Cycling UK Forum

I've only come close to taking a cyclist out once as a motorist. Under presumed liability that one case would have.been my fault.

The only thing is it wasn't my fault. The road design was very poor. I was at a t junction waiting to turn off right. The left side was a left sweeping bend . Both directions had parked cars and vans on both sides of the road. I crept out very slowly until I was sticking right out into the road. I could still not see far so I decided I had to go for it. A cyclist sped round the corner and nearly into the side of the car. I was shaken because it was so close. I apologised which annoyed me greatly because I had not done anything wrong and could not have.done anything better than I had. The cyclist was highly abusive and threatening. Doors locked I waited.for him to go then drove off.

Now three things I take from that experience. I'm not going to apologise for anything especially not if I've got no blame in what I did. Second road design in old, British towns is often dangerous. I believe towns should not be given over to cars such that these roads become dangerous due to parked cars, make the inside of the bend free of cars for visibility. Third strict liability does not work in the UK. Not until society has committed to cycling more than it has. By that I mean culture change and road changes. Make the roads safe for cyclists and increase acceptance of cycling in daily life.

Oh another thing I take is that some cyclists are dangerous idiots who think nothing of riding faster than cars do on a particular stretch of road then blame everyone but themselves when accidents or close calls happen.

BTW before you try to claim in this incident I did anything wrong and defend the cyclist I should point out something. I brought this issue up at the next local road safety association meeting where I was on an advanced driving course. The senior instructor (day job was advanced police driving instructor where he was one of the top instructors teaching pursuit driving for the local.constabulary) used it as a training exercise. I gave him the details and he asked questions. Conclusion was the same as mine, i did nothing wrong. There was nothing I could do. He did think I could have been too cautious but without being there he couldn't be sure. If I had been less cautious he'd have hit me for sure.

So my view is motorists and cyclists have dangerous and illegal actions at times based on ignorance, bad decision making / poor judgement or both. Whilst motorists are easier to enforce against cyclists are harder. IMHO that means some motorists, who may well be cyclists too (turned that argument around a bit), get annoyed by the rare offender getting away with it. That's my view. It annoys the hell out of me when anyone gets away with it. I don't see any difference between RLJers from any vehicle group. Right or wrong.

BTW I still dream for a separate network for cyclists, pedestrians and motorists. I do not think these modes of transport are compatible in the UK.

thirdcrank wrote:Hats off to Mr Loophole: where other one-hit posters have failed, he's got a thread going about RLJ-ing, pavement cycle, presumed liability and probably more. All without bothering to join the forum. Respect.

Thinks. Is there a way of bringing in helmets?

Possibly
Where's DaveW

Is there any type of road user that is prosecuted enough for the amount of road law breakage that they do?

Tangled Metal wrote:I've only come close to taking a cyclist out once as a motorist. Under presumed liability that one case would have.been my fault.

The only thing is it wasn't my fault. The road design was very poor. I was at a t junction waiting to turn off right. The left side was a left sweeping bend . Both directions had parked cars and vans on both sides of the road. I crept out very slowly until I was sticking right out into the road. I could still not see far so I decided I had to go for it. A cyclist sped round the corner and nearly into the side of the car. I was shaken because it was so close. I apologised which annoyed me greatly because I had not done anything wrong and could not have.done anything better than I had. The cyclist was highly abusive and threatening. Doors locked I waited.for him to go then drove off.

Now three things I take from that experience. I'm not going to apologise for anything especially not if I've got no blame in what I did. Second road design in old, British towns is often dangerous. I believe towns should not be given over to cars such that these roads become dangerous due to parked cars, make the inside of the bend free of cars for visibility. Third strict liability does not work in the UK. Not until society has committed to cycling more than it has. By that I mean culture change and road changes. Make the roads safe for cyclists and increase acceptance of cycling in daily life.

Oh another thing I take is that some cyclists are dangerous idiots who think nothing of riding faster than cars do on a particular stretch of road then blame everyone but themselves when accidents or close calls happen.

BTW before you try to claim in this incident I did anything wrong and defend the cyclist I should point out something. I brought this issue up at the next local road safety association meeting where I was on an advanced driving course. The senior instructor (day job was advanced police driving instructor where he was one of the top instructors teaching pursuit driving for the local.constabulary) used it as a training exercise. I gave him the details and he asked questions. Conclusion was the same as mine, i did nothing wrong. There was nothing I could do. He did think I could have been too cautious but without being there he couldn't be sure. If I had been less cautious he'd have hit me for sure.

So my view is motorists and cyclists have dangerous and illegal actions at times based on ignorance, bad decision making / poor judgement or both. Whilst motorists are easier to enforce against cyclists are harder. IMHO that means some motorists, who may well be cyclists too (turned that argument around a bit), get annoyed by the rare offender getting away with it. That's my view. It annoys the hell out of me when anyone gets away with it. I don't see any difference between RLJers from any vehicle group. Right or wrong.

BTW I still dream for a separate network for cyclists, pedestrians and motorists. I do not think these modes of transport are compatible in the UK.

Not sure about your incident! I think you'd have an argument against the cyclist, as you would with a car - travelling too fast to be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear. As I understand the whole idea of presumed liability, it is 'presumed', unless proved otherwise, or, mitigating circumstances are submitted.

But in the situation I described there were two witnesses, me and the cyclist. How could I prove that it was the cyclist's fault? Under presumed liability, correct me if I'm wrong, any injury to the cyclist would lead my insurers paying out. Possibly my prosecution too or is that separate?

So I have car insurance, the cyclist night have legal cover through BC or CUK. In the case I experienced the current situation is unless there's a prosecution against me the cyclist would have to prove my.negligence. As in prove that I did something wrong. As said the police driving instructor believes I did nothing wrong so assuming that's right the cyclist would have to claim against his insurance cover. My insurance doesn't get affected.

Under presumed liability the cyclist can claim against my insurance policy, using his legal cover through BC insurance. My insurer then has to find evidence to defend my corner. Basically that isn't going to.happen with two people involved, the defendant (me) and the plaintiff (the cyclist). My insurer simply won't bother defending only making.a quick settlement.

So in this case what does the presumed liability provide in the way of a benefit? Does it protect the cyclist, who was actually riding too fast to safely stop within his sightlines? Does it provide a fair system in this case? I could not drive any safer, but the cyclist could have ridden safer. My insurance would likely go up as a result of good driving behaviour.

Now this situation I've hypothesized may not happen that often. It happened to me though. If under presumed liability I lose out despite driving responsibly then I feel.my.pocket is unfairly hit. BTW I'm no driving saint but I do look out for cyclists, give them to space (1m if travelling slowly and 1.5m if driving.faster - distance estimated so could be significantly greater) and I look carefully on t junctions.

BTW I'm actually for presumed liability but would like some way to deal with no independent witness incidents that could be 50:50 blame or higher towards the cyclist. Unless you're happy with such a flip in.justice. By that mean drivers.win now but cyclists win under presumed liability. Neither is completely fair.

In the case you describe, liability would be assumed to be against you in any case, because primarily you pulled into his path; already you'd be having to prove that, on the balance of probabilities, the other party was travelling too fast.

Prosecution is irrelevant; that's the criminal law and presumed liability is by definition a civil matter - it's a question of who (or whose insurers) pays for the damage.

It's actually possible to be prosecuted as a result of a collision but not be liable in civil law. Consider a dead straight road with excellent sightlines, but a speed limit of 30mph. Consider party A is travelling along this road at 50mph when party B pulls out of a side road in front of him and a collision occurs. Party A could be prosecuted for speeding, but since party B pulled into his path and should have seen party A, party B would be liable for the collision in the civil court.

One has to consider whether on the balance of probabilities presumed liability makes our roads safer for vulnerable users.The evidence says it does where it's been implemented. Arguments about, hey I might be out of pocket by a small amount on rare occasions (and if they are not rare you shouldn't be driving) are of secondary / minor importance.

PhilWhitehurst wrote:One has to consider whether on the balance of probabilities presumed liability makes our roads safer for vulnerable users.The evidence says it does where it's been implemented. Arguments about, hey I might be out of pocket by a small amount on rare occasions (and if they are not rare you shouldn't be driving) are of secondary / minor importance.

Whilst I take your point, I think the problem is that it potentially isn't a small amount. If your insurance pays out then you face loss of NCD and increased premiums. Could easily cost you hundreds.

It's odd the Mr Loophole doesn't appear to know that a footpath, a path away from a road where the use of a bike is a civil trespass, and a footway, a path next to road where riding a bike can get you an FPN but advice from government is that it's to be ignored unless it's reckless or dangerous, are different things.

Don't think I'd use a "specialist"highway lawyer who didn't know that!

Tangled Metal wrote:But in the situation I described there were two witnesses, me and the cyclist. How could I prove that it was the cyclist's fault? Under presumed liability, correct me if I'm wrong, any injury to the cyclist would lead my insurers paying out. Possibly my prosecution too or is that separate?

So I have car insurance, the cyclist night have legal cover through BC or CUK. In the case I experienced the current situation is unless there's a prosecution against me the cyclist would have to prove my.negligence. As in prove that I did something wrong. As said the police driving instructor believes I did nothing wrong so assuming that's right the cyclist would have to claim against his insurance cover. My insurance doesn't get affected.

Under presumed liability the cyclist can claim against my insurance policy, using his legal cover through BC insurance. My insurer then has to find evidence to defend my corner. Basically that isn't going to.happen with two people involved, the defendant (me) and the plaintiff (the cyclist). My insurer simply won't bother defending only making.a quick settlement.

So in this case what does the presumed liability provide in the way of a benefit? Does it protect the cyclist, who was actually riding too fast to safely stop within his sightlines? Does it provide a fair system in this case? I could not drive any safer, but the cyclist could have ridden safer. My insurance would likely go up as a result of good driving behaviour.

Now this situation I've hypothesized may not happen that often. It happened to me though. If under presumed liability I lose out despite driving responsibly then I feel.my.pocket is unfairly hit. BTW I'm no driving saint but I do look out for cyclists, give them to space (1m if travelling slowly and 1.5m if driving.faster - distance estimated so could be significantly greater) and I look carefully on t junctions.

BTW I'm actually for presumed liability but would like some way to deal with no independent witness incidents that could be 50:50 blame or higher towards the cyclist. Unless you're happy with such a flip in.justice. By that mean drivers.win now but cyclists win under presumed liability. Neither is completely fair.

I don't know how you 'prove' anything in this situation, dont know that there is a perfect answer, just that the presumed idea is supposed to help more vulnerable parties. Is anything ever going to be perfect? Had an incident driving, years ago on a single track country lane, head on with a van coming the other way. I'd seen the roof of the vehicle long before I met him and had stopped, but, insufficient time to reverse! He admitted total fault at the time, then denied everything later - no witnesses, no proof = very salutary lesson!

Shootist wrote:

JimL wrote:Is it not the case that the statistics show that in motor /bicycle collisions where blame can be attached the motorist is to blame in 70/80% of cases . So it is surely reasonable that when the the facts cannot be independently established and it is the word of the cyclist v the motosists ( or the cyclists is dead ) the presumption should be , for civil cases where the balance of proability attains, that the motorist is to blame

Ok, so you are arguing that the responsibility for a road traffic collision involving a cyclist, the motorist should be blamed because of what some other motorists did? OK, it's a point of view I suppose. Trial by similarity, the burden of proof being that the majority of motorists were guilty so you must be.

No

The law is trying to assign probabilities to events so use all relevant information to get a better answer. The injustice suffered by a blameless motorist (a few hundred pound out of pocket) is nothing compared to the injustice suffered by a blameless cyclist.

ANTONISH wrote: Even "responsible" cyclists will go over a cycle crossing at red if the road is empty.

Because it's legal to do so, in most cases, and encouraged by highways officers when people complain about the typical slothful anti-cycling signal timings!

Why the scare quotes around "responsible" and "utility"? Helping motorists to divide and conquer cyclists?

Whilst physical injury of a cyclist is worse the loss of NCD isn't a few hundred pounds. It's significantly more for the first year, i don't have the details but mine is currently at 60% saving so losing that could easily break £500 mark. Second year a bit of NCD saves a bit off that. third year and so on.

All this in my case because a cyclist was riding too fast to see round the parked cars on a sweeping right bend (from his POV) in time to stop. I'm glad he didn't hit me and definitely didn't get hurt.

I think I did say before I'm for presumed liability with reservations. It worries me a little that it's potentially lifting the blindfold off justice slightly. What I mean by this is justice doesn't review the facts to decide, it takes a side from the beginning. Whilst it may save lives in other societies where it's implemented, it'll be a shot in the dark over here. Perhaps trail run in one area like London and another more rural or rural with smaller towns. I'd really like to see how it works out before it comes fully into play.

In the meantime at the first whiff of it heading into law I'll make sure my insurance includes NCD protection with more than one accident allowed in the specified timeframe. That's one of thing insurers like to.drop off on renewal I've noticed.

You don't lose the whole NCD. It's normally knocked back two years, so you'd be down to 40%

You could possibly do some kind of assessment from the car and bike damage to work out the velocity of the cyclist and therefore if he was going too fast for the corner.

Only other thing is run a dash cam or gps. While that would be facing forwards and therefore would not film the collision it would demonstrate that you were pulling out slowly and therefore the cyclist caused the collision.