Presumed liability petition

[mattheus]

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 [redacted]

There's a lot of sense in the above words!

[Jdsk]

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 [redacted]

There's a lot of sense in the above words!

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?

Jonathan

[mattheus]

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?

Jonathan

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!

[emt15]

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.

[mattheus]

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 ... )

[Mike Sales]

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?

Jonathan

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.

[Jdsk]

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:

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

[Mike Sales]

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:

I would go one step ahead an change the wording to cyclists regardless of fault must be compensated because we are more vulnerable.

Jonathan

Ah, I see.

[emt15]

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.

[emt15]

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:

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.

[Jdsk]

Some previous contributions.

On lights:

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

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.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=140613&p=1526484#p1526484

Jonathan

[Stevek76]

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.

[emt15]

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.

[Bonefishblues]

But is politically untenable at this moment, so it cannot happen in this format. In the meantime (if ever), should we take a more pragmatic approach?

[mattheus]

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.

Is talk of panaceas relevant? How many legal (or Gov policy) changes have been panaceas? Who said it's a panacea?

If it is an "easy solution" then great; let's do it. Better than sitting back and watching pollution and obesity levels rise, and continued misery for victims of motoring injuries/deaths.