Intimidating Motorists?

[JakobW]

Handwringing about the loutish behaviour of cyclists seems to me to miss the power dynamics inherent in any car-cycle interaction. I'd like to be able to cultivate zen detachment, but if someone's nearly killed me (and clipping me with part of their car counts, at whatever speed), then I don't really care about their property any more; the odd dent and a flat tyre seems to me to be condign punishment, especially as the old bill mostly don't seem to care about motorists' assaults on cyclists. I appreciate that in the long run it probably won't do any good; ideally the driver would be reminded of the consequences every time they're tempted to dangerously pass or intimidate a cyclist, but in reality it's more likely to manifest as increased animosity towards bloody cyclists.

[BrightonRock]

It's easy to condemn acts of minor reciprocal behaviour, but when you're been nearly killed, or injured by a motorist you soon change your mind. In terms of vulnerability, it's all the cyclists way. I don't know of any motorists who have been injured by a bicycle.. M

[BrightonRock]

New dents? Flat tyres? Substitute 'some wag' for 'some idiot'.

Sounds like vandalism. Nothing remotely funny here. No wonder many motorists have a low opinion of cyclists. Thanks for nothing.

If a motorist put you off the road, and either injured you, or damaged your bicycle you know damn well the police aren't going to do sod all about it. Even if they do, it'll be the lightest slap on the wrist possible.

Sounds like taking back control of the road to me. Until there is presumed liability (like most other sensible European countries) cyclists will always be in danger on British roads. A little tit for tat goes a long way.

[Oldjohnw]

New dents? Flat tyres? Substitute 'some wag' for 'some idiot'.

Sounds like vandalism. Nothing remotely funny here. No wonder many motorists have a low opinion of cyclists. Thanks for nothing.

If a motorist put you off the road, and either injured you, or damaged your bicycle you know damn well the police aren't going to do sod all about it. Even if they do, it'll be the lightest slap on the wrist possible.

Sounds like taking back control of the road to me. Until there is presumed liability (like most other sensible European countries) cyclists will always be in danger on British roads. A little tit for tat goes a long way.

Your post never mentioned anything about either injury to the cyclist or damage to the bike.

[Vorpal]

I am seldom in favour of intimidation of any flavour.

I have had a word a time or two with drivers who (I believed) unintentionally did something stupid, like left hook me. It requires that I feel safe doing so, which includes that they are unlikely to follow me for retaliation.

There is a significant power differential between vulnerable users and motorists. Motorists are, to many vulnerable users, intimidating just for sharing space with them. They are driving around what can easily become a lethal weapon. That means that I am unlikely to risk saying something in most circumstances, just in case the motorist turns out to belong to the tiny minority who cannot handle any sort of criticism, and/or are violent bullies. If I think they may have deliberately intimidated me (i.e. close pass, forcing me off the road, etc.) I am more likely to avoid a confrontation. If I think it is serious enough, I record details and report it to the police, and request an incident number. Even if the police do nothing, at least the incident is recorded with the registration.

Vigilantism doesn't help anyone.

[TrevA]

They say that revenge is a dish best served cold?

Best to stay calm, record any incident (whether on paper on on camera if you have one) and report it to the the appropriate authority (police, council, employer of the driver concerned).

[Cyril Haearn]

Real men lift the aggressors car onto its side.

That would be possible only in The Dopestrong Combination* (sounds like the title of a spy novel by John LeCarre)

*big person, small car

[Debs]

In any confrontational incident with a motorist, always remain calm and behave cool, remember you are on candid camera

Okay you may not be...
but there are a lot of cameras around these days,
and you don't want to do anything you will regard later when watching incident on YouTube

[pete75]

New dents? Flat tyres? Substitute 'some wag' for 'some idiot'.

Sounds like vandalism. Nothing remotely funny here. No wonder many motorists have a low opinion of cyclists. Thanks for nothing.

If a motorist put you off the road, and either injured you, or damaged your bicycle you know damn well the police aren't going to do sod all about it. Even if they do, it'll be the lightest slap on the wrist possible.

Sounds like taking back control of the road to me. Until there is presumed liability (like most other sensible European countries) cyclists will always be in danger on British roads. A little tit for tat goes a long way.

Presumed liability. Guilty until proved innocent. Not a good basis for a legal system.Little better than the vigilante episode you described.

[Vorpal]

Presumed liability. Guilty until proved innocent.

Presumed liability is not 'guilty until proved innocent'.

Presumed liability has nothing to do with guilt. It places *liability* on the road users most capable of doing harm. All that means is that the motorists' insurance will pay compensation when vulnerable road users are harmed. The current system in the UK means that an injured victim needs to demonstrate liability (at least to the satisfaction of the insurance company) in order to obtain compensation. It can be a lengthy process, involving lawyers, and sometimes years of stress and worry for a victim who may be struggling financially. Insurance companies often refuse liability or argue that the liability is shared, even when the driver *is* guilty and has been convicted.

If someone hits a vulnerable road user who is 16 or under in the Netherlands and some other countries, with a motor vehicle, the owner's insurance will pay compensation, independent of who was at fault. If the vulnerable road user is over 16, the vehicle owner's insurance will pay compensation unless they can demonstrate negligence (or other extenuating circumstance) on the part of the the vulnerable user. Nothing to do with guilt or criminal law. It's merely about whose insurance pays.

Considering the balance of power on the roads, I think it's fair.

[pete75]

Presumed liability. Guilty until proved innocent.

Presumed liability is not 'guilty until proved innocent'.

Presumed liability has nothing to do with guilt. It places *liability* on the road users most capable of doing harm. All that means is that the motorists' insurance will pay compensation when vulnerable road users are harmed. The current system in the UK means that an injured victim needs to demonstrate liability (at least to the satisfaction of the insurance company) in order to obtain compensation. It can be a lengthy process, involving lawyers, and sometimes years of stress and worry for a victim who may be struggling financially. Insurance companies often refuse liability or argue that the liability is shared, even when the driver *is* guilty and has been convicted.

If someone hits a vulnerable road user who is 16 or under in the Netherlands and some other countries, with a motor vehicle, the owner's insurance will pay compensation, independent of who was at fault. If the vulnerable road user is over 16, the vehicle owner's insurance will pay compensation unless they can demonstrate negligence (or other extenuating circumstance) on the part of the the vulnerable user. Nothing to do with guilt or criminal law. It's merely about whose insurance pays.

Considering the balance of power on the roads, I think it's fair.

Liability in a civil case is the same as guilt in a criminal case. Effectively it is guilty until proved innocent. I think it's unfair. Take a situation where a motorist is not at all to blame for an event where a cyclist is injured. They are the only two witnesses. Each tells a different story. Under presumed liability the motorist would not be able to prove he wasn't at fault and compensation would be unjustly paid. Anyone claiming someone else has harmed them should have to prove it.

[Vorpal]

Liability in a civil case is the same as guilt in a criminal case. Effectively it is guilty until proved innocent. I think it's unfair. Take a situation where a motorist is not at all to blame for an event where a cyclist is injured. They are the only two witnesses. Each tells a different story. Under presumed liability the motorist would not be able to prove he wasn't at fault and compensation would be unjustly paid. Anyone claiming someone else has harmed them should have to prove it.

Liability in a civil case is not the same as guilt in a criminal case. The criminal equivalent to liability is culpability. The civil equivalent of guilt is tort. Just like with liability, culpability does not necessarily imply guilt.

Presumed liability already applies in many circumstances. One easy example is in a shunt. Usually the first car to shunt the one in front is presumed liable for the damage that their car does to the one in front, and any others involved if there are subsequent shunts. That presumed liability applies unless the driver with primary liability can demonstrate that the driver of the car that they hit has done something blatantly wrong, like cut over or slam on the brakes to cause an accident. That presumed liability normally applies even in many cases where the following motorists should probably have some share of the liability because they were following too closely.

In some shunts, certainly the driver in front is at fault, but the following driver bears the liability, anyway, unless they can demonstrate that they are not at fault.

This is because we assume that the following driver has a responsibility to maintain a safe distance to the vehicle in front, and if they have shunted, we assume they have not fulfilled the responsibility.

By the same logic, some countries have stated in their law something to the affect of motor vehicle drivers are responsible, because of the risk created by driving such vehicles, for injury caused as a result of their driving. It is little different form the responsibility of a driver to maintain safe braking distance to the vehicle in front.

[thirdcrank]

Re intimidating motorists.

IME and in all sorts of situations, people get braver/ sillier in a group/ gang and also the lowest common denominator tends to prevail. Peer pressure. With social media there's a tendency for some of the discussion to act in the same way, so people doing stupid things assume it's something to brag about.

[pete75]

Liability in a civil case is not the same as guilt in a criminal case. The criminal equivalent to liability is culpability. The civil equivalent of guilt is tort. Just like with liability, culpability does not necessarily imply guilt.

Presumed liability already applies in many circumstances. One easy example is in a shunt. Usually the first car to shunt the one in front is presumed liable for the damage that their car does to the one in front, and any others involved if there are subsequent shunts. That presumed liability applies unless the driver with primary liability can demonstrate that the driver of the car that they hit has done something blatantly wrong, like cut over or slam on the brakes to cause an accident. That presumed liability normally applies even in many cases where the following motorists should probably have some share of the liability because they were following too closely.

In some shunts, certainly the driver in front is at fault, but the following driver bears the liability, anyway, unless they can demonstrate that they are not at fault.

This is because we assume that the following driver has a responsibility to maintain a safe distance to the vehicle in front, and if they have shunted, we assume they have not fulfilled the responsibility.

By the same logic, some countries have stated in their law something to the affect of motor vehicle drivers are responsible, because of the risk created by driving such vehicles, for injury caused as a result of their driving. It is little different form the responsibility of a driver to maintain safe braking distance to the vehicle in front.

A tort is a civil wrong causing harm to someone .It is analogous to a crime in criminal cases. Liability is what results when someone is held to have commited a so called tortious act. in the same way that being guilty is what follows being proven to have commited a crime.

Your sentence "In some shunts, certainly the driver in front is at fault, but the following driver bears the liability, anyway, unless they can demonstrate that they are not at fault." shows what is wrong with presumed liability. The reason behind the assumption in rear enders is that a following driver should always be far enough behind and concentrating sufficiently to stop safely if the driver in front does an emergency stop. This can of course happen at any time.

In UK law drivers are responsible for injury caused as a result of their driving. They are not liable for injuries caused as a result of the injures party's actions. This is as it should be.

[Vorpal]

Don't you think that a vulnerable road user who is injured through no fault of their own should be able to claim compensation?