UKC

Those of a nervous disposition may not want to watch this.

Undertaking is not cool.

youtube.com/watch?v=YDAYkdlKEGI&

In reply to wintertree:

Why does that make it a non starter? Clearly and obviously not the fault of either bus driver or truck driver and 100% the fault of the cyclist.

What was surprising was how quickly another idiot went between the bus and truck litterally seconds after the first had been squashed!

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Maybe I've misunderstood but I took strict liability with cycling to mean its always the motorists fault. Looking at e various sites promoting it I've yet to find a description of what it actually means...

Perhaps not a non starter, just a ridiculous proposition faced with people cycling like this.

In reply to wintertree:

It's a non-starter because it's an absolutely ludicrous notion. Strict liability means, as you say, that it's always the motorist's fault no matter what. That would be bonkers.

What I suspect people mean is that there should be a presumption that it's the motorist's fault. That would merely be the sort of bad law the government is always passing, as opposed to outright bonkers. The lack of thought that goes into this proposal can be seen from the fact that the people calling for it can't even be bothered to say what it is they actually mean.

jcm

In reply to wintertree:
It's not that ludicrous , it's a civil matter and effects the insurance companies more than anything else, it does not mean that motorist would be criminally responsible by default and it wouldn't mean the motorists and insurance companies would have no right to contest stupidity as posted, what it means is that cyclists injured in an incident with a motorist (and it is always the cyclist injured never the motorist) that the default is the injured party ( who may be out of work and pocket) doesn't have to fight through the courts for compensation over a two year period involving not just great expense for the individual but also the insurance company.
The insurance company can still contest the incident, but at the moment even the most clear cut of incidents involving multiple witnesses and cam footage still take a long time to resolve.

In reply to wintertree:

“The Netherlands and Denmark have a law of ‘strict liability’ to protect vulnerable road users from more powerful road users. Under this law, in crashes involving vulnerable road users, unless it can be clearly proven that the vulnerable road user was at fault, the more powerful road user is found liable by default. This makes Dutch and Danish drivers more cautious around cyclists and pedestrians and is responsible for their safe roads.”

The weak version of this claim goes on to state that strict liability is a necessary component of the Dutch model and of growing cycling rates. The strong version of the claim states that strict liability alone is sufficient to create civilised streets and grow cycling rates.

In reply to jayme:

I'm not totally sure why the motivation of who pays for what would be a relatively small insurance claim (most people aren't riding several grand's worth of bike around cities on a day to day basis) really makes much difference. I personally take the view that there are as many idiot drivers, cyclists and for that matter pedestrians on the road, and therefore whoever caused the accident should pay regardless of what vehicle (or none) they had.

(The slight difficulty is that sometimes that'll be someone who did something prior to any impact, e.g. a pedestrian runs out, causes a car to swerve who then hits another car, and they will just get away with it because it's nigh on impossible to prove that they were involved).

I personally think strict liability is almost irrelevant to the Dutch model when compared with quality segregated infrastructure and the fact that pretty much everyone cycles so knows what it is like to be a cyclist.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:
you assume that the cyclist is only claiming for a bike, any collision that involves trashing a bike will probably involve some damage to the cyclist which may mean loss of earnings which may lead to all sorts of financial problems like losing your house. The majority of incidents involving bikes and cars the car driver is at fault (government statistics 68% car driver at fault
20% cyclist at fault and 12% no fault could be accounted)

In reply to jethro kiernan:

I don't believe absolutely all consequential losses are covered, are they? I would be surprised if losing your house was.

I figure that most minor accidents involving bikes where the cyclist was at fault are not in practice reported.

And why should those 20% get away with it, in any case? Or more importantly, why should the driver have to fight for it rather than liability being determined based on who was actually liable?

Neil

In reply to jayme:

I'm currently living in the Netherlands and can tell you that from my experience it is much more to do with the infrastructure than the legalities. When you do end up on the roads for short stretches, cars are just as bad. The only thing I would say is that there's enough bikes around at least they expect you to be there, and probably know they're cutting you up.

In reply to Neil Williams:

No I think the idea that rather than getting bogged down with a 2 year fight for loss of earning's it would be easier to claim back, thus preventing you going into financial meltdown.
At the moment the cyclist has to fight for it by default and as the potential repucusions are greater for the cyclist this seems unfair, this will not greatly affect the motorist directly it will have more effect on the lawyers and insurance adjusters etc who make a living out of long and costly insurance claims.
the 20% dont get away with it because
A they have been in an incident in which they will have definatly come off worse.
B The insurance company and driver have the option of not accepting liabilty its that simple.

In reply to jethro kiernan:

>The insurance company and driver have the option of not accepting liabilty its that simple.

In that case how exactly does your proposal differ from what we have now?!

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

it means that the only cases the insurance company would pursue would be the cases where the cyclist was clearly at fault which are the minority of incidents, the remiander would be dealt with quicker and without tying up the courts up.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Presumably unless the insurance company can prove their client was not liable, they will have to pay up. Currently does one side of the other have to actually prove their case, rather than just send a bill?

In reply to MG:

Presently we have a system where a person who is posibly injured or out of pocket, (statisticly not lilkely through their fault) then has to challenge a large insurance company through the courts to pay them up this being a long and drawn out process, hardly a fair process. This isnt about a cyclist V motorist as the motorist is cut out of the picture straight away and replaced by the insurance company (we are not talking criminal liabilty here).

In reply to jethro kiernan:


On a pragmatic level (cheaper and quicker all round) I can see there might be some merit in something similar to that adopted elsewhere. However, the motivation should be pragmatism not some wierd statistical argument about likihood of fault and injury. Otherwise why stop with cyclists? Should suspected murderes be presumed guilty because they vicitms are likely to be injured not through their fault?


then has to challenge a large insurance company through the courts to pay them up this being a long and drawn out process, hardly a fair process.

Nothing to stop cyclists having insurance.


(we are not talking criminal liabilty here).

You might not be. Many others are.

In reply to MG:

There is no presumtion of guilt there is no such thing as guilt in an insurance claim same for referencing murderers irrelevent its in the civil court where murderers arnt tried. it is pragmatic and sorry if you find it weird but the insurance business is based on lots of complicated statistical analysis to do with probabilty.

some cyclyst do have insurance through membership of varois cycling organisations but you havnt removed the delay or the unescacery tying up of (civil)court time.
Others may have though that the proposed changes are to the criminal system but it isnt.

In reply to jethro kiernan:

I think you're badly mis-informed or have suffered from an incident that has formed your opinions. Most claims are settled without the need to go to court; the whole compensation process nowadays is designed to speed up settlement, reduce total claims costs (most notably solicitors' costs which, as you would expect, they aren't happy with) and do away with the need to litigate.

The bias against motorists and insurers in terms of assumptions of and outcomes of liability is already strongly in favour of other road users.

In the ten minute walk from the train station to my London office yesterday I saw cyclists going through red lights and crossings, riding recklessly, pedestrians wearing headphones stepping off pavements without a single thought for cyclists and motorists of all types cutting each other up. It's a dangerous world made more dangerous by a bunch of wallies!

In reply to jethro kiernan:

The motorist isn't cut out of the picture - the insurer simply takes over the handling and payment of the claim in return for a premium. The motorist stillfeels the effect of any "unfair" liability resolution as their premium will be increased.

In reply to michael lawrence:

I agree there are a lot of wallies out there, but of all of the wallies the car driving wally has the greater impact (litrally)

In reply to jethro kiernan:


Alright, liability. The murder example is fine though, because the point you have failed to make is why cyclists are so special they need a unique change in the law to make it easier for them to sue. You oscillate between pragmatism (OK, but you need to show there are genuine benefits) and some misguided attempt to blame drivers for things that may not be their fault and which they may have no ability to defend themselves against.

In reply to jethro kiernan:

68% is not good enough grounds to assume 100%.

It seems madness to me to have criminal responsibility based on a principle of innocence until proven guilty, and civil liability based on a pre-assumption of guilt for some people.

A counter point - in city traffic, the vehicle with the most speed is often the bicycle - does that mean they should be guilty until proven innocent of any accidents in slow moving traffic?

In reply to jethro kiernan:

Yes and the truck/bus driver more so than the car driver. The fair thing would be if whoever was liable paid the claim regardless of what type of road user they are. However, this would most likely result in a disproportionately negative impact on those who don't have insurance (because it isn't compulsory for cyclsits and pedestrians) as they could be sued and have no ability to settle the claim. Society prefers to have a system that, flawed as it may be, assumes a higher duty of care on the part of the motorist (who does have insurance or the industry has a mechanism for covering non-insured claims).

In reply to michael lawrence:

I was riding a Boris bike yesterday and a pedestrian almost walked straight into me. He literally got to a couple of inches away from me before he noticed, having stepped off the kerb at some speed without looking. I bet if he had walked into me, he would have blamed me for cycling into him.

These days I'm finding bus, lorry and taxi drivers being quite sensible with regard to cyclists, and in central London there are relatively few cars, though often it's white vans driven badly (like anywhere), though there are idiots on all modes of transport. Yesterday's incident has made me wonder whether London would benefit from a jay-walking byelaw, though.

Neil

In reply to michael lawrence:
"The fair thing would be if whoever was liable paid the claim regardless of what type of road user they are."

You mean like the system now? As I mentioned the only shortcoming is that blame tends to only be split between those who were physically involved in an accident, whereas often the cause is a third person/vehicle which doesn't actually get crashed into but causes others to take evasive action which may result in a crash. With pretty much universal CCTV in places like London we could perhaps move to making these people pay their fair share, though.

Think about it this way - if a car is coming towards you on the wrong side of the road and you have no other escape, the best thing to do might be to drive off the road into a fence, as that way it is then a single vehicle accident. But you'll end up paying for it yourself. In a purely financial sense you're best to hit the other car, because then they'll be paying.

"However, this would most likely result in a disproportionately negative impact on those who don't have insurance (because it isn't compulsory for cyclsits and pedestrians) as they could be sued and have no ability to settle the claim."

Again, they can now. Most cyclists and pedestrians have third-party liability insurance as it is normally included as part of home contents policies. In other European countries this is better known as people tend to carry standalone policies that do this, though.

"Society prefers to have a system that, flawed as it may be, assumes a higher duty of care on the part of the motorist (who does have insurance or the industry has a mechanism for covering non-insured claims)."

The mechanism for covering non-insured claims is *only* to cover uninsured but traceable drivers, and those drivers may still be sued by the MIB to pay them back. It does not cover a cyclist crashing into a driver, AIUI. The cyclist is liable for that, just as I'm liable if I kick a football through your house window, whether I have insurance for it or not.

So with regard to your posting, society in the Netherlands prefers that and has it. Society in the UK might prefer it, but presently does not have it. Liability lies in practice with the person physically involved in the accident who is most to blame for it (or split between multiple people).

Neil

In reply to wintertree:

I've noticed that there has been little mention of what Strict Liability means under UK/English law.

I'm not a lawyer, but I've talked to people who are.

In criminal law, it means that if you did something (in this case drive a motorised vehicle that was in a collision with a cyclist), then you are guilty. No ifs, no buts, no apportioning of blame. The judge has no option but to direct the jury to deliver a guilty verdict. The judge does not get to choose on this. The only options open to the judge are on the sentencing, and he must work within the guidance. So if the driver was 100% blameless (such as in the video at the top of this thread), he would still be guilty, and would have to serve the minimum sentence. He's have a criminal record.

Nobody thinks this is a good idea, surely?

In reply to wintertree:

Typical London tit on the phone continues to jabber and wail into it without doing anything about what she assumes to be jam spread on the tarmac.

D

In reply to RankAmateur:

Nobody thinks this is a good idea, surely?

>No, they don't. People like to say 'strict liability' because it gives them a warm fuzzy feeling. Actually, they have no idea what the words mean. They don't even have any idea of what it is that they mean. They're just yowling.

jcm

In reply to RankAmateur:
I don't think they are doing. What they might well be doing, though, is saying that he would be liable in a civil sense, i.e. to pay the cyclist's costs.

But I think there is way too much bad cycling in London for that to even vaguely work.

Neil