Is this true? [Drivers to take blame for cycle crashes?]

[Raph]

Drivers to take blame for cycle crashes? - Car and Car-Buying News - What Car?

Is it true, or is it another load of scaremongering b0l0x to get the rednecks frothing, a bit like all the scare stories about Sharia law taking over and the banning of Christmas?

Given it's on the "What Car" website I'm almost assuming it's the latter.

The only bit I really like in it is "Cycling should be taught to all children".


If it's true, what's the point?

[gordon taylor]

See

'Cycling Plan to Blame Drivers for All Crashes'

I think it is just redneck bait.

It came up in the press a couple of years ago too.

[Raph]

For what it's worth here's my reply to the topic on a motoring forum - bits in red are from other contributors. Yes there are some really funny people on motoring forums - I thought we might like a snippet on here! Apologies for the "us/them" nature of it - I'm typing in motorist mode...



Looks like a load of scaremongering old b0l0x to keep predictable rednecks on the boil. But if it's true, it is indeed stupid - the only cycling it would encourage is the kamikaze type. "Blaming" someone while acknowledging they're not to blame... er... wot?

Maybe the logic is that if you're capable of doing more damage you should be more responsible - which might look good on paper but doesn't really apply, since a kid wandering into the path of a juggernaut is causing the ensuing damage, regardless of power or weight.

It might be an attempt to redress the continued injustice that motorists that are responsible for crashes with cyclists currently get off unbelievably lightly. But if it is, it won't work, it'll just screw up a lot of motorists that were driving perfectly well when some p1ssed kid with no lights wobbles across their path. I think we need a bit more verification of this story before getting up in arms.

On the whole we want as much cycling as possible cos the more bikes there are on the roads, the less cars, which is good for motorists. The country's gridlocked enough as it is - and not because of those pesky cyclists, though they're a handy scapegoat for those of us that need to moan and whinge about something. Can't blame cars for there being too many cars after all!

There's a mention on that link of teaching kids cycling - that would be brilliant cos that's the opportunity to instill an awareness of road rules and a bit of basic physics - something that motorists could generally do with too, and perhaps if kids learn it at an early age, when too young to start driving lessons, by the time they get behind a wheel they'll have better road sense for motoring as well as for riding.



"oh dear oh dear, just when i thought the government couldnt lean any further to the left without falling ove sideways"

Cycling isn't a left-wing activity.



"I'm all for cycling along but think cycling on 60mph roads should be banned unless they are wide enough to cater for 2 vehicles doing 60mph and a bike doing 10/20?! "

I wouldn't push that one - it might work against us, in that it would be just as reasonable to ban the cars if the road isn't wide enough - after all, cars are wider than bikes, you can't blame the bike for taking up too much space!



"There was a chap last year near me that hit a cyclist and got put away for it, the cyclist was pissed out of his brain and was trying to stagger/push bike across an A road at night with no lights and no hi-viz on. The car hit him full on and made a mess of him and the road, I remember it as the scene officers had drawn little circles all over the road where little bits had landed.

Who's fault was it? Even the cyclists family said that the driver wasn't to blame but he is now inside with loss of job, house etc. "

Then it's a miscarriage of justice - blame the judge, not cyclists.

Also - "the cyclist was pissed out of his brain and was trying to stagger/push bikeacross an A road at night with no lights and no hi-viz on" - so he wasn't even riding? If he'd been pushing a sofa across the road, what stereotype would you have been having a go at?

A mate of mine rolled his car on the motorway at 70mph and only just escaped with his life cos a p1ssed squaddie was meandering across the outside lane and he swerved to avoid the guy. Should we have a go at soldiers?



"Most cyclists i meet are a danger to themselves" - well, most motorists are a danger to everyone else, so that's pretty good going really. "Most" cyclists ride legally and safely and stay out of your way even though they have a right to use the road same as you, that's because so many drivers are criminally unaware of what's going on around them that it's simply wiser to move over, never mind legal entitlement to use the road. The few cyclists that fit the image put across here are the ones you notice. Let's look at accident statistics - c.3000 people a year die in car accidents. I don't know how many cyclists kill each other a year, i.e. in accidents not involving cars, but I suspect it's a very reliable NIL. Out of cycle or car, which one of those does it point to as being more of a danger? Unprotected human on 20lb of tubing or 2 tons of metal with an engine block for padding? Hmmm... work it out!

Pedestrians killed by cyclists - about 1 a year average I think. Yet the usual mantra is "those bl00dy cyclists" ride on the pavement and are a danger. A twerp is a twerp whether on a bike or in a car - cyclists aren't an alien mutation, a certain proportion of motorists are twerps, a certain proprtion of cyclists are twerps, they're the same as you and me, only fitter, smarter up there and more able in the bedroom. Maybe that's why we hate them so much.

[tonycollinet]

I think it is also being misreported.

The intention is the assumption of responsibility (for compensation purposes) will be against the car driver. However, if the cyclist can be shown to be negligent - then that still stands.

It recongnises that cyclists are much more likely to be KSI'd, hence putting more of a "duty of care" onto drivers, and in those cases where blame cannot be clearly attributed, they need the protection of compensation, without the insurance company being able to get out on a technicality.

In other words - for the insurer to avoid paying, they must prove the cyclist is to blame, rather than that the driver might not be to blame.

[iakobski]

I think it is also being misreported.

The intention is...

There is no intention, it was made up to fill column inches in the paper.

They bring this one up regularly, and a lot of drivers seem to think it's already happenned. A few years ago I was hit from behind while stationary at a give way, and one of the drivers a few cars back (who patently hadn't seen it) offered to be a witness against me, apparently it was my fault for being too far from the kerb. He then railed at me saying that regardless of his evidence, car drivers are automatically held to blame in any collision with a cycle.

[Regulator]

It's ther 'presumption of liability' debate raring its head again.  It would only relate to civil proceedigns - not to criminal.  It is common in mainland Europe.

It won't happen in the UK.  The car lobby is too powerful amongst the political parties and civil servants in Whitehall.  The only party that has ever really been behind it is the Greens - and they haven't got a hope in hell of ever forming a Government.

[Raph]

I don't understand why there needs to be a presumption of anything on anyone - every accident/crash has its own circumstances, why not establish blame/guilt and get on with it? If I wobble into the road without warning and a car crashes into me, I would expect to be liable for the new bumper, headlight etc. as well as having to sort out a new leg for myself.

Insurance companies will always try it on, e.g. "the cyclist was partly to blame for the lorry overtaking and turning left across him thereby crushing him to death against a railing, since he could have taken the bus but chose to cycle..." but maybe it's better to deal with that rather than making a blanket ruling that they're automatically liable even in cases where a cyclist is obviously to blame. I admit I haven't really got the detail of this proposal due to the cr@p reporting but from the general picture put forward so far it seems it will encourage reckless cycling - "I can ride like a tw@t and someone else will pick up the tab".

[Panoramix]

It's ther 'presumption of liability' debate raring its head again.  It would only relate to civil proceedigns - not to criminal.  It is common in mainland Europe.

This was adopted in France about 10 years ago (I think). I remember the motoring lobby making the same noises. TBH it did not change much but I think it is fair as it effectively imposes a duty of care towards more vulnerable road users. I think that the same should apply between pedestrians and cyclists as really it is hard for a pedestrian to avoid a speeding bike. Nevertheless if you jump under somebody's wheel, they wouldn't be liable for it. Undertaking or RLJing would probably be negligent cycling anyway.

[Julian]

I don't understand why there needs to be a presumption of anything on anyone - every accident/crash has its own circumstances, why not establish blame/guilt and get on with it? If I wobble into the road without warning and a car crashes into me, I would expect to be liable for the new bumper, headlight etc. as well as having to sort out a new leg for myself.

Insurance companies will always try it on, e.g. "the cyclist was partly to blame for the lorry overtaking and turning left across him thereby crushing him to death against a railing, since he could have taken the bus but chose to cycle..." but maybe it's better to deal with that rather than making a blanket ruling that they're automatically liable even in cases where a cyclist is obviously to blame. I admit I haven't really got the detail of this proposal due to the cr@p reporting but from the general picture put forward so far it seems it will encourage reckless cycling - "I can ride like a tw@t and someone else will pick up the tab".

It's a PRESUMPTION.  It's not making anybody "automatically liable," anymore than the PRESUMPTION of innocence in criminal law makes all defendants automatically innocent.

If someone rides like a twat then the presumption of liability is easily rebutted.  Just like if someone is caught with the murder weapon and blood on their t-shirt, the presumption of innocence is easily rebutted.

In actual fact, there's already a slight trend in caselaw towards the motorist being presumed liable because they should always be alert to vulnerable road users.  So this wouldn't actually make much of a difference.

Edit:  actually, that's over optimistic, it would make a difference.  But not IMHO a bad one.

[PhilO]

I don't understand... <snip>

It's a PRESUMPTION.  It's not making anybody "automatically liable," anymore than the PRESUMPTION of innocence in criminal law makes all defendants automatically innocent.

If someone rides like a twat then the presumption of liability is easily rebutted.  Just like if someone is caught with the murder weapon and blood on their t-shirt, the presumption of innocence is easily rebutted.

In actual fact, there's already a slight trend in caselaw towards the motorist being presumed liable because they should always be alert to vulnerable road users.  So this wouldn't actually make much of a difference.

Edit:  actually, that's over optimistic, it would make a difference.  But not IMHO a bad one.

+1

Don't (like so many people, and especially the %$£*& 'papers) confuse 'presumption' with 'assumption'. They mean two completely different things.

In fact, a presumption in favour of the vulnerable road user is exactly what should happen under the current rules of evidence. In civil cases (eg insurance claims) the finding is 'on the balance of probabilities.' In the absence of any other evidence, who is most likely to be taking more care: the person protected by a couple of layers of cotten and a polystyrene hat, or the one in a steel safety cage surrounded by air bags? It follows that on the balance of probability, a motorist is more likely to be at fault unless there's evidence to the contrary... 

...from the general picture put forward so far it seems it will encourage reckless cycling - "I can ride like a tw@t and someone else will pick up the tab".

Sorry to be harsh, but do you really think that anybody would throw themselves under a bus in order to get new wheels on the insurance?    Personally, when a two-tonne SUV is being accelarated straight at me, the last thing on my mind is 'who will pay for the damage to my bike?'. 

That's a view which stems from a motorist's 'caged' perspective, where most accidents mean a hefty bill for new paint, but no injury. Which brings us back to why they're generally less careful than cyclists.

[Raph]

"Sorry to be harsh, but do you really think that anybody would throw themselves under a bus in order to get new wheels on the insurance?"

You're not being harsh, but you're changing the subject by some distance - I didn't suggest anybody's going to "throw themselves under a bus". Regardless of being caged or not, people take risks - I used to do it when I was younger and more impatient, also when I hadn't had enough prangs to know how bad they can be. Mere negligence can put you under a bus, no need for the suicidal "throwing" technique you refer to. I've had a few crashes over the years, a couple of them my fault - none involved "throwing myself under" anything, but knowing that I and I solely was responsible for my own actions was what eventually calmed me down. Presumption of guilt or liability on someone else might well give that extra over-confidence for some people to take more risks, thinking that someone else's insurance will cover it.

If a cyclist (or any more vulnerable road user...) is presumed innocent, then why too shouldn' t the motorist be presumed innocent? Presumption of innocence is good - presumption of guilt or liability is a whole different thing. If I'm driving and someone gambles on running or riding across my path and they misjudge it and I can't stop in time, why should I be presumed guilty until proved innocent? If you're saying that I wouldn't be, then what value is the presumption?


"In the absence of any other evidence, who is most likely to be taking more care: the person protected by a couple of layers of cotten and a polystyrene hat, or the one in a steel safety cage surrounded by air bags? It follows that on the balance of probability, a motorist is more likely to be at fault unless there's evidence to the contrary"

That really doesn't follow. There's no formal training for riding a bike, no licence no riding test - you could just as easily say it's more likely that on average cyclists will be more incompetent on the road. If all cyclists were old fogies like you and me (assumption there  ) your "balance of probability" might apply. As it is I don't think there's a significant bias either way for establishing that cyclists are better or worse on the road than motorists. An idiot is an idiot whether on two wheels or four, with or without an engine.

I think we need some examples of how this law would apply.

[PhilO]

I think you misunderstand my point. Yes, an idiot is an idiot, irrespective of chosen transport. But even an idiot is going to take more care when 'protected' by a thin layer of lycra than when s/he has a steel safety cage. Unless s/he is a candidate for a Darwin Award, in which case all bets are off. I repeat: when riding in traffic, I'm primarily concerned with avoiding pain and injury. Whose insurance company picks up the bill in the event of an accident is really not a consideration.

If I'm driving and someone gambles on running or riding across my path and they misjudge it and I can't stop in time, why should I be presumed guilty until proved innocent? If you're saying that I wouldn't be, then what value is the presumption?

You wouldn't be presumed 'guilty', because we're not talking about criminal matters. You might be presumed liable - but in practice that means that your insurers would pick up the bill, not you. There's also no reason why the rules shouldn't be drafted to protect NCD where there is no evidence either way. And in the event of an accident causing injury, the Police have to be involved anyway.

Also, you wouldn't need to 'prove' yourself innocent - as already mentioned, civil proceedings are decided 'on balance' so you (or rather, your insurance company*) would only need to introduce enough evidence to shift the balance towards the third party if you (ie they) are to avoid paying out.

Let me turn you question above round: Why should the cyclist or pedestrian in your example be presumed liable? In effect, that is what happens at the moment.   

*This is a very important point. In all of this, it is not you that is personally liable. It is your insurers. That's what you pay them for.

[rae]

Let me turn you question above round: Why should the cyclist or pedestrian in your example be presumed liable? In effect, that is what happens at the moment.     

No one is presumed liable at the moment.  If either party wants to claim, they have to demonstrate fault by the other party. 

In the absence of any other evidence, who is most likely to be taking more care: the person protected by a couple of layers of cotten and a polystyrene hat, or the one in a steel safety cage surrounded by air bags? It follows that on the balance of probability, a motorist is more likely to be at fault unless there's evidence to the contrary"

That really doesn't follow. There's no formal training for riding a bike, no licence no riding test - you could just as easily say it's more likely that on average cyclists will be more incompetent on the road. If all cyclists were old fogies like you and me (assumption there  ) your "balance of probability" might apply. As it is I don't think there's a significant bias either way for establishing that cyclists are better or worse on the road than motorists. An idiot is an idiot whether on two wheels or four, with or without an engine. 

Honestly, on the average commute though London, I'd suggest that in terms of obeying traffic regulations, the motorists are showing way more care than the cyclists.

[nicknack]

Yes, but a lot of those not obeying would say that it's safer to do that (I wouldn't necessarily agree). And, of course, obeying the regs doesn't exempt from being hit by a motorist.

[PhilO]

Honestly, on the average commute though London, I'd suggest that in terms of obeying traffic regulations, the motorists are showing way more care than the cyclists.

Not everybody lives in London, you know. 

And taking care is about much more than regulations. Most heart-in-mouth moments I've experienced haven't involved any infringement of traffic regulations by either party.

[nuttycyclist]

Let me turn you question above round: Why should the cyclist or pedestrian in your example be presumed liable? In effect, that is what happens at the moment.     

No one is presumed liable at the moment.  If either party wants to claim, they have to demonstrate fault by the other party. 

Indeed.  But at present it is harder for the cyclist to make a claim since they might not be covered by insurance (e.g. via CTC) so you have a single cyclist up against the big guns of an insurance company that won't want to pay out.

With the presumption of liability written down as per the proposal, it isn't the individual cyclist who has to try to arrange for legal assistance and start proceedings to get their damages; but the big insurance companies who have to prove that their insured driver was not at fault.


I've had a claim go through for when I was driven into when cycling, and that was an absolute nightmare, despite how good Russell Jones and Walker (the CTC people) are.  It was down to me to keep checking the paperwork, going to medical examinations, and we had to keep pushing and pushing the people who were at fault.

Conversely, when I was driven into when driving, I had to do nothing other than one initial phone call.

The system at present is geared up for drivers (and don't forget it is mandatory for them to have insurance) and thus difficult for any non-driver to make a claim.


If the proposed changes were to go ahead then it will be much easier for the cyclist to claim the damages (which they would be trying to claim at present), but won't mean that drivers are paying out by default.  If I ride through a red light and have an accident, the insurance company can prove that their driver may not have been at fault and so no payment; but the onus is on them to prove I was at fault.

[Seineseeker]

I believe that already is the case here in France. Unless the cyclist can be shown to have been at fault then it's the fault of the driver. I am totally in favour of it, as a cyclist I am ultra aware of the dangers of the car to me, if drivers were also as aware of their danger to me then the roads would be so much safer.

[Regulator]

Honestly, on the average commute though London, I'd suggest that in terms of obeying traffic regulations, the motorists are showing way more care than the cyclists.

I wouldn't.  Motorists in London (and to a certain extent here in Cambridge) are as bad as cyclists when it comes to RLJing (albeit they like to use the term 'amber gambling') and many have little regard for other users of any sort - their reaction to 'blus & twos' is a good illustration.

[clarion]

I'd agree.  If I make a slightly dubious decision (ie go through an amber), then there is almost always at least one motorist who follows.  Can't be sure if they're going through red, but a fair proportion will have done.

I am gobsmacked by the reaction to emergency vehicles.  It sickens me.   ithink I've ranted about it a couple of times.  I have never ever seen (or imagined) such behaviour.

[PhilO]

Another thing that should be remembered is that 'liability' isn't necessarily the same as 'blame'.

As Rae says, nobody is presumed to blame in the current situation. But that means that each is presumed liable for their own losses. In the sort of incident where the suggested presumption would operate (low speeds, no or minimal injury) the cyclist/pedestrian is very likely to come off worst, and hence will have the greater losses. In practice, therefore, if not in law there is a de facto presumption of liability on the part of the more vulnerable party.

And if, as is common, the vulnerable user has no personal insurance (third party cover wouldn't help here, so that includes CTC members, remember), then that liability is assumed personally. The motorist, on the other hand, is likely to be covered by insurance, so won't lose out personally if held liable.

I really do fail to see the problem with the proposal. 

[Raph]

"Let me turn you question above round: Why should the cyclist or pedestrian in your example be presumed liable? In effect, that is what happens at the moment."

Why turn my question round? I didn't suggest that someone has to be presumed liable. One not being liable doesn't mean the other is liable. I'm not liable by default for the car's bent bumper, why should the driver be liable by default for my scraped leg or my crushed skull - if he/she didn't do anything wrong then I don't see why they or their insurance should pick up the tab.

"Not everybody lives in London, you know."

Nobody suggested they do!  

"But even an idiot is going to take more care when 'protected' by a thin layer of lycra than when s/he has a steel safety cage."

Darwin award notwithstanding, that simply isn't universally the case - you're assuming that intelligence trumps the survival instinct. When mistakes are made, the whole point is they're mistakes - you seem to be saying that the vulnerable make less mistakes - if all else were equal it might be true, but it isn't equal - drivers have to pass a test, cyclists don't, so even with the best will borne of self-preservation, cyclists on average are less trained albeit I'm sure some of us are perfect. If there were a startling statistic that showed that 90% of accidents between cycles and cars were the driver's fault, I might be with you, but I think there are enough reasons why cyclists are less likely to be responsible to balance out the self-preservation principle you point to.

"I'd suggest that in terms of obeying traffic regulations, the motorists are showing way more care than the cyclists."

Er, not sure about that, and even if it's true, they have less manoeverability to play silly buggers, they can't weave in and out of traffic or nip down narrow pedestrian alleys (though some of them still try!). Though as has been pointed out above, the most legal way isn't always the safest - you have to assume that cars around you will also be following road rules - restricting yourself to pointers set out in the highway code can often put you in a perilous position, e.g. safer to take the middle of a lane and block traffic rather than keeping to the left with cars overtaking and turning left across you, trapping you on the kerb...

"but the big insurance companies who have to prove that their insured driver was not at fault."

They have to prove their insured driver was not at fault? That's sort of guilty-till-proven-innocent isn't it? I'm sure I've misunderstood the legal concept of "fault" - if you hit someone and it's your fault then you're guilty of hitting them? Or can you be at fault and yet not guilty?

"Conversely, when I was driven into when driving, I had to do nothing other than one initial phone call."

Then get some cycling insurance of your own. What it seems to boil down to is that because cyclists don't have to have insurance, insurance has to take the cost on behalf of motorists. Not having insurance is our choice as cyclists - why should others pick up the tab for us by default? Put it another way, taking as an example a situation where there is no liability established either way, a motorist pays to insure yourself but is covering someone else's misfortune. I suppose it's convenient for us as cyclists - I ride a lot and this law could one day be very convenient for me, but I don't see that it's fair.

at present it is harder for the cyclist to make a claim since they might not be covered by insurance (e.g. via CTC) so you have a single cyclist up against the big guns of an insurance company that won't want to pay out.

So the motorist pays to have big guns on his/her side. Are we saying their insurance premium should cover us as well? There's unfairness in society but I don't see this is the way to even us all out. If we want big guns on our side why don't we just get our own insurance? If an uninsured driver takes your bumper off we all scream blue murder about uninsured drivers - if an uninsured cyclist takes yer bumper off, you the motorist pays for it? I realize this is only by default - but i still don't see why the default should be one way or t'other. I'm going to have to get my head round this one...

"their reaction to 'blus & twos' is a good illustration"

maybe times have changed - what is their reaction to blues'n'twos?



PhilO - your paragraph on blame and liability makes perfect sense (at last, something does!), but you confirm my perception that the proposal is that one person's insurance would cover another, who doesn't legally have to have insurance. What I fail to see is how this is fair, though I'm open to convincing. If motorists were smart enough to understand the concept (tongue in cheek - before you all start quibbling!), they'd quite reasonably say "get your own insurance!".

[rae]

I've had a claim go through for when I was driven into when cycling, and that was an absolute nightmare, despite how good Russell Jones and Walker (the CTC people) are.  It was down to me to keep checking the paperwork, going to medical examinations, and we had to keep pushing and pushing the people who were at fault.  

I also got clobbered a few years ago, and while it was a pain, I never had to lay out any money for the solicitor, and I got a cheque.   If I'm going to claim for medical injuries....then I would expect to have to go to a doctor so that it would be proven.   Are you really expecting the insurance companies to roll over and just give you a cheque for seven grand just because you ask for it?!

Conversely, when I was driven into when driving, I had to do nothing other than one initial phone call.  

Er, that's because you've paid for that claims handling service.   If you didn't pay for it, then it wouldn't happen.   If you want legal insurance, it costs about £29.

What we're getting to here is that we have one class of road user who pays for insurance and claims handling, and another group that doesn't but wants the benefits.   That doesn't seem entirely fair.  

I'd agree.  If I make a slightly dubious decision (ie go through an amber), then there is almost always at least one motorist who follows.  Can't be sure if they're going through red, but a fair proportion will have done.

I am gobsmacked by the reaction to emergency vehicles.  It sickens me.   ithink I've ranted about it a couple of times.  I have never ever seen (or imagined) such behaviour.  

I try and get some more precise stats on my next commute.  I accept that some (far from the majority) of motorists will cross an amber when they shouldn't.  It is very rare indeed (but it does happen) that a motorist will blatantly pile through a red.   On a 4 mile commute, I probably see 20 cyclists piling though reds, including two rather spectacular chaps yesterday that decided to take on the Old St roundabout against the lights....    I've never (as a motorist or cyclist) seen that much in the way of deliberate bad driving around emergency vehicles..

[nuttycyclist]

...

"Conversely, when I was driven into when driving, I had to do nothing other than one initial phone call."

Then get some cycling insurance of your own. ...

I do have insurance

[nuttycyclist]

Let's move on, thanks to a quote from another thread.

In Germany, motorists having to give way to pedestrians crossing minor streets is the law.  If you hit a pedestrian (or a cyclist on a parallel cycle path) you get done.  Which makes for alert and observant drivers.

This is the whole crux of the matter and why I support this proposal.   If the presumption is that the operator of the large heavy object is at fault, then that operator will drive their vehicle with greater care and attention.

If they are not to blame for an incident then it doesn't matter because they go through the same procedure as now, but to prove their lack of liability.  If they are to blame then it makes it easier for the victim to claim the relevant compensation.

However this is not about the claiming of compensation, but encouraging the drivers to take more care.

[mattc]

What we're getting to here is that we have one class of road user who pays for insurance ... and another group that doesn't but wants the benefits.   That doesn't seem entirely fair. 

"Fair"?:
Have you considered the stakes in this game?

Driver:
hundreds of pounds to replace a wing/bumper and get some painting done. Or lose their NCD - boo-hoo.

Cyclist:
Death

Take a moment to think about that. Ideally when you next take the car out.

(By-the-bye, a sizeable minority of your "paying class" does NOT pay for insurance. Common sense suggests they are not the most careful, law-abiding minority. Or the most likely to stop at the scene of an 'accident'.)