RTA Liability report

[pwa]

I feel like I have been playing Devil's Advocate today, but I hope I got my honestly held views across without rubbishing what everyone else has been saying.

I think we all want the same thing: a road environment in which every user respects every other user, and where safety is taken seriously by all. Tangled Metal made a very good point about countries like Denmark having a good safety record largely because of existing high levels of cycle use and the cycling-friendly culture it brings about. I think that is our biggest hope for the future.

[horizon]

I feel like I have been playing Devil's Advocate today, but I hope I got my honestly held views across without rubbishing what everyone else has been saying.

Yes, and it helps others to thrash out their points of view. What you seem to put forward are the generally held views of society: not extreme, but moderate and reasonable. You may be in a small minority on this forum but not outside it. The trouble is that it is that very reasonable consensus that needs a huge shake up - it's the proverbial elephant in the room. And ideas often have a habit of turning somersault: the views of the angry cyclist of today are tomorrow's social norms. Hopefully.

[reohn2]

.... Tangled Metal made a very good point about countries like Denmark having a good safety record largely because of existing high levels of cycle use and the cycling-friendly culture it brings about. I think that is our biggest hope for the future.

That seems to say that until cycling has reached a critical mass/high level of cycling we will have to endure constant abuse and and complete disregard for our safety as cyclists

The whole problem stems from a widespread belief by a significant and IMO growing,minority of motorists that cyclists are some kind of out group,freeloading section of society,that doesn't deserve any respect at all,and by an element of those drivers to abuse cyclist for just being cyclists is their privilege and the police and judicial system in this sickly country do nothing to dispel that belief.
Furthermore IME to report that kind of abuse to the police results in,at best a load of flannel and at worst a pack of lies as to why they can't do anything about it,believe me I've tried on more than a few occasions with no result.
I've been left with a complete a utter disrespect for the police as a result.
IME the authorities,not to mention roads planners/designers have an unhealthy and sometimes illegal disregard for cycling and cyclists in this country,if you're in any doubt,please read some of the other topics in this section of the forum!
A country can be judged on how it treats it's minorities.This country isn't doing such a good job where cycling is concerned!

[pwa]

Reohn2

I'm sorry that your experience on your bike is spoilt by morons.

I'd be interested to know where you do most of your cycling. I went out for a 20 mile ride this afternoon, and as usual I had no problems. On the narrow lanes (Vale of Glamorgan) cars waited (apparently patiently) when they could not pass me, a tractor slowed down very nicely as we passed in one of the passing places, and I did not see one vehicle going too fast. The only sour note was a cyclist going the other way who did not respond to my "hello", but maybe he had his mind on other things. I do sometimes have issues with other road users, but it isn't every time I go out and it is rarely serious. Am I just living in a bubble of innocence because I don't cycle in a city, or is there more to it than that?

[reohn2]

Reohn2

I'm sorry that your experience on your bike is spoilt by morons.

I'd be interested to know where you do most of your cycling. I went out for a 20 mile ride this afternoon, and as usual I had no problems. On the narrow lanes (Vale of Glamorgan) cars waited (apparently patiently) when they could not pass me, a tractor slowed down very nicely as we passed in one of the passing places, and I did not see one vehicle going too fast. The only sour note was a cyclist going the other way who did not respond to my "hello", but maybe he had his mind on other things. I do sometimes have issues with other road users, but it isn't every time I go out and it is rarely serious. Am I just living in a bubble of innocence because I don't cycle in a city, or is there more to it than that?

I'm glad your cycling is trouble free and can only say I wish mine was.
My cycling is mostly in Greater Manchester,Cheshire,Lancashire,and there's isn't a single ride that I don't suffer some kind of abuse to a greater or lesser extent.I also cycle in North Wales occasionally and find a big difference in the way motorist treat me,the exception being rushour but even then it isn't bad.

A typical 40 mile ride on Monday:- I was closely overtaken(@ a 1m or slliigghhttyy less) by three cars and a transit sized van,two of the cars with a speed differential of 35mph+,all except the van with no other traffic coming the other way so plenty of room for them to give me a lot more room the van could've given me another 300mm easily.Three of those o/takes were on a wide open road with 16to 18mph crosswind,which I was leaning into and would be buffeting a car slightly so the driver would've known it was windy.
On a double white line on a blind left hander with me in primary a car tried to overtake,and had to brake hard as another car hove into sight coming the other way ,this wouldn't have been so bad but in a 30mph zone and with I huge tailwind slightly down hill I was doing 25mph+ .
On the same ride a tractor and trailer coming the other way(no other traffic about)the 20 something driver,beeped his horn stuck two fingers up at me and mouthed f*** off to me,my offence was simply being there .
During the same ride I must've been overtaken by 50 or even 100 other vehicles courteously and without issue and in fact most of those overtakes made allowances I thought for my safety in the windy conditions.
The problem is not knowing which next overtaker will be the abuser/nutter/loonie,that can get to me if I let it.
I'm no shrinking violet and have been cycling 50 odd years on the roads of the UK and 20 odd on the continent(I'm 62)and usually ride 7 to 8k miles a year,so it's not as if I'm inexperienced or not used to heavy traffic here in the NW.

[Graham]

Exploring further the possible disadvantages of Presumed / Strict Liability. . . . . .

It might become an attractive easy-option for the scumbags who stage traffic crashes in order to defraud insurance companies.

In normal circumstance there is a very strong incentive for the victim to avoid crashes - injury, disability or death.
Thus there is only a question of whether the victim made a mistake and the degree of recklessness.

Scumbag 1 lays in wait with a wrecked bicycle. Scumbag 2 positions himself 100 metres down the road.

Motorist passes Scumbag 1 who throws the bike in the road and lays down on the pavement with suitable theatrical effects.

Scumbag 2 flags down the motorist and insists that he saw the motorist collide with the cyclist . . . . . . tricky one !

All thoughts welcome.

[reohn2]

Exploring further the possible disadvantages of Presumed / Strict Liability. . . . . .

It might become an attractive easy-option for the scumbags who stage traffic crashes in order to defraud insurance companies.

In normal circumstance there is a very strong incentive for the victim to avoid crashes - injury, disability or death.
Thus there is only a question of whether the victim made a mistake and the degree of recklessness.

Scumbag 1 lays in wait with a wrecked bicycle. Scumbag 2 positions himself 100 metres down the road.

Motorist passes Scumbag 1 who throws the bike in the road and lays down on the pavement with suitable theatrical effects.

Scumbag 2 flags down the motorist and insists that he saw the motorist collide with the cyclist . . . . . . tricky one !

All thoughts welcome.

This thought process says a lot about the state of UK society and what we've come to expect from it.I wonder if this sort of thing happens on the continent
I've posted on here many times before that IMHO the UK is the sick man of Europe,I've no reason to think otherwise.
I also think the UK is a gangsters paradise,only yesterday someone was shot about a mile from where I live,which according to media reports was linked to a hand grenade attack on a house in Salford some 15 miles away,gangsters on the rampage no doubt .

[pjclinch]

Exploring further the possible disadvantages of Presumed / Strict Liability. . . . . .

It might become an attractive easy-option for the scumbags who stage traffic crashes in order to defraud insurance companies.

.. snip scumbaggery...
All thoughts welcome.

All possible... but just as possible for continental scumbags who I'm sure are at least as scummy and inventive too as their British counterparts and have had years to play these sorts of games So like the rest of the "Devil's Advocacy" against the idea, we just point at where it has been standard practice for years and say, "but look, it's there and it seems to work".

And again we have to look at scumbaggery in our existing system to just the same degree, because Devil's Advocacy should be used in all directons. This is a pretty speculative example, and I'm sure it would pretty much never happen because we all want a fair system and everything, but say a scumbag in a car knocks down a pedestrian or cyclist with no witnesses, and realising it's their word against the injured party's make up some fibs to protect their no-claims bonus. Can you imagine such a thing?

Pete.

[Graham]

reohn2,

The above post is necessary to try to explore possibilities BEFORE the inevitable attacks from the motoring lobby.
( It was scenarios like the scumbag one above that scuppered it last time. )

I read your description of your ride with great empathy. We are told "Cycling is safe", but it doesn't FEEL safe some (small) part of the time.
For many people it is the major reason why they will not consider cycling.

[pjclinch]

I think we all want the same thing: a road environment in which every user respects every other user, and where safety is taken seriously by all.

For some values of "we all". There are clearly a great many road users who think that the rules should apply to everyone except for them. So we have people who are quite safe to speed, to use mobile 'phones, to park illegally, run red/amber lights or generally break whatever rule they see fit to because they've "thought it through" and it's quite alright if they do it because they've rationalised it's safe, so that's all right then.

These people are kidding themselves they want what you say, but they don't deliver the environment you want. This is the actuality of what you have, so you need a pragmatic system that works with what you have rather than one that assumes what you have and what you want are the same thing. Presumed/strict liability is such a pragmatic system. Our current system makes assumptions to the effect that scratched paintwork is just as important as critical injury.

Pete.

[reohn2]

reohn2,

The above post is necessary to try to explore possibilities BEFORE the inevitable attacks from the motoring lobby.
( It was scenarios like the scumbag one above that scuppered it last time. )

I agree but decent and effective policing could and should eliminate such scumbags,instead of them getting away with the kind of driving they do at the moment in my neck 'o the woods.

I read your description of your ride with great empathy. We are told "Cycling is safe", but it doesn't FEEL safe some (small) part of the time.
For many people it is the major reason why they will not consider cycling.

I quite agree and posted as much up thread,what I find extreemelllyyy annoying is that I feel totally impotent against such creeps who are sooooo willing to take risks in such unnecessary ways with my health and well being.
Impotent because the equally impotent and useless police forces where I live who are about as much use as the proverbial chocolate teapot and IME couldn't give a monkeys whether I live or die!

[Tom Richardson]

Exploring further the possible disadvantages of Presumed / Strict Liability. . . . . .

It might become an attractive easy-option for the scumbags who stage traffic crashes in order to defraud insurance companies.



All thoughts welcome.

they could do that now - if they have or stage a collision with a driver who is texting or using a handheld phone - or even blacked out front side windows. The presumption of liability (for negligence) will work in their favour. Interestingly that possibility doesn't seem to bother motorists when they are texting/phoning/with blacked out windows but then the scumbags that you're thinking of don't usually bother with bicycles - they can make a bigger claim if they use a car.

[niggle]

So let me get this liability thing straight by giving an example of the only time I have been close to a collision with a cyclist whilst driving a car. If you can explain how presumed liability would work in this case and who (or who's insurance) would pay out.

When I was late teens/early 20s I was driving my Mum's car in a town near me. I was either looking for a parking spot or was about to leave to go home I can not remember which. I was coming out of a T-junction in a road that was a sweeping left hand bend, with the bend starting about at my side road and going back to the left, if you can follow my description. It was a road with large houses each side and parked cars on both sides and down my road to pretty much this junction. Visibility was ok to the right but left was poor so I pulled out slowly. I had to brake hard because last minute I spotted a cyclist riding towards my car which was by now sticking half out but only just able to see the road a very short distance to the left. The cyclist IMHO was riding too fast, I know that because I ride fast when I was last on my bike on that road. It is the sort of road you ride as if there was clear visibility because you do not realise you are close to the side roads or where they are and that the parked cars could impede visibility from the side roads.

Anyway, that instance the cyclist stopped just before hitting my car, complete with some blue language because it was a lucky escape. If that cyclist had hit me would I be held completely liable under such a scheme? It would have been his word against mine as to blame I think. That road needed more space between junctions and where cars could park (as was present on other nearby roads). visibility was really only about a car length for cyclists. That distance would be covered in no time by a cyclist riding at the speed this guy must have been doing (and the speed I usually did there). The fault lies in the road design, the fact I was hesitant because of visibility (if I had just gone straight out I would never have hit him, I was following my training under the advanced driver course I had just been in) and in the cyclist going at a speed that only just meant he could stop. If he had been looking down at his gerar shifters (on the downtubes it was so long ago) he would not have stopped.

This accurately mirrors the scenario frequently found when emerging from a small lane or farm track in Cornwall onto another lane with priority, where the 4m+ hedges right up against the road mean when driving a car you have to emerge blind until you have emerged sufficiently to see to the left and right. The accepted and almost universal practice is to emerge at about 1mph, well below walking pace, which makes your vehicle a de facto stationary object that road users on the road with priority can see and have time to manoeuvre around as per a parked car. From your description of having to brake hard you were moving too quickly, and going quicker still is a gamble that works each time until it does not and someone gets hurt or killed.

Working this stuff out, i.e. how to move your 1 tonne metal box around without endangering others, at all and whether they are driving or riding 'correctly' or not, is the responsibility you have when in charge of a motor vehicle IMO. I note that at least some insurance companies want to know about all of a driver's 'accident' history including whether they have had a collision where they were found not at fault. I suspect this is because they know that the best drivers, who will cost them the least, and are least likely to have an own fault accident in the future, are the ones who drive carefully enough to avoid other people's mistakes as well.

[Tangled Metal]

I had to brake hard because last minute I spotted a cyclist riding towards my car which was by now sticking half out but only just able to see the road a very short distance to the left. The cyclist IMHO was riding too fast, I know that because I ride fast when I was last on my bike on that road. It is the sort of road you ride as if there was clear visibility because you do not realise you are close to the side roads or where they are and that the parked cars could impede visibility from the side roads.

This accurately mirrors the scenario frequently found when emerging from a small lane or farm track in Cornwall onto another lane with priority, where the 4m+ hedges right up against the road mean when driving a car you have to emerge blind until you have emerged sufficiently to see to the left and right. The accepted and almost universal practice is to emerge at about 1mph, well below walking pace, which makes your vehicle a de facto stationary object that road users on the road with priority can see and have time to manoeuvre around as per a parked car. From your description of having to brake hard you were moving too quickly, and going quicker still is a gamble that works each time until it does not and someone gets hurt or killed.

Do you know I can not understand why I wrote that bit because I think I explained earlier I was edging out. like you said when I can't see the road clearly from the junction I always move out as slow as it is possible (my car does not measure dow to 1mph, IIRC most cars kind of have 5mph or above with anything below looking like5mph). I can only think in that post I had re-written, lost or deleted part of the post before pressing send. I was writing it at work in a quiet spell but as often I get distracted by work and have to return to my post. That probably explains it. The actual situation was I was moving out, as you do, slowly and the cyclist was the one that braked hard.

I realise this sounds bad for my example, looks like a revisionist piece added after a flaw was spotted, but I can genuinely say I would never pull out of a side road with poor visibility without feeling confident I had given myself every opportunity to do so safely. By that I mean if that had been a truck going quickly I would have been toast, or even if I had been a cyclist I am likely to have been hurt by the other cyclist in a collision. Like you in any mode of transport I would pull out of a junction like that slowly, self preservation dictates that I think. Sorry about the misleading mistake.

PS, I should fact check all my previous posts on that example but really i think things have moved on. My example is not really going to get answered by anyone on here because we all know that even under the current situation I would have liability. At best if the other vehicle was a motor vehicle, without independent witnesses or other reliable evidence, we would go knock for knock.

[Tangled Metal]

There have been a few posts that have raised a few questions in my mind.

Firstly, I suspect there is a different threshold in all cyclists as to what constitutes insanity among the motoring community. For example, it has been pointed out that on one ride a poster got closely overtaken at just under 1m space. I know the recommendation is 1.5m but realistically I feel that I am ok with sliiiggghhhhtlly under 1m ("slightly" not spelt the same but taken as a small bit under 1m in my interpretation, say 90cm).

I ride into work along a road with a high bank to the left and a slope dow to the right of the road. Pavement on right side only as I ride. There are either double white lines or a single white line with a dash on the other side. Basically no overtaking or overtaking on one direction only. The road is not wide enough to overtake giving me 1m space with oncoming traffic. I always get overtaken on that stretch. IF I took the primary I could stop that unless the vehicle goes completely over the white lines. I do not preferring to ride as close to 1m from the safe edge (i.e. the point where the vegetation and debris ends). That allows safe overtaking, despite the white lines, when there is a clear road for them. I also drive that road and it is only about 0.75 miles long stretch before it opens out and you can safely overtake. For me that is a nice road to ride because I am used to it and TBH the drivers going along that road appear to be regulars who are aware of it being a popular cycling route (commuters and even a lot of tourers in the summer months). As a result they are more considerate. It does seem to me that some on here would not view this the same way. I am not saying that we as cyclists need to adjust our perception of safety by any means, that perception is unique to us all. I do think there is a need to bring together an understanding of what is safe. I personally feel 1m space from the safe edge of the road for cycling (except where the primary is needed at pinch points, etc.) and 1m gap from the cyclist to the outermost part of the vehicle is ok by me. I do not feel the need for 1.5m but that is what has been decided and indeed being promoted by a lot of groups including police advertising on parking stickers (north Wales car park stickers last summer, wish I'd kept the back off it).