To make the roads safer - first remove the regulation

[Pete Owens]

No that is your responsibility too.
If someone can wander into your path without you being able to avoid them this means you were travelling too fast or too close to them. it is up to you to make sure that you operate your vehicle in a safe manner not rely on the assumption that others will keep out of your path.

Could not agree less. If I'm proceeding down the road in a lawful manner, exercising due care and attention,

then you would have noticed the presence of pedestrians and anticipated the possibility that they may be about to cross the road.

and a walking ped. talking on a phone turns 90 degrees and steps off the kerb directly in front of me without looking then that collision is not my responsibility.

and that was also the view of the police.

Sadly this victim blaming attitude that the underclass should keep out of he way of important people in vehicles all to common amongst the police.
see:
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/ ... cle16.html
or indeed the daniel cadden case.

[Pete Owens]

Maintaining 'primary' position in those crowded circumstances will put you at the end of a drivers wrath in rather less than 10 seconds

Maintaining the primary position is imprortant precicely because you cannot rely on all drivers to follow the Highway Code so need to claim your space on the road to make it clear to them that they may need to change lane in order to overtake.

It is better to that a driver is annoyed if the only way to prevent that annoyance is to encourage him to overtake when there isn't enough space to do so safely.

I have seen a frustrated car driver stop behind a bike at the next ASL, get out of his car, and punch the cyclist, knocking him to the ground... "get out of our 'flippin' way" or some such.

Not so different from the frustated cyclist who crashed in the pedestrian that had the temmerity to attempt to cross the road.

I am reminded of the 1960s john Cleese/Ronny Barker/Ronnie Corbett sketch on class:
Cleese: (In bowler hat, black jacket and pinstriped trousers) I look down on him (Indicates Barker) because I am upper-class.
Barker: (Pork-pie hat and raincoat) I look up to him (Cleese) because he is upper-class; but I look down on him (Corbett) because he is lower-class. I am middle-class
Corbett: (Cloth cap and muffler) I know my place. I look up to them both. But I don't look up to him (Barker) as much as I look up to him (Cleese), because he has got innate breeding.
Cleese: I have got innate breeding, but I have not got any money. So sometimes I look up (bends knees, does so) to him (Barker).
Barker: I still look up to him (Cleese) because although I have money, I am vulgar. But I am not as vulgar as him (Corbett) so I still look down on him (Corbett).
Corbett: I know my place. I look up to them both; but while I am poor, I am honest, industrious and trustworthy. Had I the inclination, I could look down on them. But I don't.
Barker: We all know our place, but what do we get out of it?
Cleese: I get a feeling of superiority over them.
Barker: I get a feeling of inferiority from him, (Cleese), but a feeling of superiority over him (Corbett).
Corbett: I get a pain in the back of my neck.



It appears that you have let aggressive drivers intimidate you into adopting a dangerous road position - and when that has resulted in a collision you blame the pedestrian you crashed into...

they should know their place.

[workhard]

It's a point of view, but I don't agree with it.

claiming you can identify a "victim", who is therefore innocent, and a "perp", who is therefore guilty, in all accidents between cyclists and peds purely on the basis of cyclist=guilty is illogical, irrational, and unsupportable in law.

Consider what would have happened had the ped not stepped into the road without looking - nothing. So who caused the accident? Causation in a tort isn't everything but it is nearly everything - in my collision who was the most negligent? Myself or the pedestrian? By your lights I may have been incorrectly positioned, yes, but negligent?

[david143]

It's a point of view, but I don't agree with it.

claiming you can identify a "victim", who is therefore innocent, and a "perp", who is therefore guilty, in all accidents between cyclists and peds purely on the basis of cyclist=guilty is illogical, irrational, and unsupportable in law.

Consider what would have happened had the ped not stepped into the road without looking - nothing. So who caused the accident?

and what caused the damage?

[kwackers]

Consider what would have happened had the ped not stepped into the road without looking - nothing. So who caused the accident?

This is similar to riding past a car whose driver suddenly opens the door surely?

You are meant to expect them to suddenly open the door. It may well be their fault for not looking - but it's also yours for not leaving space.

You can't apply the argument "well if they hadn't opened the door the accident wouldn't have happened" as proof of your non-culpability.

Personally I think unless evidence shows otherwise, motorists should be held responsible for accidents with cyclists and motorists/cyclists with pedestrians (i.e. guilty until proven innocent).

I realise that some people don't think this is fair - but then neither is causing an accident and getting away scot free because there is no proof(especially when your primary witness is dead).
So neither the current system or what I suggest are completely fair but one puts more onus on the vehicles more likely to cause injury to behave better in the first place.

[workhard]

It's a point of view, but I don't agree with it.

claiming you can identify a "victim", who is therefore innocent, and a "perp", who is therefore guilty, in all accidents between cyclists and peds purely on the basis of cyclist=guilty is illogical, irrational, and unsupportable in law.

Consider what would have happened had the ped not stepped into the road without looking - nothing. So who caused the accident?

and what caused the damage?

Hi David, that may seem important, as a sound bite, but it is not relevant in law. The question is whose negligence, if any, caused the collision that caused the damage. The Yanks have spelt it out further with the concepts of proximate and ultimate causes. Napoleon lost at Waterloo therefore, for better or worse, it is a case of Innocent until proven guilty in Engllsh Law.

Does a pedestrian wearing a blindfold and headphones, i.e. acting recklessly, have the right to blunder onto a busy carriageway and then blame the law abiding driver/rider for the ensuing collision? Who is behaving unreasonably in this situation the driver/rider or the ped?

[workhard]

Consider what would have happened had the ped not stepped into the road without looking - nothing. So who caused the accident?

This is similar to riding past a car whose driver suddenly opens the door surely?

You are meant to expect them to suddenly open the door. It may well be their fault for not looking - but it's also yours for not leaving space.

You can't apply the argument "well if they hadn't opened the door the accident wouldn't have happened" as proof of your non-culpability.

Personally I think unless evidence shows otherwise, motorists should be held responsible for accidents with cyclists and motorists/cyclists with pedestrians (i.e. guilty until proven innocent).

I realise that some people don't think this is fair - but then neither is causing an accident and getting away scot free because there is no proof(especially when your primary witness is dead).
So neither the current system or what I suggest are completely fair but one puts more onus on the vehicles more likely to cause injury to behave better in the first place.

Instead of opening the door, the driver pulls out without checking his blind spot (driving test failure fault) and wipes you out. Whose fault? Yours for not giving him enough room? His for not looking? Who actions directly caused the accident? Who actions were the most negligent/careless?

I can see the desire to change fundamental principals of Law as attractive but there is a whole edifice of Law resting on the innocent until guilty principal. Generally we don;t change one set of law that is not perfect (unfair) for another set of law which can be seen, by your own admission, to be faulty (also unfair).

Now if we were only talking about liability for insurance purposes, rather than guilt, I'd be with you but then cyclists (and peds maybe) would have to have compulsory insurance and how is that ever going to happen.

[david143]

It's a point of view, but I don't agree with it.

claiming you can identify a "victim", who is therefore innocent, and a "perp", who is therefore guilty, in all accidents between cyclists and peds purely on the basis of cyclist=guilty is illogical, irrational, and unsupportable in law.

Consider what would have happened had the ped not stepped into the road without looking - nothing. So who caused the accident?

and what caused the damage?

Hi David, that may seem important, as a sound bite, but it is not relevant in law. The question is whose negligence, if any, caused the collision that caused the damage. The Yanks have spelt it out further with the concepts of proximate and ultimate causes. Napoleon lost at Waterloo therefore, for better or worse, it is a case of Innocent until proven guilty in Engllsh Law.

Does a pedestrian wearing a blindfold and headphones, i.e. acting recklessly, have the right to blunder onto a busy carriageway and then blame the law abiding driver/rider for the ensuing collision? Who is behaving unreasonably in this situation the driver/rider or the ped?

and so as long as you stay between your little white lines, everything is someone else's responsibility.

There is a difference between being legally responsible for something and having responsibility.

If a cyclist rides at 20mph 1' from the curb and a ped walks out, I would say that the cyclist is responsible for not ensuring they had enough time to react.

If a cyclist traveling at 20mph is overtaken by a car traveling at 100mph, passing within a foot of the cyclist, and then the cyclist comes off, is that the cyclists fault? After all, it only says overtaking car SHOULD give space, not that they MUST...They are then not responsible for anything other than speeding, and it was the cyclists own fault for coming off.

There needs to be a duty of care, and there is none at present which keeps the insurance companies laughing all the way to their increased profits.

[david143]

Now if we were only talking about liability for insurance purposes, rather than guilt, I'd be with you but then cyclists (and peds maybe) would have to have compulsory insurance and how is that ever going to happen.

I am only talking about for Insurance purposes, and it is more than feasible to have liability insurance for everyone.

Anyone involved in an incident with no insurance can be dealt with.

BTW- We already have compulsory Insurance. Anyone earning pays NI in this Country.

[kwackers]

Now if we were only talking about liability for insurance purposes, rather than guilt, I'd be with you but then cyclists (and peds maybe) would have to have compulsory insurance and how is that ever going to happen.

I'd assumed this discussion was primarily about insurance purposes...
Certainly I wouldn't be expecting someone to get 'banged up' simply because there was no evidence they didn't do it!

However having no insurance doesn't change an awful lot, if you knock me over and I sue - insurance or no I can still have my pound of flesh. It's just more difficult.
Insurance works on the same principles as civil claims it's just that they make their decisions based on the odds of winning and the costs of fighting.

I would agree though without compulsary insurance ped/cycle collisions are tricky to do much about. But that shouldn't remove duty of care for cyclists when there are pedestrians within 'range'.

I've seen many accidents over the years and even where blame is obvious the other party could often have done a lot to reduce the effect or prevent it in the first place.

[workhard]

David, Kwackers

I think we are all agreeing with each other. The cyclist MUST exercise a reasonable degree of care. So MUST the pedestrian.

The crux of it is what constitutes a "reasonable" standard of care in a given incident.

(in the case of my accident you will have to take it on trust that I was riding, as the man says, with due care and attention. 3 out of 4 of the independent witnesses thought so and the fourth sort of ruled himself out being a witness by his actions immediately after the collision - which is what caused the old bill to be called. The ped had no recollection due to concusion)

[david143]

David, Kwackers

I think we are all agreeing with each other. The cyclist MUST exercise a reasonable degree of care. So MUST the pedestrian.

The crux of it is what constitutes a "reasonable" standard of care in a given incident.

(in the case of my accident you will have to take it on trust that I was riding, as the man says, with due care and attention. 3 out of 4 of the independent witnesses thought so and the fourth sort of ruled himself out being a witness by his actions immediately after the collision - which is what caused the old bill to be called. The ped had no recollection due to concusion)

Not trying to even hint you were in anyway responsible for the incident quoted. However, from an insurance stand point, I think you should be, unless it could be proven the ped deliberately stepped out in front of you to cause the accident.

It is well past time where all it takes is someone to lie and the Insurance company walks away (again).......

there is always a cost, and we all need to ensure we can cover it.....

Why not therefore have a Duty of care, like in other Countries; where from an Insurance standpoint it is the vehicle causing the damage that pays (where there is no proof of guilt).....

and what happens now when anyone has an incident with any of the up to 10% of drivers not legal on the road now? Who covers that?

[workhard]

MIB scheme covers you if you are injured by uninsured driver but won't cover your material losses.

Astounded by something I heard on TV, a taxi driver pleaded guilty to driving with no insurance but was only fined £200 i.e. less than the ruddy premium. What deterent is that we may well ask?

Even with the 90% who are insured there will still be uninsured losses which can be substantial, e.g. motorcyclists are not covered for leathers. gloves, helmets, intercom, etc.. which get trashed. So you sue and hope the driver is not a "man of straw" or strangely does not become one whilst he is being pursued through the legal system (and I'm not bitter)

But I'm favour of compulsory insurance and liability being automatically attached to the vehicular driver/rider on a might of way basis (so a car trumps a bike and a truck trumps a car etc.,)

and don't get started on insurance companies repudiating claims on basis that car/driver was technically unroadworthy so thus not insured etc.,

[kwackers]

Astounded by something I heard on TV, a taxi driver pleaded guilty to driving with no insurance but was only fined £200 i.e. less than the ruddy premium. What deterent is that we may well ask?

A common problem.

And people who having been caught (usually repeatedly) driving whilst disqualified being given a couple of years ban - same with a underage 'yoof'.

Trouble with the law is it only really punishes the law abiding. If you want to ignore it, it's options become limited.

Work hard, own things and you've a lot to lose... Live in rented accomodation, own nothing and play the system and you won't even have to pay the £200 fine.

Confiscating cars off uninsured drivers is a start, but doesn't go far enough.

[Pete Owens]

It's a point of view, but I don't agree with it.

claiming you can identify a "victim", who is therefore innocent, and a "perp", who is therefore guilty, in all accidents between cyclists and peds purely on the basis of cyclist=guilty is illogical, irrational, and unsupportable in law.

I take the victim as the one who has been hit. Had the pedesrian bumped into you then you would be the victim. This would be entirely uncontroversial had you hit them with any object other than a vehicle.

Consider what would have happened had the ped not stepped into the road without looking - nothing.

Had Harold Shipton's patient's registered with another GP...

So who caused the accident? Causation in a tort isn't everything but it is nearly everything - in my collision who was the most negligent? Myself or the pedestrian? By your lights I may have been incorrectly positioned, yes, but negligent?

The cause of damage in this case was the kinetic energy you brought to the scene. As it is you that is operating a potentially dangerous piece of machinery in a public place then you owe a duty of care to passers by to ensure that nobody comes to any harm as a result. Again, this would be entirely uncontroversial with piece of equipment other than a vehicle.