Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Terbs]

It does not work giving cyclists use of pavements. Classic example is the road from The Bakers Arms roundabout into Wareham, Dorset. God knows how much the council spent doing the pavements up by widening, putting in lowered crossovers at junctions, roundabouts, etc. Its all clearly marked.
And where do the cyclists ride....on the road.
Right, I am going to alter that statement slightly, in as much to say, that 'general cyclists' if that's the correct terminology, do use it.....those that don't....the men in Lycra.
The council took,  IMO the correct steps to try to minimise danger to cyclists, and they abuse it. Traffic still queues up....as there are trading estates along the route, heavy goods vehicles are a regular feature, as are HGV's transporting Holiday homes and some very large boats. I have seen some very close encounters along that stretch, and you would not get me riding along there for all the tea in China.
So it shows....when the authorities try to make things safe, they virtually get the two fingered salute.
Cycle lanes along that stretch would be accidents waiting to happen.
Not meant as cycle bashing, but just showing...don't always bash the councils, some do try

[Gaffers]

I think your statement is anti-lycra more than anything else.  What's up, Daz left his mark on you?

On a serious note, that is part of the reason for wanting to change things.  There are very very few cycleways I would actually use due to the level of danger they put towards pedestrians.  I can cruis eat 25mph and reach up to 35mph on the flat (I have had 47mph on a downhill) and so can many other 'cyclists in lycra', do you really want me doing those speeds on the same pavements that you or your children use?

For too long local authorities have been, for the most part, just painting to white lines and calling it a cycle path without any thought of the usage, suitability or the dangers it creates.  But they apply for cash from central Govt to pay for it then they can boast about having spent X pounds on cycling infrastructure (that nobody uses) it's 'dangle berries' and it has to stop.

Anyway, we're veering away from where I would like the discussion to go.  I would rather we discuss the content rather than the actual situation because I think we can all agree it cannot go on as is

[Terbs]

No  its not a go a lycra...its an observation on that particular stretch of road, which I might add, is mostly pedestrian free.
The only safe way are cycle routes well away from roads

[Sir Tigger KC]

1. Introduction of a Presumed Liability enshrined in law that places the onus of the less-vulnerable road-user to prove they were not at fault.  Currently the system is in reverse placing the onus on the victim and usually results in a long and costly legal battle to get their basic human rights to be upheld.

I don't agree with this as it contravenes the basic principal of English Law. ie: Innocent until proven guilty.  My disagreement is nothing to do with cyclists, but if we introduce 'Presumed Guilt' into one area of our legal system, then it might spread to others.   

There is a significant difference between presumed liability and presumed guilt

One bankrupts you and the other sees you in the clink?

No I don't think there's a significant difference at all. As Aaron points out it's civil and criminal law, but once you strip out the presumption of innocence in one area of the law, it won't be a massive leap to apply that to other legal fields.    The principal of 'Innocent until proven guilty' has been the bedrock of English Law for centuries and I wouldn't want to see that eroded in any way! 

It's got nothing to do with Human Rights either, it's simply a matter of establishing who was right and who was wrong.   

[Gaffers]

So I am supposed to have the burden of proving that in the event of an accident my innocence and the guilt of the driver yet berated as a vigilante for wearing a helmet camera.

I don't get it

Also I don't feel you fully understand the current situation.  Say I am cycling down the road perfectly legally and correctly and a car hits me from behind, as it currently stands I have to prove that I was in the right to be able to receive any sort of compensation.  Even then the battle is immense.  I could lose my job, my house and my entire livelihood because of the actions of a motorist yet I would find myself in a 'his word against mine' situation with their insurance company.

Plus I think you may have your wires crossed, the presumed responsibility proposal only counts for insurance, not for criminal law. 

http://www.roadpeace.org/change/fair_compensation/stricter_liability/

http://www.roadpeace.org/resources/RoadPeace_Strict_liability_discussion_paper.pdf

[Sir Tigger KC]

So I am supposed to have the burden of proving that in the event of an accident my innocence and the guilt of the driver yet berated as a vigilante for wearing a helmet camera.

Why not?  What makes cyclists a special case?    I had a non fault accident on my motorbike a few years ago and had a hell of a fight to prove it wasn't my fault.    Looking back I wish I'd had a helmet cam!    If you worry about being called a vigilante then you should get a thicker skin.... or wear another layer of lycra!    

Also I don't feel you fully understand the current situation.  Say I am cycling down the road perfectly legally and correctly and a car hits me from behind, as it currently stands I have to prove that I was in the right to be able to receive any sort of compensation.  Even then the battle is immense.  I could lose my job, my house and my entire livelihood because of the actions of a motorist yet I would find myself in a 'his word against mine' situation with their insurance company.

If a car hits you from behind then then that driver is at fault, irrespective of the vehicle you are driving/riding.  No?     And I'm not saying it should be compulsory, but if you worry about losing your house etc, then you should really think about getting a third party liability insurance policy.    I sure there are policies tailored for cyclists.   

Plus I think you may have your wires crossed, the presumed responsibility proposal only counts for insurance, not for criminal law. 

No not at all. It's just that if we start to erode the principal of 'Innocent until proven guilty' in any area, then it could spread to other areas of civil law and indeed criminal law.    That's what bothers me. 

I'm not anti cyclist Guff, but I don't agree with the idea of 'Presumed Liability' as then every Scrote, Dick and M'fanny would be crashing into lorries for a compo claim!   

[05omegav6]

I buried my first Omega in the back of a Vw Polo that had left.a queueing lane without so much as a cursory glance, let alone indicating, about ten feet in front of me. Fortunately a witness came forward from two cars behind the Polo, and that was that...

Point is, being hit from behind does not automatically absolve the front/leading vehicle of blame

Obligatory third party liability for any form of transport would go along way to levelling the playing field.

[Andy B]

....

Obligatory third party liability for any form of transport would go along way to levelling the playing field.

does that apply to Little Johnny on his trike/bike with stabilisers?  and if not .... when do things change? age? size of bike?

[05omegav6]

It should apply regardless, with parental responsibility ending with the issue of an NI number, and to all forms of transport... Bikes, horses, carts, arguably anything being used on a public right of way as a means of getting from A to B regardless of purpose of journey.

Say an extra 1% on NI, and any costs caused by public negligence ie local authority for failing to anticipate/maintain a public thoroughfare to be recouped from said authority.

[Rods2]

I'm not in favour of any law that makes you guilty until you can prove you are innocent. This is not, thank goodness, how Anglo Saxon law works and it why it was always superior to the French Napoleonic law model.

IMO cycle lanes on roads are much more preferable than sharing pavements with pedestrians because:

1. It gives the wrong message to far to many cyclists who think all pavements are cycleways. They are not and this message needs to be got across, that riding on a pavement that is not a cycleway in breaking the law.

2. Bicycles are very quiet and you also get pedestrians wearing Walkman's etc, children use them as a roadside playground and you also have dog walkers, where a bicycle is an interesting thing for a dog to jump up at and have a play with. None of these are fun when 44 ton lorries are driving past a 50mph a couple of feet from you. All of these factors not only endanger the pedestrians and dogs but also the cyclists.

3. When there are many side road junctions, on a pavement cycleway you can't make reasonable progress, where you have to give way every 20 yards.

Very little thought is made at times when planning for pedestrians and cyclists. The A331 roundabout on the outskirts of Aldershot is very dangerous for both. This has made what used to be a safe road for pedestrians and cyclists walking or riding from Aldershot to Ash or vice-versa into a very dangerous one. We need much better planning for pedestrians and cyclists, where they are all too often an afterthought even though they are much more vulnerable when interacting with other road users.

Car drivers need to understand that virtually all cyclists and pedestrians are taxpayers and voters.

[steve6367]

1. Introduction of a Presumed Liability enshrined in law that places the onus of the less-vulnerable road-user to prove they were not at fault.  Currently the system is in reverse placing the onus on the victim and usually results in a long and costly legal battle to get their basic human rights to be upheld.

I don't agree with this as it contravenes the basic principal of English Law. ie: Innocent until proven guilty.  My disagreement is nothing to do with cyclists, but if we introduce 'Presumed Guilt' into one area of our legal system, then it might spread to others.   

There is a significant difference between presumed liability and presumed guilt

Neither are a good idea though - the burden should always be to prove guilt / liability not assume it. (In a road context that's why I have dash cams in both cars)

[LC0112G]

I don't see how compulsory 3rd party insurance for all road users would addresses Monsieur Guffer's problem. If a car driver runs up M.Guffers chuff whilst he's on his bike, that car driver is (well should be!) insured for 3rd party damage. So if M.Guffer wants to, he can sue the driver for damages - whether he has his own 3rd party insurance is irrelevant. His own 3rd party insurance would only cover him if he causes damage to someone else's property.

I think what M.Guffer is saying is that the costs of suing the other driver for damage to his bike is prohibitive. The other driver will have the might of their insurance company behind them, whereas M.Guffer is on his own. If M.Guffer loses in court, then he'll have to pay the costs of the other parties defence, which could be many thousands of pounds.

I suspect the answer to this is the same as it is for any car vs car accident - some form of fully comprehensive policy. That way damage to your property (bike) is covered by your insurance co, who will then attempt to claim from the 3rd party.  I have no idea if fully comp insurance is available for bikes, and if it is I'll bet it's expensive.

The changes M.Guffer is proposing mean that the cyclist wouldn't have to pay for fully comp insurance, and automatically make the 3rd party liable. For the reasons others have stated, I'm afraid I couldn't support that part of the proposal.

[05omegav6]

You misinterpret me... compulsory third party minimum insurance means that it should be alot easier for Mr G to claim against the person who has just run him up the chuff, as you put it... this can only be good.

Also, if the liable party in the case of shite planning/poorly implemented or maintained infrastructure is brought to bear for their negligence, then this could see a thorough and effective reappraisal of the road network on a local level

If local authorities were held to account for items such as the siting of either the drain or the cycle lane in Matts example then they would hopefully apply a bit more thought to the schemes rather than simply treating them as box ticking exercises

[steve6367]

My personal position is that all road users should be insured and registered, whatever they are riding / driving. This would greatly simplify any disagreement.

[LC0112G]

You misinterpret me... compulsory third party minimum insurance means that it should be alot easier for Mr G to claim against the person who has just run him up the chuff, as you put it... this can only be good.

No - Third party insurance pays out (and will pay for your defence) if someone else sues you. It won't normally pay for you to sue someone else. If you want to sue someone else then you either need first party insurance (aka comprehensive) or some kind of un-insured loss policy. Or a no-win no-fee after the event lawyer who is prepared to take on your case.

The person who runs Mr G up the chuff already will have compulsory third party cover. That's the minimum allowed for a motor vehicle driver. So you can sue him in an attempt to recover your losses, or compensation for injury - if you can afford to do so.