 Apr 2021, 5:44pm I would go one step ahead an change the wording to cyclists regardless of fault must be compensated because we are more vulnerable.

That's not only different, but it's never going to happen. And IMHO it gets in the way of achieving something that is achievable. Characterising this as a conflict between people riding bikes and people driving cars is counterproductive. And achieving the change will depend on convincing other people...

Jonathan

It is not different and does not get in the way of achieving a benefit to us. Im tired of these small steps because we need a large change and presumed liability the motorist held absolutely accountable regardless of fault is correct. There wouldnt be any conflicts if the roads were permanently made for cycles. Much better use of space and we could really save the planet this time. As i have said before the drivers should want this as it takes the uncertainty out of the equation imagine not having to worry about what the verdict would be, it will simply make life simpler.

mattheus wrote: ↑26 Apr 2021, 4:32pm emt: I think starting with just Presumed Liabliity is definitely the way to go!

(jdsk won't be the only one to complain if you suggest that the parked car situation would be a good benefit of your proposals ... )

so you agree. The correct way is that the motorist is automatically at fault without possibility of being overturned and that would be in the best interests of us cyclists. if the motorist cannot avoid a collision then they need to pay. On the bright side it will reduce people driving and bring other benefits.

I have used Giant before so I would vote for that

Bonefishblues wrote: ↑25 Apr 2021, 6:33pm

emt15 wrote: ↑25 Apr 2021, 5:42pm

Bonefishblues wrote: ↑15 Mar 2021, 3:40pm Poster hasn't returned to see the replies since they posted

Wrong. I did

Which one did you decide on, out of interest?

BTW it's helpful to at least be seen to have at least logged onto the Forum for the benefit of those who were courteous enough to reply to your thread, even if you don't post a response to their posts - there are many people who do not return after an initial post. Saves you having to post like this, too

sorry I didnt post back. i got tired of looking at what is better so ended up getting spesh based purely on slightly better reviews.

mattheus wrote: ↑26 Apr 2021, 11:03am
You bet. And if I hit you as you're walking from your car up your driveway? Yup, root cause was the car journey, your insurance can pay.

Win-win!

That is a bit silly but what exactly is wrong with absolute benefit to cyclist? you dont have to worry about hitting me walking from my car. i dont use one if there were no cars then this wont happen. me and my friends agree that perhaps presumed liability might be a good start and head into the direction of motorist being completely liable regardless of fault and that can only be a good thing that couldnt come soon enough. Motorists should want this too because it gets rid of the uncertainty of where every one stands in a collision. You know for sure what will happen so can stop worrying and even better if they stop driving altogether.

why does the motorist need to overtake? cycle and take the full lane if anyone tries to overtake then block them! i think the impatient idiot motorist need to be taught a lesson

I would go one step ahead an change the wording to cyclists regardless of fault must be compensated because we are more vulnerable. On a car it is just a scratch who cares? Motorists will keep whinging for no reason they need to banned from the roads completely.

Bonefishblues wrote: ↑15 Mar 2021, 3:40pm Poster hasn't returned to see the replies since they posted

Wrong. I did

I am looking to buy a Cannondale CAAD13 or Specialized Tarmac SL6 bike. Their specs are nearly identical so has anyone got an opinion on either of the brands?

mjr wrote:

cycle tramp wrote:

eileithyia wrote:As said it's illegal.
As also asked, why the reluctance to ride with lights.... I have lights even for daytime.... it's surprising how a cyclist can disappear in some lighting conditions and backgrounds.

To be fair its only illegal if you ride on adopted roads, [...]

I don't think that's correct.

The lighting regs are given effect by the Road Traffic Act 1988 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/198 ... ction/made

That act applies the regs to all use "on roads" https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/41

"Road" "means any highway and any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes" https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/19 ... ection/192

There is no requirement the road is adopted, is there?

This seems similar to the pernicious myth that you can't be done for drink-driving on an unadopted road. You can and people have been.

But this is for vehicles not cycles! I don't want them because they look ugly and why do I have to shell money out on lights, it should be the drivers fault! I will look for some later but for now I am going to ride without lights as I have a cycle not a vehicle.

Hello I have been cycling for a year now and so far I like it and want to continue. My shifts will turn to night shifts and was wondering if I absolutely need lights at night time? I really don't want to fit/buy them. Is it against the law to not have them? If I am hit the fault will fall on the driver automatically wouldn't it? thank you