Speeding Cyclists

aleph_0

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

I'm not really sure what is meant by being "in a better position to avoid a collision". How? Why?

To quote RHPS "It's just a jump to the left". A pedestrian can easily cause a cyclist to fall but remain standing themselves. It's difficult, pedestrians clearly should be considered a higher priority.

I'm not convinced either way on this. We must remember strict isn't the same as absolute liability, and so maybe such scenarios aren't a concern. But I understand where Rotor is coming from.

Marco_Panettone

aleph_0 wrote: »

To quote RHPS "It's just a jump to the left". A pedestrian can easily cause a cyclist to fall but remain standing themselves. It's difficult, pedestrians clearly should be considered a higher priority.

I'm not convinced either way on this. We must remember strict isn't the same as absolute liability, and so maybe such scenarios aren't a concern. But I understand where Rotor is coming from.

It can quite often be a step to the right though! This is why people on bikes should take extra care around pedestrians and give them as much room as they'd like larger, faster vehicles to give them.


I agree that there's already a (selfish) reason not to hit pedestrians when cycling that doesn't exist for drivers, and strict liability would simply formalise it. From a political point of view it's important too - it ensures cyclists have to take responsibility for their actions, just like we'd like drivers to do.

Rotor

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

Pedestrians bring less mass and less speed to a collision than someone on a bike. This means the force they bring is lower. This means the danger they add is lower.


It is absolutely about causing injury to other people.


If a cyclist hits a pedestrian and falls, any injury to the cyclist is caused by the subsequent fall, not the initial collision. The pedestrian will be injured by the collision AND the fall.


I'm not really sure what is meant by being "in a better position to avoid a collision". How? Why?

I disagree that I ,as a stationary cyclist, would be more seriously hurt by a runner running into me at 15mph as opposed to me doing 15mph hitting a stationary runner ( if that's not an oxymoron). The differences in mass are fairly slight (10-12kg?)


Added to that most collisions with pedestrians will be on or next to a road, and as the cyclist is more likely to have higher velocity than the pedestrian post collision ,is more likely to end up sprawled on the road and at risk of secondary impacts with cars.


Given similar age/weight etc profiles the cyclist is likely to come off worst

brat

Liability should be loaded towards those who potentially bring the greatest momentum into a collision. As observed earlier, this does not mean absolute liability, so if a cyclist makes a manoeuvre that couldn't have been anticipated and causes a collision with a motorist, the motorist is unlikely to be held criminally liable. His civil liability would be dependent on what he could have feasibly done to avoid the collision or mitigate its severity.

If however a car overtook a cyclist too closely and at the time the cyclist necessarily swerved to avoid a pothole, bringing him into contact with the motorist, then the motorist would be looking at both civil and criminal repercussions, because he has driven without due consideration of other road users. I would argue that the criminal case would be considered if any part of the overtaking vehicle was in the same lane as the cyclist when overtaking.

aleph_0

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

It can quite often be a step to the right though! This is why people on bikes should take extra care around pedestrians and give them as much room as they'd like larger, faster vehicles to give them.

I agree that there's already a (selfish) reason not to hit pedestrians when cycling that doesn't exist for drivers, and strict liability would simply formalise it. From a political point of view it's important too - it ensures cyclists have to take responsibility for their actions, just like we'd like drivers to do.

Hmm, I'm still on the fence. The motivation behind strict liability is that by using a motor vehicle which poses an inherent large risk to other road users, you should be assumed more liable in an accident (but that doesn't make you liable when you're not at fault).

I haven't seen evidence that cyclists pose the same risk to pedestrians. However, assuming we follow the dutch model: http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/strict-liability-in-the-netherlands/ , all the scenarios I can imagine where a cyclist wouldn't be at fault, the strictly liability law wouldn't apply anyway.

I think that means I'd support ped/cyclist strict liability, but I'm not sure what objective it would achieve (apart from appeasing a motorist saying "but we have strict liability, why don't they have it").

DCodd

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

I'm not really sure what is meant by being "in a better position to avoid a collision". How? Why?

Pedestrians choose when and where to cross the road. Their choices as to where and when to be on the road will be the initial primary factor of any such incident.

This is not to remove the responsibility of the other road users but pedestrians do need to take responsibility for their own safety first and if there is to be strict liability then the pedestrian's actions need to be included as well.

Marco_Panettone

aleph_0 wrote: »

Hmm, I'm still on the fence. The motivation behind strict liability is that by using a motor vehicle which poses an inherent large risk to other road users, you should be assumed more liable in an accident (but that doesn't make you liable when you're not at fault).

I haven't seen evidence that cyclists pose the same risk to pedestrians. However, assuming we follow the dutch model: http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/strict-liability-in-the-netherlands/ , all the scenarios I can imagine where a cyclist wouldn't be at fault, the strictly liability law wouldn't apply anyway.

I think that means I'd support ped/cyclist strict liability, but I'm not sure what objective it would achieve (apart from appeasing a motorist saying "but we have strict liability, why don't they have it").

Cyclists do not pose "the same" risk to pedestrians as motor vehicles do to cyclists, but they (we) pose a higher risk to pedestrians than other pedestrians do. This risk is still minimal, both in terms of likelihood of collision and probable outcome.


I like riding as if strict liability exists - it completely removes the "get out of the way" mentality and I feel it makes me more observant to pedestrian movements. I ride slightly further away from the kerb so if someone steps out (a likely scenario) they won't immediately get run over by me. EVERYONE knows pedestrians don't look sometimes, so it's perfectly possible to mitigate for this in the same way it is to ride away from the door-zone (even though the 'fault' if there is a collision would lie on different sides of the line). I also try to drive with a similar outlook.


The arguments I've heard against it is that it would give free licence to cyclists to do whatever they want with no repercussions, which is clearly rubbish, both in terms of physical risk to the rider, and legal risk if they are proved to be at fault.

Marco_Panettone

DCodd wrote: »

Pedestrians choose when and where to cross the road. Their choices as to where and when to be on the road will be the initial primary factor of any such incident.

This is not to remove the responsibility of the other road users but pedestrians do need to take responsibility for their own safety first and if there is to be strict liability then the pedestrian's actions need to be included as well.

When pedestrians are crossing the road they already have right of way.


Their actions would be taken into account. If the pedestrian can be proved to be at fault then the other party would be exonerated. However, other road users have a duty of care to vulnerable road users and should expect pedestrians to step out without warning. This means being observant and ensuring you give enough space for 'unexpected' movement. It also means keeping your speed at a level where you have time to react.


People already have a very good reason not to be run over, and nobody gets hit on purpose.

DCodd

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

When pedestrians are crossing the road they already have right of way.


.

Which is part of the problem if the truth be known. The roads where pedestrians do not have right of way, in fact are to all intents and purposes excluded, are the motorways and barriered roads. On these roads pedestrian injuries are minimal mainly because everyone knows where and when the pedestrian can and should be on the road.

topdaddy_2

How would the op police the speed? How would the cyclist be aware of it? And OP hasnt used disc brakes then? Mine are sharp enough to try to put me over the bars