'Blame drivers for bike crashes' (From The Argus)
Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.
'Blame drivers for bike crashes'
12:50pm Tuesday 31st January 2012 in News By Bill Gardner
Drivers who collide with cyclists should automatically be presumed guilty, a biking campaigner has said.
Becky Reynolds from Brighton-based pressure group Bricycles says motorists should be liable for accidents unless they can prove their innocence.
Car campaigners have reacted with fury to the idea – called “strict liability” – which is already the law in many European countries.
Mrs Reynolds said: “The balance of power on the roads should be shifted in favour of cyclists.
“At present, the burden of proof falls entirely on injured pedestrians and cyclists to show that the driver who hit them was negligent before they can claim compensation.
“Many drivers in Brighton and Hove are on mobile phones, are deliberately aggressive or are not paying attention to others around them.
“This needs to be addressed by better enforcement and a change in the law. It’s not about blame – however might is not always right.”
Strict liability would affect the workings of civil compensation, but Mrs Reynolds says fears insurance premiums would be forced up are unfounded.
She claims fewer accidents would happen on the roads as motorists drive more carefully – forcing premiums down.
But motoring campaigner Steve Percy said the rules would unfairly target drivers.
He said: “In Brighton, cyclists are getting exclusive lanes that are mostly funded by motorists, so I think the idea they are getting a raw deal is ridiculous.
“A lot of accidents happen without witnesses so to put the burden of proof on the motorist is completely unfair.”
Mr Percy said the controversial idea would only widen the divide between cyclists and motorists.
He said many accidents were caused by cyclists without insurance, who were unwilling and unable to contribute towards the cost of a damage claim.
He said: “Cyclists are always going through red lights and causing problems. Most of the bikes are illegal anyway with non-functioning lights.
“The bottom line is that we shouldn’t be pandering to ideas that are being dictated to us from Europe.”
Comments(123)
auser
says...
12:59pm Tue 31 Jan 12
J Noble Daggett
says...
1:00pm Tue 31 Jan 12
pee35jay wrote:Against Bikes... as you put so succinctly
Will look forward to the car / bicycle bashing to start.
Against bikes - no lights, don't stop at red lights, ride on the pavement, jump off and on pavements in front of you, on mobiles, have ear phones on, don't use cycle lanes, hate motorists for the below
Against cars - use mobiles, don't look where they are going, think indicators are an accesory - not a necessity, speed, think they own the road, don't leave enough room for bikes to sneak up the inside, hate cyclists for the above
That should get you all going.
Add to that....No Insurance...No Licence..
Pro Car
Insurance..License..
Also Bicycle riders are generally by definition, self opinionated scoff laws with no regard for the safety of others or rules of the road.
But there I go 'fence sitting' again.
sandalman
says...
1:08pm Tue 31 Jan 12
longstop
says...
1:09pm Tue 31 Jan 12
ChrisDS
says...
1:11pm Tue 31 Jan 12
Numptyone
says...
1:14pm Tue 31 Jan 12
I think this lady is in never never land, she is right there are some idiots on the road in brighton both in cars / vans /buses etc and on bikes, but they are all doing the same thing.
Lets have a road tax / Mot and insurance for bike riders too
Carlas mum
says...
1:16pm Tue 31 Jan 12
bravebeth
says...
1:20pm Tue 31 Jan 12
Withdean-er
says...
1:20pm Tue 31 Jan 12
pee35jay wrote:Yep. Argus stirring it up, to get the 90% of the public (car drivers), to make the usual anti-bike comments.
Will look forward to the car / bicycle bashing to start. Against bikes - no lights, don't stop at red lights, ride on the pavement, jump off and on pavements in front of you, on mobiles, have ear phones on, don't use cycle lanes, hate motorists for the below Against cars - use mobiles, don't look where they are going, think indicators are an accesory - not a necessity, speed, think they own the road, don't leave enough room for bikes to sneak up the inside, hate cyclists for the above That should get you all going.
Beethoven
says...
1:23pm Tue 31 Jan 12
Let's hope that in the cold light of day, reason & common sense will prevail and forget this biased opinion..
Poccypoc
says...
1:23pm Tue 31 Jan 12
aat99
says...
1:24pm Tue 31 Jan 12
Withdean-er
says...
1:27pm Tue 31 Jan 12
Poccypoc wrote:These driving habits are not "mistakes": Excess speed especially in residential streets, not wearing glasses/lenses when myopic, playing chicken with opposing cars on narrow roads, using mobile phone, turning left without checking for bikes, overtaking when clearly dangerous.
What absolute tosh! Yes, drivers make mistakes, but you see many more cyclists going through red lights, riding on the pavement, riding in the centre of the road, not wearing helmets, riding on the wrong side of the road, riding the wrong way in one-way streets.
All pretty dangerous stuff when operating a 1.5tonne missile.
maroon
says...
1:30pm Tue 31 Jan 12
I know not all cyclists break the rules but unfortunately I see more & more doing the above every day !!
And how about a rule that if a bike lane is to be made then the rest of the road should be a certain width for cars as I have seen some ridicously small car lanes (in fact you'd be hard pushed to fit a car within the width of some lanes) just so a bike lane can be made.
Reporter1
says...
1:31pm Tue 31 Jan 12
Got to keep the 90% anti-bike comments on target
Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit
says...
1:31pm Tue 31 Jan 12
However IF it comes in then yes, it should apply 'down the line' and in any collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian then the cyclist should always be blamed. That includes the poor bloke who nearly hit me when I stepped without looking into the cycle lane down on Hove seafront!
sandalman
says...
1:32pm Tue 31 Jan 12
MuammarQaddafi
says...
1:32pm Tue 31 Jan 12
Poccypoc
says...
1:33pm Tue 31 Jan 12
saltycharles
says...
1:38pm Tue 31 Jan 12
There are probably as high a percentage of arrogant ill mannered cyclists as motorists. Those are the ones to blame in every accident - not the weapon they use.
J Noble Daggett
says...
1:39pm Tue 31 Jan 12
Jacobdog
says...
1:44pm Tue 31 Jan 12
Attempts by people posting on here to portray cyclists as selfish and somehow inferior human beings would be laughable if it wasn't so wicked and insidious. Are you suggesting that all cyclists bring injury and death on themselves beacuse some idiots break the law?
ecw
says...
1:45pm Tue 31 Jan 12
It falls on deaf ears, but yes, sometimes cyclists can be a danger, but the underlying fact is that a person driving a car/van/bus/lorry etc is going to do far more harm to other road users than they will ever come to themselves in a collision. Some recognition of liability that errs in favour of the vulnerable is not a bad thing. Take care people and lay off the aggression.
Jacobdog
says...
1:48pm Tue 31 Jan 12
MzEden1
says...
1:50pm Tue 31 Jan 12
I have had a few near misses with buses, cars, taxis but most are with other cyclists. Usually at the cycle path with its own traffic lights into North Street with cyclist coming down North Street jumping the lights and again into Bond Street with the idiots cycling the wrong way down there. There are also the ones on the seafront cycle lane who don't bother to look either when they overtake or decide to leave the cycle lane.
I would like to say that most of us are good but am ashamed to say that most are not!
People have become very egocentric and don't seem to notice, or care, that there are others sharing their space that their actions may impact upon. Be that driver, pedestrian or cyclist.
diriky
says...
1:52pm Tue 31 Jan 12
and I was not only a Cyclist but a motorcyclist and car driver!
toldsloth
says...
1:59pm Tue 31 Jan 12
The difference here is that had the woman in the MNerc actually hit me I could have claimed on her insurance. Had I hit the cyclist, I would have got the blame and any damage to my vehicle would have been at my expense.
If I'm out on my bike and I knock somebody down or cause damage to a vehicle then I can claim on my insurance, I have insurance because I take the responsbility of using the road on four wheels or two seriously.
Sorry cyclists if you want to use the road, you should need to have insurance and at least some basic training. Unfortunately we will now have Ms Reynolds and her cronies harping on about the fact that everybody should be free to ride when and where they want without having to take responsibility. Lets face it, this is what this whole argument is about - cyclists simply do not want to accept that they must be responsible be that in part or whole for using our roads.
Also the law of this land is innocent until proven guilty. Good luck trying to change that.
PorkBoat
says...
2:01pm Tue 31 Jan 12
toldsloth
says...
2:05pm Tue 31 Jan 12
I for one am genuinly interested!
Before you kick off I don't particularly like the Argus either - in fact I wouldn't waste money buying a copy unless I needed something to line the budgies cage!
Dizd
says...
2:28pm Tue 31 Jan 12
Bryan555
says...
2:30pm Tue 31 Jan 12
Poccypoc wrote:Hmmmm, I think this should be more balanced: Any vehicle operator should be assumed responsible in any accident involving a more vulnerable vehicle or pedestrian. That would make sense to me. One law for all road users that puts the responsibility of accidents into the hands of those in control of the vehicle.
What absolute tosh! Yes, drivers make mistakes, but you see many more cyclists going through red lights, riding on the pavement, riding in the centre of the road, not wearing helmets, riding on the wrong side of the road, riding the wrong way in one-way streets.
Gaz123
says...
2:32pm Tue 31 Jan 12
longman
says...
2:35pm Tue 31 Jan 12
Bryan555
says...
2:38pm Tue 31 Jan 12
Bryan555 wrote:Um, didn't mean to quote Poccypoc, just a general comment...
Poccypoc wrote:Hmmmm, I think this should be more balanced: Any vehicle operator should be assumed responsible in any accident involving a more vulnerable vehicle or pedestrian. That would make sense to me. One law for all road users that puts the responsibility of accidents into the hands of those in control of the vehicle.
What absolute tosh! Yes, drivers make mistakes, but you see many more cyclists going through red lights, riding on the pavement, riding in the centre of the road, not wearing helmets, riding on the wrong side of the road, riding the wrong way in one-way streets.
jimbobmaginty
says...
2:45pm Tue 31 Jan 12
If you actually go to work in the mornings and see how dangerous cyclists are you would think twice before blaming the card driver
I know some people are actually scared when a cyclist goes past because if that cyclist accidently falls over the driver will get done!
Cyclists should be tested to cycle on the roads and charged Tax
Poor car drivers are going to be the target now for pathetic hippie groups!
voiceofthescoombe
says...
2:45pm Tue 31 Jan 12
B stop seeing getting from a to b as some macho contest of will.
C owning a car as equivlent to being a black south African in the apartheid era or a suffergette.
D some people are gits and or incompetant if they are are like that on a bike chances are stupidity will hurt them.
In a car stupidity or a moments incompetence can kill somebody else and you will be perfectly safe.
E toldsloth wtf were you driving on a cycle lane in the first place??????
sandalman
says...
2:48pm Tue 31 Jan 12
toldsloth
says...
2:50pm Tue 31 Jan 12
Reporter1 wrote:Does it ever strike you as suspicious? Perhaps (god forbid) it's because people are fed up with the arrogance, small mindedness and sheer stupididy of your average cyclist?
Mind where you are going Mrs Reynolds with those blinkers on! Got to keep the 90% anti-bike comments on target
I have the utmost respect for cyclists that use the road in a considered and law abiding manner. I have zero respect for those who ride as if it's their very own playgound. The sad thing is that even as a cyclist, I've been on the receiving end of abuse from other cyclists when I've passed comment on them going through a red light or riding on a pavement. I don't do so why should they? It's like anything that is essentially unregulated - people take the **** and then moan toi high heaven when somebody suggests some form of control is adopted.
Wake up and smell the roses all you inconsiderate cyclists - people on four AND two wheels are fed up with you and Bricycles; your "Campaigns & Newsletter Editor" Becky Reynolds is doing you a massive disservice coming out with ill considered claptrap such as this.
Bryan555
says...
2:50pm Tue 31 Jan 12
PorkBoat wrote:Yes, if we're talking stereotypes, it's your fault because you are driving your 4x4 at 65mph in a 30 zone, while texting and listening to the lighthouse family really loud, drunk, have parked illegally, tailgating, uninsured, think you own the road, and are eating you kebab because you're too fat to walk to the shop.
So, when a cyclist, dressed head to toe in black, with no lights, at 11pm, cycling the wrong way down a one way street, worse the wear for drink, dangling a chinese takeaway on each handlebar, and listening to music on headphones, slams into my bonnet, it's my fault? Go and boil your head, Reynolds.
paulbton
says...
2:50pm Tue 31 Jan 12
It's time drivers slowed down and watched out for bikers and pedestrians.
It's time bikers had to wear a helmet and high viz vests and had to have working lights also some training to be on the road and insurance, and watch out for pedestrians.
And it's time pedestrians walked that extra 10ft to the crossing, and time they stopped push their prams in to the road before looking for traffic and stopped giving drivers the evil eye as they walk slow in front of your car because they think its their right and you can't hurt them A CAR OR BIKE WILL HURT LOTS IF IT HITS YOU.
So basically everybody has a responsibility for their actions if they take that responsibility everyone will be save and happy
It's not rocket science.........
departurelounge
says...
2:59pm Tue 31 Jan 12
toldsloth
says...
3:08pm Tue 31 Jan 12
departurelounge wrote:Well said!
I'm a cyclist. The vehicle excise duty on a zero emission vehicle (a bicycle or car) is £0 ... there is no such tax as 'Road Tax'. I also have £10 million in 3rd party insurance as a member of CTC. I am also a car driver so I have a license which allows me to ride a moped under 50cc which I suppose a bicycle technically is (excluding the motor)! I've seen motorists, cyclists and pedestrians do stupid things but the majority of them were car drivers. I drive of 25K miles a year but I respect other road users whoever they are. This thread only shows that there are people on both sides of the argument that don't show the proper respect.
So thats two of us who drive and ride correctly and have insurance. I also ignore the "Road Tax" argument but I personally think that little loophope fo the 50cc moped should be removed for safety's sake!
Going one step further, personally I think it should be mandatory to ride a 50cc moped for 6 months before you are allowed to apply for a provisional car license. Having "cut my teeth" on motorcyles I strongly beleive that it makes you a much better car driver if you ride a bike beforehand; gives you much more road awareness. Also a year as a dispatch rider in London taught me some valuble lessons with regard to truck blind spots going around Elephant & Castle!!
A lot of this IS about respect however it's very hard to have any for somebody who thinks its OK to be invisble to other road users and to completely ignore the Highway Code and I think that is the crux of the issue as far as car drivers views of cyclists are concerned.
toldsloth
says...
3:30pm Tue 31 Jan 12
Bryan555 wrote:The difference Bryan555 is that a car driver can't possbily hope to do all you think they can all at once whereas Porkboat's comments ring very true!
PorkBoat wrote: So, when a cyclist, dressed head to toe in black, with no lights, at 11pm, cycling the wrong way down a one way street, worse the wear for drink, dangling a chinese takeaway on each handlebar, and listening to music on headphones, slams into my bonnet, it's my fault? Go and boil your head, Reynolds.Yes, if we're talking stereotypes, it's your fault because you are driving your 4x4 at 65mph in a 30 zone, while texting and listening to the lighthouse family really loud, drunk, have parked illegally, tailgating, uninsured, think you own the road, and are eating you kebab because you're too fat to walk to the shop.
Bryan555
says...
3:48pm Tue 31 Jan 12
departurelounge wrote:I'm a driver. Well said. All the whingeing above makes me embarrassed to be a motorist.
I'm a cyclist. The vehicle excise duty on a zero emission vehicle (a bicycle or car) is £0 ... there is no such tax as 'Road Tax'. I also have £10 million in 3rd party insurance as a member of CTC. I am also a car driver so I have a license which allows me to ride a moped under 50cc which I suppose a bicycle technically is (excluding the motor)! I've seen motorists, cyclists and pedestrians do stupid things but the majority of them were car drivers. I drive of 25K miles a year but I respect other road users whoever they are. This thread only shows that there are people on both sides of the argument that don't show the proper respect.
-
We've currently got it all our own way, and I guess it's hard to take, but something has to change.
-
I think we have been let-down by successive governments and pro-motoring lobbyists. We now have a culture where driving is seen to be a right rather than a privilege. Rules, fines and bans are the normal way of making our roads safer, rather than personal responsibility.
-
There is a certain arrogance amongst some drivers that disgusts me. You have the ability to kill when driving, you need to take to the wheel remembering you are responsible for people's lives. That is a higher priority than getting home in time for easterners, or getting in front of the car in front, because they are driving slightly slower than you want to.
-
I also think some on here would do well to remember that although there is some awful cycling, it doesn't meant that all cyclists should be bundled into a group and treated with disdain. If we (motorists) were judged as one group represented by the worst examples then driving would be banned.
-
There is certainly a problem with law-breaking cyclists, but I don't see the relevance it has to motorists taking responsibility for their actions. If that can happen without a law assuming guilt on the party in control of the most dangerous vehicle, then great, but sadly history hasn't shown that, as a group, taking much responsibility for our actions isn't likely to happen without rules and penalties.
Withdean-er
says...
3:55pm Tue 31 Jan 12
toldsloth wrote:Yes, but any one of those car driver failings whilst in their Sherman, could kill others (including innocents in smaller car), and literally does every day.
Bryan555 wrote:The difference Bryan555 is that a car driver can't possbily hope to do all you think they can all at once whereas Porkboat's comments ring very true!PorkBoat wrote: So, when a cyclist, dressed head to toe in black, with no lights, at 11pm, cycling the wrong way down a one way street, worse the wear for drink, dangling a chinese takeaway on each handlebar, and listening to music on headphones, slams into my bonnet, it's my fault? Go and boil your head, Reynolds.Yes, if we're talking stereotypes, it's your fault because you are driving your 4x4 at 65mph in a 30 zone, while texting and listening to the lighthouse family really loud, drunk, have parked illegally, tailgating, uninsured, think you own the road, and are eating you kebab because you're too fat to walk to the shop.
Many budding Rally Drivers in Brighton's urban streets every day, without any skill or care of others (innocent drivers, pedestrians, pets, wildlife, dare I say ... cyclists).
MattBChiro
says...
3:57pm Tue 31 Jan 12
www.sundialclinics.c
o.uk
thevoiceoftruth
says...
4:02pm Tue 31 Jan 12
I cycle and drive - both parties can be at fault so this is simply ridiculous.
Fresh air
says...
4:16pm Tue 31 Jan 12
inadaptado
says...
4:17pm Tue 31 Jan 12
Da Prof
says...
4:26pm Tue 31 Jan 12
Helmets and Hi-Vis clothing you mean!
Falhawk66
says...
4:31pm Tue 31 Jan 12
Jeddy
says...
4:33pm Tue 31 Jan 12
Joyce Edmond-Smith , Brighton & Hove Clarion
PorkBoat
says...
4:36pm Tue 31 Jan 12
Bryan555 wrote:Not stereotyping, just recounting an incident that happened to me.
PorkBoat wrote:Yes, if we're talking stereotypes, it's your fault because you are driving your 4x4 at 65mph in a 30 zone, while texting and listening to the lighthouse family really loud, drunk, have parked illegally, tailgating, uninsured, think you own the road, and are eating you kebab because you're too fat to walk to the shop.
So, when a cyclist, dressed head to toe in black, with no lights, at 11pm, cycling the wrong way down a one way street, worse the wear for drink, dangling a chinese takeaway on each handlebar, and listening to music on headphones, slams into my bonnet, it's my fault? Go and boil your head, Reynolds.
sandalman
says...
4:51pm Tue 31 Jan 12
Bryan555
says...
4:54pm Tue 31 Jan 12
PorkBoat wrote:What an idiot, I hope your bonnet was unscathed, and that the sweet and sour chicken came off your headlight without too much buffing :)
Bryan555 wrote:Not stereotyping, just recounting an incident that happened to me.
PorkBoat wrote:Yes, if we're talking stereotypes, it's your fault because you are driving your 4x4 at 65mph in a 30 zone, while texting and listening to the lighthouse family really loud, drunk, have parked illegally, tailgating, uninsured, think you own the road, and are eating you kebab because you're too fat to walk to the shop.
So, when a cyclist, dressed head to toe in black, with no lights, at 11pm, cycling the wrong way down a one way street, worse the wear for drink, dangling a chinese takeaway on each handlebar, and listening to music on headphones, slams into my bonnet, it's my fault? Go and boil your head, Reynolds.
Bryan555
says...
4:57pm Tue 31 Jan 12
sandalman wrote:All airbags should be fitted with bicycles.
all cycles shoud be fitted with airbags as well as seatbelts just like they are in the rest of Europe!!
Bryan555
says...
5:02pm Tue 31 Jan 12
Jeddy wrote:That sounds reasonable, thanks for clarifying.
Reading the comments on this site is a dispiriting experience . Fromthe vitriol aimed mostly at cyclists it is easy to conclude that the average contributor is incapable of reasoned argument. I won't try to respond to the many false statements (just one :-cycle lanes aree NOT funded mostly by motorists). But of course things would be helped if the Argus did not print deliberately misleading and inflamatory headings which are clearly meant to put one road user against another. The plain fact is that cars can and sometimes are a lethal weapon, people get killed. What Becky Reynolds was trying to do was to refer to a widespread situation in the rest of Europe concerning a legal aspect of the burden of proof when there is an accident. Where there is an accident between a pedestrian or a cyclist with a car simple statistics show that the pedestrian or the cyclist are likely to come off worst . In this country, along with Ireland, Cyprus and Malta, It is entirely up to the injured party to "prove" that the driver who hit them was negligent - so the burden of proof lies with the injured person. And yet it may well be the case that their injuries are such that they cannot pursue a legal case. What the rest of Europe has is not "blame the car driver" , but simply a more equitable system of burden of proof which can be called "stricter liability" . This does not "criminalise drivers" , they would have to be found guilty of a crime in the normal way nothing different there - stricter liability would only affect the issue of civil compensation, which might be crucial to the victim of a careless driver. The evidence from areas where it is in place suggests that it produces a safer road system for all users. Readers may agree or disagree with this - but at least it would have been fairer and more just to give Becky Reynolds a fair hearing. It is easy to find examples of bad road behaviour by all users, but the reality is that some users are more vulnerable and others potentially more dangerous , the legal system should surely take this into account.
Joyce Edmond-Smith , Brighton & Hove Clarion
Bryan555
says...
5:04pm Tue 31 Jan 12
Falhawk66 wrote:Baaaa...
Four Wheels Good, Two Wheels Bad
Withdean-er
says...
5:08pm Tue 31 Jan 12
inadaptado wrote:Payment of road tax, fuel duty & VAT, seems to give the green light to a vocal minority of car users believing they are then kings of the road. Everyone else (including timid drivers) is viewed as a second class road user, and these kings of the road drive however badly they like.
Why am I under the impression that if cyclists wore a full armour, carried more lights than a Christmas tree, never ever broke a rule and paid three times the taxes and insurance than everyone else, car drivers would still find something to complain about them? Let's not fool ourselves, we have been raised to worship cars and anything standing in their way will always be a considered a burden.
Ilyich
says...
5:08pm Tue 31 Jan 12
Also amazed at how mr Steve Percy is says such silly things. How can motorists let this person be thier figurehead without embarassment?
The Joyce Edmond Smith is best and truest comment from thos above I think. Bit long to read perhaps, but worth the time.
(and yes - presumed liability for motorist people a good thing)
Fresh air
says...
5:14pm Tue 31 Jan 12
Withdean-er wrote:Road tax may have given some people to think they rule the roads but as it was abolished in 1937 most of them will no longer be driving. What we have had for 75 years is a vehicle tax - a charge to drive a car or other motor vehicle. Many cyclists also drive vehicles so pay that tax.
inadaptado wrote:Payment of road tax, fuel duty & VAT, seems to give the green light to a vocal minority of car users believing they are then kings of the road. Everyone else (including timid drivers) is viewed as a second class road user, and these kings of the road drive however badly they like.
Why am I under the impression that if cyclists wore a full armour, carried more lights than a Christmas tree, never ever broke a rule and paid three times the taxes and insurance than everyone else, car drivers would still find something to complain about them? Let's not fool ourselves, we have been raised to worship cars and anything standing in their way will always be a considered a burden.
sandalman
says...
5:15pm Tue 31 Jan 12
ecw
says...
5:19pm Tue 31 Jan 12
inadaptado wrote:You are so right - I was shouted at by a woman car driver the other evening because my bike light was "too bright". Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Why am I under the impression that if cyclists wore a full armour, carried more lights than a Christmas tree, never ever broke a rule and paid three times the taxes and insurance than everyone else, car drivers would still find something to complain about them? Let's not fool ourselves, we have been raised to worship cars and anything standing in their way will always be a considered a burden.
GRANDAD
says...
5:19pm Tue 31 Jan 12
sandalman
says...
5:20pm Tue 31 Jan 12
Bryan555
says...
5:22pm Tue 31 Jan 12
Ilyich wrote:Well mr Steve Percy doesn't represent my views! How do we get rid of the fool, he's making motorists look like ignoramuses, but most of us are not.
Am amazed at how people here can get soo cross about the bicycle -it is absolutely the finest form of assisted transport invented - a moving celebration of human skill - the sort of thing what separates us from beasts. All should be using one.
Also amazed at how mr Steve Percy is says such silly things. How can motorists let this person be thier figurehead without embarassment?
The Joyce Edmond Smith is best and truest comment from thos above I think. Bit long to read perhaps, but worth the time.
(and yes - presumed liability for motorist people a good thing)
-
I think cars are a pretty cool form of transport too, but like the elegant bicycle, they are open to abuse :(
sandalman
says...
5:24pm Tue 31 Jan 12
anonymous coward
says...
5:25pm Tue 31 Jan 12
My only contribution to this argument, pointless and impracticable as it may be, is that nobody should be allowed on the road without a combined bicycle, motorbike, car and truck licence.
On that note, there would be far fewer comments if only those who both cycled and drove commented.
thereturnofbob
says...
5:34pm Tue 31 Jan 12
Cyclists have every right to share the road, and that is the basic principle, SHARE IT!....
There are many bad cyclists and drivers out there, but sadly the council and the police do not to do anywhere near enough to control this.
As a cyclist I loathe seeing other ignorant cyclists on the pavements, and I am also fed up with being squeezed off the roads by reckless drivers.
If a motor vehicle is spotted parked in a cycle lane, then they should be punished, if a driver pulls too far forward at the lights, they should be made aware of the safe space designated to keep cyclists safe.
We need to support of the local authority and the police to help each other bring a stop to all of this.
NickBrt
says...
5:39pm Tue 31 Jan 12
moronslayer
says...
6:08pm Tue 31 Jan 12
The European Road Assessment Programme 2011 results show that bikes are involved in an unsurprising 21% of fatal road accidents in the UK, despite the fact that they only account for less than 1% of the traffic on our roads. In fact, on many roads they account for as many as 75% of fatal accidents. This sadly makes a cyclist more than 40 times more likely to be killed than a car driver, per kilometre travelled.
Perhaps picture the following: if there were a group of sight-impaired skateboarders throwing themselves under cars with similar mayhem and expense on the roads would they have the defense of bleating 'it's my right'? No. Would we be arguing that all moronic-skateboarder vs car injuries were the fault of the driver? No.
One person made a correct point that the roads are not designed for bikes - but missed the all important issue - if bike riders want major roadworks then they alone should pay for them. Remember the figures? Less than 1% of road users...with a smaller number among them bleating that millions should be spent on them. Clear off you selfish spongers!
There may be a very small number of responsible and capable cyclists. I hope that they get the bus or drive to avoid dangerous traffic - or cycle somewhere suitable, and that the rest at least carry donor cards.
Bob_The_Ferret
says...
6:09pm Tue 31 Jan 12
Than goodness we're not like those other European countries where you are presumed to guilty before a trial and you are not permitted to do anything unless the law specifically allows it.
Anyone who tries to challenge these basic freedoms of an Englishman should be treated with extreme suspicion.
Acheron
says...
6:18pm Tue 31 Jan 12
I, like a number of people, drive, cycle and walk. For the last year I've been cycling to work and it's been an interesting experience. I'm one of the number of law abiding, helmet wearing, light clad, fluorescent clothed cyclists. I even get off and walk my bike through the underpass at Aldrington Station as I know what the sign of a bike in a red circle means.
My pet peeve on the road is other cyclists. When I'm at a red light (with others) I feel like pointing out to those who cycle straight through that I'm not having a rest but following the highway code. I was amazed to see an adult with his young daughter on the bike on go straight through a red light. I'm also shocked by how many cycle with headphones, talk on their phone/text on their phone (always a wobble when they are texting). Lack of lights, safety equipement is inexcusable.
That said, lets have no mistaking that there aren't motorists out there who aren't at fault. I'm lucky, I've not been hit yet. Closest I've had is the driver paying no attention to the fact that I was on a roundabout (fluorescent jacket etc) and only managed to stop at a distance where I couldn't see the numberplate when I looked down (so less that a foot for those who can't imagine it). Wasn't helped my the BMW in the other lane of the roundabout who wasn't going to wait for me whatsoever either! That said, professional drivers can often be the worst. When in a car I always let buses out when they indicate. When on my bike I have no quarter shown to me on the road at all. I've lost count of the times I've been cut up and nearly hit by buses. I've also found that they feel they have a right of way over cyclists (and probably motorists as well). The number of drivers on their mobiles is countless each day, I've even seen drivers with headphones on (yes both ears).
So, onto pedestrians. Well like both cyclists and drivers, there are good and bad. I had someone step out infront of me only today (he actually apologised and thanks to good breaks I was able to stop). However I do believe that there is a bit of a habit now where people stop and listen before they cross, but not look. When and if electric cars become more common I hope it changes as they are quite quiet (quieter than some bikes!). The idea of looking when you cross the road seems to have gone out of fashion, and that's equally true of people with or without headphones on. My worst pedestrian incident involved someone too busy on his phone when he was in the road and when I just shook my head, having slammed the breaks on, I was more or less challenged to a fight.
At the end of the day, there are good and bad cyclists, drivers and pedestrians. To pretend any one group is better or worse than any other is pointless. I don't notice the good drivers when I'm cycling into work, I'm focused on those that are bad to make sure I keep myself safe. Likewise I spot the bad cyclists and remember them, not the many good ones. Same again with pedestrians. We are always going to remember the worst examples, it doesn't mean they are the majority.
What would be staggering would be if people could remember this and maybe get together to come up with constructive ways forwards so that all three can use the roads safely. (And yes as part of that I would be all in favour of having police stopping cyclists who go straight through redlights for a start).
sandalman
says...
6:26pm Tue 31 Jan 12
sandalman
says...
6:30pm Tue 31 Jan 12
pistachionut
says...
8:14pm Tue 31 Jan 12
Bryan555 wrote:But what about my Robin Reliant!.
Jeddy wrote:That sounds reasonable, thanks for clarifying.
Reading the comments on this site is a dispiriting experience . Fromthe vitriol aimed mostly at cyclists it is easy to conclude that the average contributor is incapable of reasoned argument. I won't try to respond to the many false statements (just one :-cycle lanes aree NOT funded mostly by motorists). But of course things would be helped if the Argus did not print deliberately misleading and inflamatory headings which are clearly meant to put one road user against another. The plain fact is that cars can and sometimes are a lethal weapon, people get killed. What Becky Reynolds was trying to do was to refer to a widespread situation in the rest of Europe concerning a legal aspect of the burden of proof when there is an accident. Where there is an accident between a pedestrian or a cyclist with a car simple statistics show that the pedestrian or the cyclist are likely to come off worst . In this country, along with Ireland, Cyprus and Malta, It is entirely up to the injured party to "prove" that the driver who hit them was negligent - so the burden of proof lies with the injured person. And yet it may well be the case that their injuries are such that they cannot pursue a legal case. What the rest of Europe has is not "blame the car driver" , but simply a more equitable system of burden of proof which can be called "stricter liability" . This does not "criminalise drivers" , they would have to be found guilty of a crime in the normal way nothing different there - stricter liability would only affect the issue of civil compensation, which might be crucial to the victim of a careless driver. The evidence from areas where it is in place suggests that it produces a safer road system for all users. Readers may agree or disagree with this - but at least it would have been fairer and more just to give Becky Reynolds a fair hearing. It is easy to find examples of bad road behaviour by all users, but the reality is that some users are more vulnerable and others potentially more dangerous , the legal system should surely take this into account.
Joyce Edmond-Smith , Brighton & Hove Clarion
At least my headlights don't flash causing a distraction like most cycle lights. In the continent you have to carry a hi vis in cars in case you break down. Now if cyclist wore hi vis it would be easier to see them instead of the stupid flashing lights that either are to dim or so bright they could be hired out to the numerous night clubs.
nicole/bob
says...
8:52pm Tue 31 Jan 12
Firstly, patently vastly more cyclists and pedestrians are killed by motorists (500 in the UK in 2009)
Secondly, a small minority of cyclists are irresponsible and occasionally cause death and injury...I myself have been run down twice by cyclists when walking my dogs on the Promenade at Hove Lagoon where it is clearly marked "no cycling"
My advice to Becky is that she should look on the internet and check out Andrea Leadsom MP's current Bill in the HOC which is aimed at toughening up the current law on this issue.
I strongly believe that all cyclists should be licensed/pay an annual fee/carry number plates and have compulsory insurance.
Bob, Hove
moronslayer
says...
9:52pm Tue 31 Jan 12
Does that sound about right?
The problem with proportional liability seems that it is unfair to innocent drivers. For example, if a nutjob, joint smoking, cyclist (camouflaged and with headphones) throws themselves under your car as you pull out from a junction the courts may decide that the nutjob was 80% liable and you were only 20% liable - after all, you didn't walk around your car before exiting, and your were driving after all. The cyclist would pay to have your tyres cleaned whilst your insurer may have to pay for the nutjobs severe lifelong disability, running into many millions. The driver then finds themselves uninsurable as a result or the insurance industries charitable demeanor (saints that they are), or do they just say in Germany 'don't worry about it' - you won't even lose your no claims bonus?
My example with skateboarders is interesting. Their claim for 'stricter liability' would seem no less valid. The underlying aim, it seems, is to get others to pay for one's own risk-taking activity at no cost to oneself by claiming what others are doing carries an 'operating risk'. This seems to amount to: 'but I'll be more squashed than the driver if we collide so they should pay out because their car is more solid than my head'?
Whatever happens such schemes must invariably find the properly insured party (i.e. driver) partially liable when actually completely innocent - otherwise there is no muggins from which to obtain money.
What proportion of tax revenue (for road building etc) is generated from bicycles versus fuelled transport and the businesses such transport also enables? Cycle lanes are not funded by cyclists. If cycling represents about 1% of road use then, without a enormous tax on Lycra, how exactly are these cycle lanes funded other than by us seedy motorists.
If choosing option 'A' is 40 times more likely to kill someone than choosing option 'B' which option should attract a proportionally higher insurance premium?
bogs
says...
10:24pm Tue 31 Jan 12
Maxwell's Ghost
says...
10:55pm Tue 31 Jan 12
I bet all of you at some point in your driving/cycling careers break the law.
How many of you can honsetly say that in cars you have never broken the speed limit even if its a single mph above the limit, crunched the car up the pavement, nipped through the odd amber light because it seems to have changed too quickly, clipped the kerb, stopped on a double yellow line or driven off without a completely clear windscreen on an icy day.
And I bet some of you cyclists ocassionally bump up the kerb to avoid a tricky part of the road or because a bloody great HGV is hurtling up behind you an inch from your ear, or gone out without a light because the batteries have gone flat, or forgotten your high vis, or nipped down a one-way street when in a hurry...but it's ok because it's 11pm and no-one is about.
We are all fallible, we are human and rarely is anyone 100 per cent perfect 100 per cent of the time.
Share the roads, and take care of each other.
PaulOckenden
says...
11:27pm Tue 31 Jan 12
If I hit a cyclist I'd be gutted. If I injured one I'd be devastated. But that doesn't mean I should be legally guilty as well as feeling emotionally guilty.
The standard of cycling in Brighton is TERRIBLE. Not just poor bike control, observation, and regard for the law either - some (much?) of Brighton's cycling is downright aggressive to other road (and pavement) users.
But let's humour Becky with her idea for a moment. How's about we say that for all cycle accidents the burden of proof is on the motorist EXCEPT where the cyclist has no or illegal lights, is wearing dark clothing at night, has broken any road traffic rules, is overtaking moving traffic on the left, is weaving in and out of lanes, is riding on the pavement, etc. etc. etc.
How would that be?
Made In Sussex
says...
8:24am Wed 1 Feb 12
dommer2000
says...
9:01am Wed 1 Feb 12
There has been plenty of heresay and myth spread around about cyclists, and some of it, including the bad stuff, may well be true.
However, isn't it time we realised that we are all road users, and tried to, just for once, think of the other road users, particularly the vulnerable ones, like cyclists?
I cycle to work every day, and on average, I have to take severe evasive action at least three times a week due to motorists being careless and inattentive. For this reason, I always make sure I creep ahead at junctions, and make myself seen.
My actions certainly irriate some people, but that means they have seen me and will avoid me.
So, my actions can irritate and annoy a few car drivers - their mistakes and carelessness can kill me. I'm therefore making no apologies for a bit of irritation that keeps me alive.
Perhaps all car drivers should cycle to work once a week to see the story from the other side? I know that being a cyclist makes me a much more considerate driver.
Greenlover
says...
9:16am Wed 1 Feb 12
Bryan555
says...
9:55am Wed 1 Feb 12
Made In Sussex wrote:I totally agree. Steve Percy says “A lot of accidents happen without witnesses so to put the burden of proof on the motorist is completely unfair.”
I cannot believe I am reading this, how have we come to this point of individuals being born who go on to have such stupid, poorly thought out ideas. An absolute embarrasement to humanity, intelligence and development of the human race..
-
So Mr Percy thinks that putting the burden of proof on the victim is fair? Who else agrees with him? What if the victim is not a disobedient cyclist, but a child? Who should be the one to prove they were not in the wrong?
-
This idea has been tainted by some rather shoddy, inflammatory reporting but reading up on the way the law would work. This sort of law could really help pedestrians (more so than cyclists) but I don't think it will encourage cycling much. I'm not sure I'd rick being crushed by a truck just because the compensation might be good!
atlantis88
says...
10:22am Wed 1 Feb 12
Bryan555 wrote:Well said!
Made In Sussex wrote:I totally agree. Steve Percy says “A lot of accidents happen without witnesses so to put the burden of proof on the motorist is completely unfair.”
I cannot believe I am reading this, how have we come to this point of individuals being born who go on to have such stupid, poorly thought out ideas. An absolute embarrasement to humanity, intelligence and development of the human race..
-
So Mr Percy thinks that putting the burden of proof on the victim is fair? Who else agrees with him? What if the victim is not a disobedient cyclist, but a child? Who should be the one to prove they were not in the wrong?
-
This idea has been tainted by some rather shoddy, inflammatory reporting but reading up on the way the law would work. This sort of law could really help pedestrians (more so than cyclists) but I don't think it will encourage cycling much. I'm not sure I'd rick being crushed by a truck just because the compensation might be good!
voiceofthescoombe
says...
10:49am Wed 1 Feb 12
davyboy
says...
11:41am Wed 1 Feb 12
PaulOckenden wrote:i totally agree, paul. cyclists, in some cases, do comply fully with the law, but many more do not. i cannot see how a motorist can be held responsible if the cyclist has not helped themselves by using lights or obeying the highway code.
The woman is a muppet.
If I hit a cyclist I'd be gutted. If I injured one I'd be devastated. But that doesn't mean I should be legally guilty as well as feeling emotionally guilty.
The standard of cycling in Brighton is TERRIBLE. Not just poor bike control, observation, and regard for the law either - some (much?) of Brighton's cycling is downright aggressive to other road (and pavement) users.
But let's humour Becky with her idea for a moment. How's about we say that for all cycle accidents the burden of proof is on the motorist EXCEPT where the cyclist has no or illegal lights, is wearing dark clothing at night, has broken any road traffic rules, is overtaking moving traffic on the left, is weaving in and out of lanes, is riding on the pavement, etc. etc. etc.
How would that be?
Bryan555
says...
12:14pm Wed 1 Feb 12
-
from http://hembrow.blogs
pot.com/2012/01/camp
aign-for-sustainable
-safety-not.html
-
About 'Strict Liability' in Holland: Drivers are not held 100% liable for all crashes with cyclists. That would be quite unreasonable as there are many reasons why drivers might not be wholly responsible.
-
The law draws a distinction at the age of 14 years. In a collision with a cyclist or pedestrian aged under 14, a motorist is likely to be held to be responsible. However, a cyclist or pedestrian who is older than 14 years of age is expected to know how to behave on the streets and is likely to be held at least partly responsible in the event of a crash. If they're behaving recklessly then they can instantly expect at least 50% of the blame for any collision. An adult pedestrian dressed in black and crossing a road without looking can expect to be held to be liable for damage to a motor vehicle which hits him. That is what the law makes clear.
-
It's also important to realise that this law is only concerned with material damage and financial responsibilty. For example, if children are hit by a car in the Netherlands, the drivers insurance can never try to claim for compensation from the family of the victim. It could also help to determine who pays for repair or replacement of an adult's bicycle which has been run over by a truck. However, this law is not concerned with allocating blame, or with imprisoning bad drivers.
bigfella777
says...
12:57pm Wed 1 Feb 12
james R
says...
1:21pm Wed 1 Feb 12
CyclistHove
says...
1:27pm Wed 1 Feb 12
I always wear lights and hi-viz. Unfortunatly some drivers attitudes towards cyclists needs a rethink too as I have been abused and terrorised just for riding on the road obeying all highway laws.
Barquentine
says...
2:07pm Wed 1 Feb 12
Or rather two cyclists, who in the brief glimpse I had of them, appeared to be a father and son team. Dad looks to be in his thirties and sonny about seven or eight. We hesitate - are they going to stop ? It's perfectly clear that they should but, no, dad sails through the red light followed by his pride and joy.
Perhaps one day when junior gets torn to pieces by an irate group of walkers whose collective patience has finally reached it's limits or he is pulverised into strawberry jam by some blameless motorist he'll think back and thank Daddy for showing him how big people ride bikes in the real world.
Bryan555
says...
3:10pm Wed 1 Feb 12
Barquentine wrote:A very poor show, and a great example of how, in the event that the cyclist had knocked down a pedestrian crossing, that the pedestrian should not be the one who is required to supply proof of the cyclist's reckless actions. Surely the onus should be on the cyclist to supply proof that they were riding in a responsible manner. Even if the cyclist was riding responsibly, and the pedestrian stepped out into the road and there was a collision it should be up to the cyclist to show that they had taken all precautions to protest the more vulnerable road user. Does that not make sense? It may make cyclists think carefully about how they ride their potentially dangerous cycles.
On my way to work this morning I have to wait at a very busy dual carriageway. The pedestrian lights turn red, the motorists slow to a halt but the small group of pedestrians doesn't cross. We stand fidgeting nervously because a new, ominous factor has entered the scene - a cyclist.
Or rather two cyclists, who in the brief glimpse I had of them, appeared to be a father and son team. Dad looks to be in his thirties and sonny about seven or eight. We hesitate - are they going to stop ? It's perfectly clear that they should but, no, dad sails through the red light followed by his pride and joy.
Perhaps one day when junior gets torn to pieces by an irate group of walkers whose collective patience has finally reached it's limits or he is pulverised into strawberry jam by some blameless motorist he'll think back and thank Daddy for showing him how big people ride bikes in the real world.
Bryan555
says...
3:11pm Wed 1 Feb 12
Bryan555 wrote:*protect, not protest
Barquentine wrote:A very poor show, and a great example of how, in the event that the cyclist had knocked down a pedestrian crossing, that the pedestrian should not be the one who is required to supply proof of the cyclist's reckless actions. Surely the onus should be on the cyclist to supply proof that they were riding in a responsible manner. Even if the cyclist was riding responsibly, and the pedestrian stepped out into the road and there was a collision it should be up to the cyclist to show that they had taken all precautions to protest the more vulnerable road user. Does that not make sense? It may make cyclists think carefully about how they ride their potentially dangerous cycles.
On my way to work this morning I have to wait at a very busy dual carriageway. The pedestrian lights turn red, the motorists slow to a halt but the small group of pedestrians doesn't cross. We stand fidgeting nervously because a new, ominous factor has entered the scene - a cyclist.
Or rather two cyclists, who in the brief glimpse I had of them, appeared to be a father and son team. Dad looks to be in his thirties and sonny about seven or eight. We hesitate - are they going to stop ? It's perfectly clear that they should but, no, dad sails through the red light followed by his pride and joy.
Perhaps one day when junior gets torn to pieces by an irate group of walkers whose collective patience has finally reached it's limits or he is pulverised into strawberry jam by some blameless motorist he'll think back and thank Daddy for showing him how big people ride bikes in the real world.
Bryan555
says...
3:26pm Wed 1 Feb 12
james R wrote:This is rather off topic, but don't we pay VED based on our emissions? Mine went up when I got a bigger car. Surely cyclists already pay the correct amount based on emissions?
There is no such thing as "ROAD TAX". It's "Vehicle Excise Duty" (since 1934) and despite what many people seem to believe, it does NOT go to towards the upkeep of the roads in the UK, which is funded from general taxation levies.
Bryan555
says...
3:47pm Wed 1 Feb 12
bogs wrote:Not sure which vile insults you are referring to, but I don't think your argument is defensible nonetheless.
With all these vile insults against car drivers, can anybody tell me how many car drivers (or 4x4 drivers) have killed a cyclist with one punch because he was upset. Now phrase the question the other way round!!!!
-
You refer to an appalling case of road rage against a driver, for which the responsible party has been punished, so it bears no meaningful relevance to this discussion. There have been a number of appalling road rage attacks on cyclists including one in which an elderly man was repeatedly hit with a hammer for going too slowly up a hill! But that is also not really relevant to this discussion.
-
Why don't you make an intelligent argument concerning the topic of the article?
Pork William
says...
6:04pm Wed 1 Feb 12
Not all cyclists behave so badly, but unfortunately, due to the behaviour of a few idiots, all cyclists should have to have insurance, pay road tax and have number plates (so they can be identified when they plough into pedestrians, as I have seen myself on a London pavement)
sussexguy
says...
6:30pm Wed 1 Feb 12
Bryan555
says...
8:27pm Wed 1 Feb 12
sussexguy wrote:Hmmm, of course us motorists are pretty much perfect, so I for one have no objection to taking responsibility for my actions. I would be happy to show how carefully I had been driving in the event of an unfortunate accident, no doubt caused by one of those many errant cyclists or pedestrians. And in the rather unlikely scenario that I, the motorist, had made a mistake by-for example-driving too fast, not paying proper attention, running a red light as it changed from amber I would hold up my hands and say well, I made a mistake, let me help you out with your financial problems as it was I who caused them. Of course the same would apply to a cyclist. Seems fair to me.
I wonder if Mrs Reynolds is one of the many cyclists who ignore red traffic lights; ride on pavements, dodging in and out of pedestrians, often at a fast speed; suddenly appear round corners on both pavements and one way streets (going the wrong way, of course); and wobble about on steep country roads, having to go very slowly as they haven't the energy to move faster, while a string of motorists is having to crawl behind them. I have never used a mobile phone while driving and, although I have seen motorists do so, the majority of them would never dream of doing so. However, I do see pedestrians crossing in front of vehicles, not bothering to look left or right, but just carry on chatting into their mobiles, as they step off the pavement - frequently!
Cash Cow
says...
6:53am Thu 2 Feb 12
Furthermore, as others have pointed out here, under such circumstances, if a collision did occur, although I am law abider, I may feel justified in driving away.
However, if this was introduced, we could also introduce special enforcement officers in video equipped vans driving around so any cyclists breaking the law, ie no lights at night, riding on the pavement and jumping red lights etc would have their bicycle immediately confiscated. If this happened then all these arguments and incidents would become things of the past, then if car drivers harassing cyclists were dealt with proportionate severity we wouldn't even need to waste money on cycle lanes. As a motorist, cyclist and pedestrian, I think we would all very quickly benefit from such measures.
Bryan555
says...
9:43am Thu 2 Feb 12
Cash Cow wrote:If the law came into force in a similar way to Holland as the cyclist was riding without lights he.she would be assumed 100% responsible financially (whereas currently it would be up to you to pursue him/her for damages to your car). The lack of lights would make it very easy to prove who was at fault, and under a stricter liability law the cyclist would automatically have to pay you damages. The law works BOTH WAYS. It might even lead to more cyclists getting insurance!
I was driving up Preston Park Avenue this evening, not exceeding the speed limit, it was very dark and the roads were icy. A cyclist dressed in dark cloths and showing no lights came hurtling down the middle of road, moving very fast, and I only saw him when my headlights picked him up. Thankfully there were no cars parked on the left hand side so I was able to vere to the left as he flashed past. Had there been parked cars all I could have done was stop dead, though taking into account the cyclist's speed and the icy road if I had stopped I believe the cycle would have careered straight into my car, most likely resulting in a nasty injury. So without any witnesses, if this legislation were in place, I would be considered to be at fault, ridiculous!
Furthermore, as others have pointed out here, under such circumstances, if a collision did occur, although I am law abider, I may feel justified in driving away.
However, if this was introduced, we could also introduce special enforcement officers in video equipped vans driving around so any cyclists breaking the law, ie no lights at night, riding on the pavement and jumping red lights etc would have their bicycle immediately confiscated. If this happened then all these arguments and incidents would become things of the past, then if car drivers harassing cyclists were dealt with proportionate severity we wouldn't even need to waste money on cycle lanes. As a motorist, cyclist and pedestrian, I think we would all very quickly benefit from such measures.
-
Confiscation of rule breaker's transport seems a bit harsh. I would like to see far less stupid cycling, but the rule would have to be across all forms of transport in order to be fair, and I need my car. If my concentration slipped and I ran a red light, or accidentally went over 30mph whilst overtaking, and that behavior was picked-up by the big brother cameras or special enforcement officers I would be a bit stuck for transport. Although I guess I could always cycle...
-
Max_Normal
says...
4:39pm Thu 2 Feb 12
Levent
says...
6:59pm Thu 2 Feb 12
Bryan555
says...
11:04am Fri 3 Feb 12
Max_Normal wrote:Comments like this make us sound like impatient, self centred idiots! Not all motorists think they have the right to go as fast as they want! I'm happy to share the road with cyclists, horses and pedestrians. Apart from on motorways, they're for us only :)
The sanctimonious idiots who cycle right in the middle of the lane all the way up Falmer Hill at 5 mph with their lycra-clad backsides pointing at a huge tailback of delayed traffic every day sure MAKE me want to run them over.
-
On my journeys I find myself waiting in queues of CARS. And if I ever need to overtake a cyclist or pass a pedestrian or a horse, I slow down. It only takes a few seconds, and I give them loads of space. The only time I'm ever held up by them is when I can't pull onto the opposing carriageway because guess what's there? CARS!
-
So for me, driving suits me, and my journies, so I would like more people to cycle, so there's more room on the road for me. Its simple, Get it?
JesterFeckwit
says...
5:58pm Fri 3 Feb 12
It must be possible to work out what the total third party costs of all transport related accidents are and then all we need to do is divide this between the 50 million or so adult residents in the UK.
£100 per person per year would mean a £5bn fund, which I would think go a long way to covering the liability.
It would also mean that we wouldn't need any complicated and expensive new laws and uninsured drivers become a thing of the past.
It could be collected using the National Insurance process as well, which would keep it nice and cheap.
Anyone who wanted additional insurance could pay for an additional comprehensive policy.
Job done.
Perseus
says...
11:46pm Fri 3 Feb 12
Dyno
says...
11:28am Sat 4 Feb 12
Maybe Becky Reynolds should be petitioning for all cyclist to follow the highway code and use lights. Im so annoyed when im out on my bike seeing these idiots do such stupid things. Car drivers get annoyed and I end up getting frustrated motorists tear past me too closely.
Oh, and I manage to use 2 sets of lights, wear hi vis and reflectors plus a helmet, follow the highway code and have 3rd party legal cover with my bike insurance. No reason why others shouldnt also.
Bryan555
says...
2:32pm Sat 4 Feb 12
Dyno wrote:If you ignore the inflammatory argus reporting, that does not cover the facts, the idea is a good one. If you read up on duch law you'll see that it's not about motorists vs cyclists or guilt and punishment.
As a cyclist im against automatically putting the blame on any one party. How can you legally assume one party is guilty because of what they drive. As a cyclist im so frustrated by the stupidity of some other cyclists who ignore the highway code, dont use lights, and put pedestrians at risk. Its these idiots that I blame for a lot of car drivers being aggressive to cyclists. Becky Reynolds may have a point if ALL cyclists followed the highway code and used lights. However with the sheer number of stupid cyclists on the road already having no care for other road users and pedestrians, giving them automatic assumption that their in the right would make them even less caring.
Maybe Becky Reynolds should be petitioning for all cyclist to follow the highway code and use lights. Im so annoyed when im out on my bike seeing these idiots do such stupid things. Car drivers get annoyed and I end up getting frustrated motorists tear past me too closely.
Oh, and I manage to use 2 sets of lights, wear hi vis and reflectors plus a helmet, follow the highway code and have 3rd party legal cover with my bike insurance. No reason why others shouldnt also.
The law makes assumes that someone in charge of a faster vehicle takes financial responsibility for more vulnerable road users. It means that is a silly cyclist mows down a cyclist, they would need to prove that they have been cycling in a safe way. If the cyclist was using the road, with lights and a padestrian stepped out without looking, then the cyclist would take less responsibility. Say 80% pedestrian, 20% cyclist (should have been riding out from the cerb, and watching for pedestrians). If it was a cycle ninja with no lights, on the pavement the cyclist would not be able to say they had been cycling responsibly, and would have to take financial responsibility for their actions. The same would apply to motorists. If a cyclist ran a red light, they would be financially responsible for damage to a car if there was an accident.
That sounds fair to me. Everyone who is in charge of a car or bike would have to take financial responsibility for their actions.
I challenge anyone to explain why the status quo is better.
moronslayer
says...
3:35pm Sat 4 Feb 12
The problem with proportional liability seems that it is unfair to innocent drivers. For example, if a nutjob, joint smoking, cyclist (camouflaged and with headphones) throws themselves under your car as you pull out from a junction the courts may well decide that the nutjob was, say, 90% liable and you were only 10% liable - after all, you might not have looked thoroughly around your car before exiting, and your were driving a dangerous weapon after all. The cyclist would pay (if insured) to have your tyres cleaned whilst your insurer may have to pay for the nutjobs severe lifelong disability, running into many millions. The driver then finds themselves uninsurable as a result of the insurance industries charitable demeanor (saints that they are), or do you think the Dutch just say "don't worry about it - you won't even lose your no claims bonus"?
My example with skateboarders (above) seems pertinent. Their claim for 'stricter liability' would seem no less valid. The underlying aim, it appears, is to get others to pay for one's own risk-taking activity at minimal cost to oneself by claiming what others are doing carries an 'operating risk'. This seems to amount to: 'but I'll be more squashed than the driver if we collide so they should pay out because their car is more solid than my head'?
Whatever happens such schemes must invariably find the properly insured party (i.e. driver) partially liable when actually completely innocent - otherwise there is no muggins from which to obtain money.
Regarding insurance for all: if choosing option 'A' (to cycle in traffic) is 40 times more likely to kill someone than choosing option 'B' (to drive a car or get the bus) - which option should attract a proportionally higher insurance premium?
Bryan555
says...
11:35pm Sat 4 Feb 12
1. Cycling, in itself, is not particularly dangerous, it's when we (motorists) are involved that the risks for them increase.
2. There are rule breaking cyclists (I hate them too) but that's not the fault of the ones that play by the rules.
3. OK, nutjob cyclist throws himself in front of your car as you pull out, why didn't you see him/her? It could just as easily be a child, or a blind person. We need to look properly before we pull out at junctions.
4. Your skateboarder is actually classed as a pedestrian. Pedestrians do have the right to walk (or skate) without being mowed down. If they did something stupid, the motorist would not be liable.
5. You have no way of knowing how the rule may effect premiums, but if more drivers (and cyclists) took more responsibility for their actions there would be less accidents (like in Holland).
6. Regarding insurance for all: Choosing to drive is choosing the mode of transport responsible for most road deaths and serious injuries of other people. Choosing to cycle is choosing a mode of transport that has a much lower risk of killing or seriously harming anyone. Pedestrians create lowest risk to others.
7. Driving a car puts other people in danger, no matter how carefully you drive. If you choose to drive, you should be prepared to take responsibility for what may happen, even if you drive within the law.
8. Cyclists would be made responsible for their actions more than they currently are. That really needs to happen in my view.
9. Whinging about insurance premiums sounds a bit self centered when compared to children dying.
10. Almost 1/4 of all cyclists killed are children (according to RoSPA)
11. According to dft reports, in 2010 11 deaths in the UK were attributed to cyclists wearing dark clothing at night. 26 were attributed to a driver using a mobile phone. 125 by aggressive driving. 31 by cars passing too close to a cyclist, pedestrian or horse. 221 from exceeding the speed limit. All the claims about cyclists being dangerous don't stack up against the facts. We're the ones that cause more damage by breaking the law, or driving carelessly.
12. According to the dft, in 57 per cent of serious accidents involving a cyclist and a vehicle, the reason of ‘failed to look properly’ was attributed as the cause of the accident by the driver of the vehicle.
I really think that before we start finger-pointing at others, we, the motorists, should take a good look at what we're doing.
Joshiman
says...
9:40am Sun 5 Feb 12
Ndee
says...
3:12pm Sun 5 Feb 12
moronslayer
says...
4:52pm Sun 5 Feb 12
Thank you. In response
1. "Cycling, in itself, is not particularly dangerous, it's when we (motorists) are involved..." Agreed, but my points clearly refer to cycling in traffic - I stand by the stats of 40 times more likely to die as a cyclist (I didn't claim these fatalities were the cyclists fault) - thus, irrespective of blame, cycling is actually far more dangerous.
2. "There are rule breaking cyclists (I hate them too) but that's not the fault...". Agreed, however, insurance premiums for drivers are increased to cover those (almost 1 million) criminals that drive uninsured. Why shouldn't realistic insurance premiums be paid by cyclists?
3. "OK, nutjob cyclist throws himself in front of your car...it could just as easily be a child..." Yes, some drivers need to be more careful as do some cyclists - the point of the article is proportioning liability. Some cyclists choose to enter incredibly dangerous situations and a reasonably large proportion get injured. Does this mean the right to take such risks is unquestionable? Regarding children - parents should be aware of the risks - if they were then I can't understand how they would want their child exposed to such danger (winning the subsequent blame-game with a careless driver will not bring the child back. Madness).
4. "Your skateboarder is actually classed as a....the motorist would not be liable...". That's does appear correct with regard to the topic -proportional liabilty attempts. Whilst criminal negligence and related laws may allow the motorist a defence it appears (from the case studies presented in support of proportional liability) that PL will not show 100% liability of the cyclist - motorists must carry the 'operating risk' of driving on the roads where cyclists can act irresponsibly and win-the-toss when arguing liability simply because their injuries would not have occurred if the car had not been present. Even car vs car crangs are fraught with rangling, car vs bike is too - that's why PL ultimate aim is to mobilise more compensation to cyclists.
5. "You have no way of knowing how the rule may effect premiums...". Proportional liability, by it's very nature, seeks to 'weight' liability more in favour of the cyclist. Even if actual claims eventually started to fall the risks of huge payouts have significantly increased - that is kind of the whole point. I think it's worth comparing UK and Dutch demographics, infrastructure, and established culture before any worthwhile policies could be formulated.
6. "Regarding insurance for all: Choosing to drive is choosing the mode of transport responsible for most road deaths...". Guess this is perspective. If I went and got the bike out of the shed I would be thinking "i'm 40 times more likely to die from riding this than getting in the car" - now if I was of the sanctimonious mindset that this would almost certanly be the fault of a careless motorist then I might well be right...but it wouldn't make me any less injured or dead. Rightly or wrongly, cycling is a choice - and just because the fault lies with others does not force one to take such considerable risks.
7. "Driving a car puts other people in danger, no matter how carefully you drive. If you choose to drive, you should be prepared to take responsibility for what may happen". Ofcourse. Did anyone say otherwise?
My point is that proportional liability is an unworkable nonsense in the UK for innocent drivers.
8. "Cyclists would be made responsible for their actions more than they currently are..." Another good point but it's never going to happen.
9. "Whinging about insurance premiums sounds a bit self centered...children dying". Disappointed with your shroud waving. You've confused the issues - it's about ensuring people are properly compensated and looked after - what on earth does that have to do with children dying - I would happily pay more insurance to prevent child deaths...the way of doing this most effectively is preventing them from exposing themselves to the dangers of road cycling. Very disappointed about the 'straw man' argument there.
10. "Almost 1/4 of all cyclists killed are children (according to RoSPA)..." Exactly, some passive-aggressive nutcase cyclists encourage their kids to road-cycle with such inherent dangers. What is wrong with these parents. Blame-games aside, even if the child is on a well-serviced bike, hi-vis clothing, and cycles responsibly - why on earth would parents want them on the roads with about 1 million uninsured morons driving cars with no MOT etc? Again, if one chooses to do something inherently dangerous to oneself (albeit because one is softer than the object you collide with) - it is nonetheless a choice. Efforts can be made to make this risky choice a bit safer - but who should pay? About 1% of traffic is cycling. 1% of budget would seem fair - with more raised from a bicycle tax...ho ho ho.
11. "According to dft reports..." Interesting points but does not address proportional liability
12. "According to the dft, in 57 per..." As for point 11 but there have been interesting studies that show "Looked but failed to see..." as incredibly important in all road accidents. Does not make cycling any more sensible, given the inherent risks of using a road network that simply was not designed to support cycling safely.
Again, responsible cyclists are doubtless fine and virtuous. I value such people and hope they choose public transport or drive - cycling just seems unacceptably dangerous for all such good folk. However, the majority of cyclists do not appear as virtuous and proportional liability will just serve to fuel some of their numbers 'compensation culture' mindset.
Bryan555
says...
9:33pm Sun 5 Feb 12
caeos
says...
10:11pm Sun 5 Feb 12
moronslayer
says...
12:02am Mon 6 Feb 12
Bryan555 wrote:Nope, Bryan555, certainly not saying it's ok for drivers to mow children down - please don't be silly. I mean only what is written above. Perhaps get more sleep and look-up 'straw-man argument'.
So, in short, you're saying that it's ok for drivers to mow down pedestrians and cyclists including childeren without taking any responsibility for their actions because some cyclists are badly behaved? I think perhaps your predudice is clouding your judgement.
How does this one sound: if cycling in traffic is inherently dangerous for children, should people strongly advocate children cycling so that they can then gloat when it is later established that the child was indeed, as predicted, killed by an inattentive driver? Is it really sensible for parents to send their kids off in heavy traffic reassured in the knowledge that it will probably not be their child's fault if they are subsequently squashed? No, one would hopefully get them to take the bus or walk until they know that it's reasonably safe to cycle...on cycle-friendly roads that are paid for by those who want to cycle safely (not everyone else) - hang on...I know such a place - I think it is called 'cloud-cuckoo land' - many people who believe in free-money live there.
It's clear there will always be morons who drive and cycle - lets not all spend disproportionate billions on 1% of road users just at the moment?
I'm arguing for innocent driver's desire to not have to unfairly subsidise cyclists (via proportional liability). As noted, your claim that all dangerous cyclists (aka nutjobs) will be found 100% liable is a nonsense.
Bryan555
says...
7:09am Mon 6 Feb 12
Motorists run people over, you can't dispute that.
It certainly sounds as if you don't think 'innocent ' motorists should take financial responsibility for the danger that put others in by driving.
Or is that not the case?
ghost bus driver
says...
9:01pm Mon 6 Feb 12
Bryan555 wrote:What if the cyclist has been eating curried sprouts with a side order of onion and baked beans following a starter of cabbage soup, all washed down with several pints of Guiness? I suppose if you could stand the resulting smell you could probably say they were guilty of high emissions...
james R wrote:This is rather off topic, but don't we pay VED based on our emissions? Mine went up when I got a bigger car. Surely cyclists already pay the correct amount based on emissions?
There is no such thing as "ROAD TAX". It's "Vehicle Excise Duty" (since 1934) and despite what many people seem to believe, it does NOT go to towards the upkeep of the roads in the UK, which is funded from general taxation levies.
voiceofthescoombe
says...
10:46am Tue 7 Feb 12
Cyclists very rarely.
Pollution does cause damage and health problems.
In the last twenty years as a nation we have got lazier and fatter with the resulting health problems.
Using cars a bit less and doing more walking cycling would be good for the nation and individuals.
kikainthesun
says...
2:47pm Tue 7 Feb 12
Marka45
says...
6:37pm Tue 7 Feb 12
"“Road tax” does not exist, and has not existed since the 1930s. What drivers do pay, however, is Vehicle Excise Duty, which is often known as road tax but is not strictly the same thing (a point that should have been made clear in today’s edition of The Times).
Firstly, a poll by British Cycling found that 87 per cent of its cyclist members also regularly drive cars, and so pay the same vehicle and fuel duties as other road users.
Secondly, this tax is paid into a central pot. The money made from Vehicle Excise Duty does not go directly back into the roads and highways. Cyclists - like everyone else - pay council tax, income tax and all sorts of other direct and indirect taxes which pay for the provision of public services, be they hospitals, trains or roads.
And thirdly, Vehicle Excise Duty is based on your vehicle’s emissions. Since a bike creates no emissions, it pays no Vehicle Excise Duty.
So, from a tax perspective, a cyclist has as much right to be on the road as any other road user and an extra levy would not be warranted."
pee35jay says...
12:58pm Tue 31 Jan 12
Against bikes - no lights, don't stop at red lights, ride on the pavement, jump off and on pavements in front of you, on mobiles, have ear phones on, don't use cycle lanes, hate motorists for the below
Against cars - use mobiles, don't look where they are going, think indicators are an accesory - not a necessity, speed, think they own the road, don't leave enough room for bikes to sneak up the inside, hate cyclists for the above
That should get you all going.