Presumed liability for cyclists

[cdtaylornats]

Mark Beaumont is asking for the Scottish Parliament to change road laws so that in a collision between cars and cyclists then car drivers are assumed to be liable.

I think that would be okay as long as cyclists on roads are licenced and insured and in a collision between cyclists and pedestrians then the cyclist is assumed to be liable.

In the Netherlands the liability law is the "least vulnerable" is presumed liable so it's car presumed liable vs cyclist but also cyclist presumed liable vs pedestrian.

That's what cycle law Scotland are proposing (and I assume what mark Beaumont is supporting).

As a pedestrian, driver and cyclist I think it's a good idea.

Personally I wouldn't normally go up the left at a roundabout - and certainly not alongside the front car. Turning left is, surprisingly, the most dangerous manoeuvre for cyclists as they can get crushed/hit by cars whose drivers haven't looked properly and by HGVs who genuinely can't see them as they're in their blind spot.

I'd always try to take a "centre of the lane" position so that I am in front of the next car. Even if it means they get pissed off, at least that means they've seen you

There are some roundabouts where, as a previous poster has said, it's just safer to get off and cross as a pedestrian. Or try to work out a different route

Not so much at roundabouts but some traffic lights, this safety issue becomes a grey area, as there is a cycle "lane" going up the left to the cycle apron/advance stop line (ASL) . Not a problem if you manage to get up to the ASL while the lights are still red, but what happens if they change just as you're getting there ? Can be dangerous, especially if you're on a hill and it's difficult to slow down to let the car alongside go ahead of you, as it's also turning left. If the cyclist could be sure that the car would hold back and wait for her to complete the manoeuvre, then she would be able to maintain road position - but given that the cyclist would be the one that would get crushed/knocked off, then it's better just to give way.

Given the vastly higher amount of driver journeys than cycling journeys made, I actually think those cyclist injuring pedestrian figures are pretty high. Is the % of the car/pedestrian accidents the same in terms of the pedestrian being at fault or is it less because you often can't hear a bike? Although you often can't hear a lot of modern cars either.

I do drive with consideration but driving down a twisty country A road never knowing if I might meet cyclists possling along 2 abreast round the corner makes it a nightmare. Add in that one regular guy seems to think camouflage gear is perfect for his daily cycle commute...

yy DebCee

I fully support the position that in a cyclist/motorist issue, the presumed liability sits with the motorist, in a cyclist/pedestrian issue the presumed liability sits with the cyclist.

Its not a licence to act irresponsibly but it serves to focus the mind of the potentially more dangerous on to the situation of the more vulnerable.

I am training for a charity bike ride and have had one near-miss per week since March. Most weeks, I end up pulling over and shaking. My kids love to ride a bike, we all do - its our preferred way to get around and stay fit. While the level of aggression and abuse from drivers is hideous (one or two instances most rides), most scares come from people just not thinking, pressing on at speed and scraping past me. And I am an obviously Fat Lass on a Bike not a Lycra Warrior.

I want a campaign picturing cyclists in Lycra to show that we are mothers and sons and grandparents and daughters. Most of us are car drivers too. We are just people and we will die if we are run off the road.

Absolutely not, don't agree with this at all.

There are so many cycling dickheads round Glasgow (and often unhelmeted) this would be ridiculous, even if it was only that the driver was presumed negligent until they could prove otherwise.

I commute to and from work by bike every day and I think presumed liability is a good idea.

I'd also add that many 'cycle routes' are not fit for purpose and cyclists end up using the roads. Certainly I will go up on the left at busy junctions and try to get ahead of the traffic/ buses and avoid potholes, pedestrians crossing against the lights, car doors opening, bus wing mirrors smacking is on the head, spray from HGVs etc

I always wear a helmet (and my mum's life was saved by a helmet but it only delayed the inevitable because the head injury did eventually indirectly cause her death ) but research has shown that helmets don't protect in collisions with cars. They do protect against cyclists having silly falls, eg potholes or sand on corners.

Presumed liability won't change that.

Great idea. Presumed liability in the Netherlands is why it's such a great place to ride a bike.

Presumed liability affects how people drive.

For everyone talking about "twat cyclists", yeah, get it - some people riding bikes are irritating. But if you hit them in your car and someone dies, it won't be you.

I think we know that LaPharisienne Unfortunately it isn't always the twat cyclist either, sometimes they cause accidents between other cars - just the same as twat drivers do. In my experience of any situation, twats rarely come of worse - it's a similar phenomenon to sod's law.

It's not so much that the cyclists or the drivers that are the issue, it's twats of all persuasions. If there was a law that liability was presumed on twats, I'd be first to vote for it.

I wonder how much presumed liability would change behaviour - those likely to recognise and be aware of it are probably already the ones who are doing their best to be aware of cyclists.

Pretty Bird I'm so sorry to hear about your Mum. That's very sobering and sad.

It is indeed Mrs curly I thought I'd commented earlier and must have lost it - pb

The incidents I've mentioned were almost all in Glasgow with one in Bearsden/Milngavie. I'd forgotten about the time that dh was pushed off his bike into a hedge (back road across to Darnley from Pollok) because a car insisted in overtaking in the face of oncoming traffic. Fortunately that "oncoming traffic" (ironically, a white van man) stopped to check he was ok (shaken, scratched but ok).

Thanks Wankers and MrsCurly. It was bad luck that she was one of those in whom the healing process doesn't stop and becomes destructive .

Good news is that her well-documented brain (over a 5 year period from original scan post accident through partial recovery then decline) may help in the research to stop this happening (could also help forms of dementia/CTE)

You know that and yet you have clearly missed my point.

Whoops - to expand, Lord Denning said it best:

“In the present state of motor traffic, I am persuaded that any civilised system of law should require, as a matter of principle, that the person who uses this dangerous instrument on the roads – dealing death and destruction all round – should be liable to make compensation to anyone who is killed or injured in consequence of the use of it. There should be liability without proof of fault. To require an injured person to prove fault results in the gravest injustice to many innocent persons who have not the wherewithal to prove it.”

Note that presumed liability would protect the most vulnerable person in any situation I.e. Would also protect pedestrians from cyclists.

LaPh No I've not missed your point at all, I am well aware that in any accident involving a cyclist then the cyclist is likely to come of worst and that a relatively low impact accident can be fatal given their vulnerability. I was pointing out that it's also possible to cause an accident and still come off scot free. And that applies to all accidents. In an accident between a lorry and a car then the car is likely to come of worst regardless of who caused the accident, should there be a presumption of liability on Lorry drivers?

I think all this will do is breed more resentment to be honest. relations are already strained.

I didn't know that France hadn't always had "presumed liability". I do recall that when dh and I were in Brittany on a long weekend with our bikes (and a wedding), we were both very impressed with both the state of the roads and how respectfully the cars treated us. That included cycling over a scary two lane dual carriageway barrage/bridge with cars going at speed past us (unavoidable to get to Dinard).

But as I hadn't cycled in France before, I can't comment on whether that good consideration has improved since the change in the law. I could ask my dad though - Mum and Dad had gone on regular cycling holidays there (lots of different parts) since 1984 just before the law changed and up until Mum's accident in 2007.

One problem claiming agaist cyclists injuring pedestrians is cyclists aren't required to be identifiable or insured. Cyclists should have to put a numberplate on their bike and carry third party insurance.

I'm not sure that cyclists crashing into pedestrians is a large enough problem to justify the expense of licensing cyclists.

Two cycling acquaintances died of their injuries and resulting complications following a collision with a car. This was on an organised bike ride.

Relations are strained, cyclists are twats blah blah blah, irrelevant - the real issues are: Britain has a massive obesity/ health problem, cycling is good for your health, cycling in Britain is currently very dangerous (and unpleasant).

Presumed liability would make cycling safer and more pleasant. This is a fact. Britain is one of very few countries in the EU that doesn't already have presumed liability. We are out of date and just need to catch up.

This has some interesting stats on cyclist collisions

I think there is potential to make cycling much safer through the use of proper Copenhagen-style cycle lanes where the cyclists are protected by a concrete barrier. This would require political will and investment. At the moment local authorities just pay lip service to it.

One of the most challenging aspects of my journey is along shared cyclist/pedestrian paths. I'm sure cyclist v pedestrian accidents will increase as a result of these.

Walking is good for your health too and doesn't require special equipment, money, new laws, better cycle paths, a completely improved infrastructure etc. Yet people still don't do it. I'm not saying that improvements wouldn't be good, but saying we need a new law because we are all fat isn't that relevant, it wouldn't improve cycling rates that much in the target market of obese people. it would improve cycling rates in those who already cycle for leisure or commuting. If you think people are obese simply because they can't get out and cycle then you are stretching the point a bit far.

I think something needs to be done but I don't think this law is it. It won't make the roads any better. I know we've talked a lot about twats, but I think the majority of accidents are probably due to lack of awareness or lack of knowledge of what the law is or what people are supposed to do. It would be interesting to do some research into the demographics of those involved in accidents and whether the changes in the driving test to include hazard perception etc has lowered the accident rate with bikes and pedestrians in those who have sat the new test - I'm presuming it includes sections on cyclists? If not, it should. We also need to increase bike-ability (or whatever it currently is) is both primary and high school at different levels. That would be a far better PE lesson than doing baseball or something for a few weeks.

And having said all that, I still can't allow my High school children to cycle the 8+ miles to and from school (which would save me time, stress and money) because the only route involves them crossing a roundabout at a motorway and cycling up and down a 60 limit windy and hilly A road.

I'll never believe it's safe unless they find a way of creating a separate cycle path and some safe way of crossing without going round the roundabout.

I cycle 6 miles to work every day. It takes 30 mins. Walking would probably be double that. Funnily enough cycling is quicker than the train and in rush hour quicker than driving too!

Can I ask, seriously and given all the stories by cyclists as to the injuries they have suffered and the high risk of death, why the heck do cyclists persist in putting themselves in this position?
Any collision with a moving metal vehicle several times the size of the bicycle is always going to result in injury to the cyclist. Even travelling at the lowest speed limit for 20mph, a car is always going to be faster than a cyclist and cause more damage in an impact. It's not always down to speedsters or inconsiderate drivers - accidents happen due to human error and always will. They are ACCIDENTS. Dh and I both drive a lot of miles and accept that there will be a risk of accidents. We have both been in accidents in the last 5 years, not of our fault. Both times resulted in minor injuries,one wrote my car off and would have killed me had I been on a bike. Our neighbour was a keen cyclist until involved in a low impact accident with a car which, because of the way he landed, broke his back. He is paralysed from the waist down and in a wheelchair. Why, as parents and spouses etc deliberately put yourself in a high risk situation and then, as a minority, expect the rules and laws governing the majority to be changed?
For exercise you can cycle off road as a hobby as can dcs.
If you do want to cycle in traffic at a speed to suit yourself and against the main flow, then fine. But don't put yourself in what is acknowledged to be a dangerous situation....and then complain about the danger!