Strict liability, law change to protect vulnerable road users?

birkee

Re. the above.
Percentages would be an interesting discussion point.

sequence

geri1965 wrote: »

You are clearly a lefty, or someone educated in social sciences. Maybe both!

Neither, but thanks for adding so much to the discussion.

Strider590

birkee wrote: »

All valid observations Strider.
The difficulty seems to be people accepting faults from all sides.

The tendancy on these forums, seems to be to take a side, and then fight that aginst all comers with a singular viewpoint.

Don't you think discussions would be more effective, if people accepted the truth of the real world? It's not motorists, It's not cyclists, it's not pedestrians, it's a percentage of all of them.

Well I drive a car, I mainly cycle off the roads (but might commute in future).

There's a much higher percentage of car drivers who are quite frankly a danger to ALL road users.

It makes perfect sense when you think that it requires very little technical skill to get into a car, most drivers don't even maintain their own vehicles, where as cyclists do.
A car gives a sense of "protection" and anonymity, many drivers think they can do what they like just because their vehicle is bigger than the next (theory of big).

When a car driver is at fault, they've got a tonne of metal behind them. When a cyclist or pedestrian is at fault, they've got nothing.

birkee

Strider590 wrote: »

Well I drive a car, I mainly cycle off the roads (but might commute in future).

There's a much higher percentage of car drivers who are quite frankly a danger to ALL road users.

It makes perfect sense when you think that it requires very little technical skill to get into a car, most drivers don't even maintain their own vehicles, where as cyclists do.
A car gives a sense of "protection" and anonymity, many drivers think they can do what they like just because their vehicle is bigger than the next (theory of big).

When a car driver is at fault, they've got a tonne of metal behind them. When a cyclist or pedestrian is at fault, they've got nothing.

Can't disagree entirely Strider, but come on.....
maintaining a bicycle is playschool.
(Yes, I can take an engine out of a car and overhaul it, and have done so a few times.)

Don't forget also, that the driver is inside that tonne of metal, and is not immune from the damage in can cause to them, either. Who wants a cyclist through the windscreen, no matter who's fault it was? Or, the collision with another vehicle (HGV?) avoiding a cyclist.

Like I've said.... the accident can be caused by either party, and the ambulance paramedic earlier says that in the majority of cases, it's found to be the cyclist or pedestrian at fault.
The problem is, we can't know how many cyclists have had narrow squeaks because of drivers negligence. I know it's happened to me a few times when I used to cycle.

Strider590

Drivers don't set out to cause carnage, but inside that little personal space they can brew up some serious rage and as can be seen in those video's they go nuts and attack the cyclist, would they dare do that to a HGV? I stongly doubt it!
In which case it comes down to size = importance.

I've seen both cyclists and pedestrians to stupid things, the only thing im saying is that cars/vans/trucks are highly lethal weapons by comparison.

birkee

Strider590 wrote: »

Drivers don't set out to cause carnage, but inside that little personal space they can brew up some serious rage and as can be seen in those video's they go nuts and attack the cyclist, would they dare do that to a HGV? I stongly doubt it!
In which case it comes down to size = importance.

I've seen both cyclists and pedestrians to stupid things, the only thing im saying is that cars/vans/trucks are highly lethal weapons by comparison.

Paragraph 1: They should be banned from the roads.
Paragraph 2: Oh how I wish more cyclists and Pedestrians would bear that in mind.

Strange, we have talked about it from opposite sides, but it seems that we agree. The roads are a dangerous place, and we ALL need to be careful.
The OP was targetting motorists as being the one to answer for an incident though. We all have to answer equally, to be fair.

geri1965_2

sequence wrote: »

Neither, but thanks for adding so much to the discussion.

It was a joke, you need to read the earlier posts in the thread to get it.

Oh never mind.

mikey72

birkee wrote: »

The problem is, we can't know how many cyclists have had narrow squeaks because of drivers negligence. I know it's happened to me a few times when I used to cycle.

I've seen a lot have narrow squeaks becuase of driver skill though.

I've seen a fair number of cyclists who've tried to cycle under cars where the car driver has only just managed to miss them.

Cyclists abroad tend to ride with care to other road users, and don't assume they always have the right of way, and that everything will stop for them.
The also ride older style bikes with baskets on the front normally, and don't pretend to be pseudo-olympians on racing bikes.

Lum

Mids_Costcutter wrote: »

As pointed out in the first post strict liability has not resulted in higher insurance premiums for motorists in the countries that have adopted it. Is the UK really that uncivilised?

The European countries have a completely different legal system. Not sure how their insurance systems work though.

I think it's pretty safe to say here that if the insurance end up paying out, it will be a fault claim, just like it is when you're hit by an uninsured driver or have your car stolen.

Mids_Costcutter

Lum wrote: »

The European countries have a completely different legal system. Not sure how their insurance systems work though.

I think it's pretty safe to say here that if the insurance end up paying out, it will be a fault claim, just like it is when you're hit by an uninsured driver or have your car stolen.

I dare say that most European countries (that includes the UK!) have differences between their legal systems, but that hasn't stopped them (the majority in Western Europe) implementing a system of law that places a greater duty of care on motorists.