Demand for cyclists number plates.

[Musicman]

One alway had to remain vigilant and be able to account for stupid behaviour. Heck it doesn't have to be just walking in the road. For example if a pedestrian is on the pavement they could trip and get into your path. It is our duty as motorists to control such situations.

Which is why hazard perception forms part of the current driving test.

 

[big soft moose]

has no bases in fact at all.

.

apart from the "strict liability " law which many cyclists want implemented - it would basically say that if a car and a cyclist colide, its always the drivers fault unless the driver can prove his innocence (so much for innocent until proven guilty)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24719458

 

[Musicman]

It must also not be forgotten that for a pedestrian or cyclist, the penalty for making an error is often much greater than that for someone driving a motor vehicle should they collide; injury or death for them is a far more likely outcome than for a car driver.

 

[big soft moose]

In the purist form, yes if a pedestrian walks in front of a motor vehicle then by default the stronger participant in traffic is at fault. It is our responsibility as motorists to watch out and adapt our driving style to cater for such events. It is not s unique concept considering that speed limits get changed depending on where you are and how build up the area is. And naturally those are maximum speed limits. One alway had to remain vigilant and be able to account for stupid behaviour. Heck it doesn't have to be just walking in the road. For example if a pedestrian is on the pavement they could trip and get into your path. It is our duty as motorists to control such situations.

So if someone runs in front of your car inside your stopping distance from the legal limit you'd accept it was your fault not the reckless halfwit concerned ?

I agree motorists should be responsible drivers, but if someone runs/jumps/cycles in front of you car inside the stopping distance from say 30mph theress nothing you can do , and you shouldn't be held responsible for their reckless actions

 

[Musicman]

apart from the "strict liability " law which many cyclists want implemented - it would basically say that if a car and a cyclist colide, its always the drivers fault unless the driver can prove his innocence (so much for innocent until proven guilty)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24719458

I think the effects of strict liability are likely to be overstated, by both sides of the debate

http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2012/01/campaign-for-sustainable-safety-not.html

 

[viv1969]

So...extreme example...a pedestrian intent on suicide waits between two parked vans. At the latest opportunity the pedestrian quickly steps out in front of a car travelling within the posted speed limit and is struck.
How is that in any way the fault of the driver?

 

[Musicman]

So if someone runs in front of your car inside your stopping distance from the legal limit you'd accept it was your fault not the reckless halfwit concerned ?

I agree motorists should be responsible drivers, but if someone runs/jumps/cycles in front of you car inside the stopping distance from say 30mph theress nothing you can do , and you shouldn't be held responsible for their reckless actions

Well, there is the matter that the legal limit is a limit and not a target. If the 30 mph limit is outside a school at going home time, or if the road is wet or a myriad of other circumstances, then you are probably not driving at a speed that is appropriate for the conditions.

Highway Code Rule 125

125

The speed limit is the absolute maximum and does not mean it is safe to drive at that speed irrespective of conditions. Driving at speeds too fast for the road and traffic conditions is dangerous. You should always reduce your speed when

• the road layout or condition presents hazards, such as bends
• sharing the road with pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders, particularly children, and motorcyclists
• weather conditions make it safer to do so
• driving at night as it is more difficult to see other road users.

Rules 204 to 225 set out what to do when driving near Road users requiring extra care.

There are other parts of the Highway Code which set out how pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users should behave.

However, as I mentioned before, you are not 100% responsible for the reckless behaviour of others. That is not the case at present, and would not be so even under strict liability rules. The courts will take account of the behaviour of all parties when assessing liability.

 

[ianp5a]

So...extreme example...a pedestrian intent on suicide waits between two parked vans. At the latest opportunity the pedestrian quickly steps out in front of a car travelling within the posted speed limit and is struck.
How is that in any way the fault of the driver?

"how the law works is somewhat different to what many people outside the Netherlands have been told. Drivers are not held 100% liable for all crashes with cyclists" .

 

[Musicman]

So...extreme example...a pedestrian intent on suicide waits between two parked vans. At the latest opportunity the pedestrian quickly steps out in front of a car travelling within the posted speed limit and is struck.
How is that in any way the fault of the driver?

From the article I linked to, on a blog written by a Dutch cyclist:

In addition, how the law works is somewhat different to what many people outside the Netherlands have been told. Drivers are not held 100% liable for all crashes with cyclists. That would be quite unreasonable as there are many reasons why drivers might not be wholly responsible.

The law draws a distinction at the age of 14 years. In a collision with a cyclist or pedestrian aged under 14, a motorist is likely to be held to be responsible. However, a cyclist or pedestrian who is older than 14 years of age is expected to know how to behave on the streets and is likely to be held at least partly responsible in the event of a crash. If they're behaving recklessly then they can instantly expect at least 50% of the blame for any collision. An adult pedestrian dressed in black and crossing a road without looking can expect to be held to be liable for damage to a motor vehicle which hits him. That is what the law makes clear.

It's also important to realise that this law is only concerned with material damage and financial responsibilty. For example, if children are hit by a car in the Netherlands, the drivers insurance can never try to claim for compensation from the family of the victim. It could also help to determine who pays for repair or replacement of an adult's bicycle which has been run over by a truck. However, this law is not concerned with allocating blame, or with imprisoning bad drivers.

 

[Musicman]

So...extreme example...a pedestrian intent on suicide waits between two parked vans. At the latest opportunity the pedestrian quickly steps out in front of a car travelling within the posted speed limit and is struck.
How is that in any way the fault of the driver?

FWIW, there is already a clear and common presumption of fault rule in the UK - where one vehicle strikes another from the rear.

The driver in the following car is assumed to be liable unless there are other circumstances which mitigate against it: for example, if the brake lights on front car were not working, or if the car at the rear was pushed into the front car by another vehicle behind.

Those exonerating circumstances are regularly taken into account by insurers and courts.

 

[Musicman]

Similarly, a driver turning into a main road from a side road will be presumed to be at fault in a collision, even if the driver of the car on the main carriageway was behaving recklessly.

A friend of mine found that his insurance payout was reduced significantly because of this a few years ago, even though the car that clipped the rear quarter of his vehicle as he turned out was travelling at twice the legal limit for the road and had just rounded a corner, which meant my friend could not see the car until he had already begun turning.

 

[viv1969]

FWIW, there is already a clear and common presumption of fault rule in the UK - where one vehicle strikes another from the rear.

The driver in the following car is assumed to be liable unless there are other circumstances which mitigate against it: for example, if the brake lights on front car were not working, or if the car at the rear was pushed into the front car by another vehicle behind.

Those exonerating circumstances are regularly taken into account by insurers and courts.

My post wasn't related in any way to the vehicle being struck from behind, but thanks.

 

[big soft moose]

Well, there is the matter that the legal limit is a limit and not a target. If the 30 mph limit is outside a school at going home time, or if the road is wet or a myriad of other circumstances, then you are probably not driving at a speed that is appropriate for the conditions.
.

Indeed, but if you are driving responsibly and appropriately to the road conditions you still can't stop if someone runs in front of you inside your stoppoing distance... unless you are one of these people who drive everywhere at 5mph "in case something happens" which is itself irresponsible obstruction of the highway theres alaways going to be the unexpected thing that happens which isnt your fault.

Last time I knocked a cyclist off was in MK in 2004 - I was on the H5 (Dual carriageway 70MPH limit at the time) doing about 60ish , when he cycled out of the grid road landscape and straight in front of me at about 5-10 metres distant, I just had time to stamp on the brake and swerve to avoid going over him but couldnt miss hitting his back wheel. THe police who responded said that it was only my fast reactions that had saved his life.

Point being that its not practical to drve along a dual carriageway at 20mph in case someone cycles out of the planting and straight in front of you

 

[Musicman]

I don't think we are actually disagreeing here.

The law requires that you drive at a reasonable speed for the conditions and to take account of any hazards.

30 mph may be too fast, 5 mph is almost certainly too slow for most circumstances.

Edit: Ah, I think you edited your post re 5 mph.

 

[dejongj]

So if someone runs in front of your car inside your stopping distance from the legal limit you'd accept it was your fault not the reckless halfwit concerned ?

I agree motorists should be responsible drivers, but if someone runs/jumps/cycles in front of you car inside the stopping distance from say 30mph theress nothing you can do , and you shouldn't be held responsible for their reckless actions

Pal, this is nothing new and is working very successfully in many countries. Sentiments aside, the stronger party must always look out for the weaker party. Yes, absolutely.

 

[Mattyd]

apart from the "strict liability " law which many cyclists want implemented - it would basically say that if a car and a cyclist colide, its always the drivers fault unless the driver can prove his innocence (so much for innocent until proven guilty)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24719458

We are talking about the UK here not somewhere else - but even if we where talking about somewhere else motorists are still not found guilty under strict liability laws, they are only liable for the damage caused.

My understanding of strict liability is one of giving the benefit of the doubt to the more vulnerable party - If its proven, or clear that the more vulnerable party was careless or reckless then they cannot expect a full payout - or potentially any payout at all.

 

[big soft moose]

Even when the weaker party is acting like a complete t*** ? no sorry I disagree - all road users have an equal responsibility to look out for each other, so if a pedestrian steps off a kerb directly in front of a motorist he has only himself to blame if he gets hit

 

[dejongj]

So...extreme example...a pedestrian intent on suicide waits between two parked vans. At the latest opportunity the pedestrian quickly steps out in front of a car travelling within the posted speed limit and is struck.
How is that in any way the fault of the driver?

Fault can be a brought interpretation and have different meaning from different perspectives. Simplistically yes it is the "fault". If there are two parked vans next and you don't have visibility of what is happening in between those vans then you should adapt to the situation. Absolutely!

 

[big soft moose]

We are talking about the UK here not somewhere else - but even if we where talking about somewhere else motorists are still not found guilty under strict liability laws, they are only liable for the damage caused.

My understanding of strict liability is one of giving the benefit of the doubt to the more vulnerable party - If its proven, or clear that the more vulnerable party was careless or reckless then they cannot expect a full payout - or potentially any payout at all.

We are indeed talking about the UK - where many cycling groups are campaigning for strict liability to be brought in - you are correct about how SL works , but the problem is the presumption of guilt of the motorist where it can't actually be proved who was at fault .. in essence the motorist will always be found liable unless he has incontrovertible evidence that he isnt ... if that was brought in , i suspect we'd see a spike in the sales of Roadhawk and other such cameras

 

[viv1969]

Fault can be a brought interpretation and have different meaning from different perspectives. Simplistically yes it is the "fault". If there are two parked vans next and you don't have visibility of what is happening in between those vans then you should adapt to the situation. Absolutely!

Care to try that again in English?

 

[big soft moose]

Fault can be a brought interpretation and have different meaning from different perspectives. Simplistically yes it is the "fault". If there are two parked vans next and you don't have visibility of what is happening in between those vans then you should adapt to the situation. Absolutely!

So if you are driving at 30mph in a stream of traffic and pass too parked vans you'll slow down to a crawl in case someone emergerges from between them ? - you must be a joy to be behind in the rush hour.

Personally I would say the pedestrian has a responsbility not to be f*****g stupid

 

[Musicman]

You seem not to have understood any of the evidence presented that the driver is not 100% liable (and possibly not liable at at all) in those circumstances.

 

[big soft moose]

You seem not to have understood any of the evidence presented that the driver is not 100% liable (and possibly not liable at at all) in those circumstances.

Sigh - I know the driver isnt at the moment

However under SL he would be unless he can prove he isnt - which doesnt gibe well with innocent until proven otherwise

 

[Musicman]

Well, SL applies to civil liability, so it's not a matter of guilt or innocence, which are terms of criminal law.

As I said earlier, I think it's effects are overstated by both sides of the debate, both pro- and anti.

 

[SFTPhotography]

or when the cyclist does, the cyclist dies and the car driver gets blamed for it

And their property is damaged and they are liable for it even though their property was damaged through no fault of their own.

 

[SFTPhotography]

Even when the weaker party is acting like a complete t*** ? no sorry I disagree - all road users have an equal responsibility to look out for each other, so if a pedestrian steps off a kerb directly in front of a motorist he has only himself to blame if he gets hit

Not like you and I to agree but...

 

[big soft moose]

Well, SL applies to civil liability, so it's not a matter of guilt or innocence, which are terms of criminal law.
.

fair enough - but usually in a civil case its about balance of probabilities starting from a neutral position, not assuming one party is liable until proven otherwise

 

[dejongj]

So if you are driving at 30mph in a stream of traffic and pass too parked vans you'll slow down to a crawl in case someone emergerges from between them ? - you must be a joy to be behind in the rush hour.

Personally I would say the pedestrian has a responsbility not to be f*****g stupid

No I don't slow down to a crawl, but yes I'm at heightened vigilance, and yes I agree the pedestrian has a responsibility to not to be f*****g stupid. I don't think I've said anything to the contrary of that....

 

[big soft moose]

you can have as hieighted a vigilance as you like, but if they step out inside your stopping distance it won't make any difference because you can't physically stop in time even if you see them imediately

 

[dejongj]

Fault can be open to definition and have different meanings from different perspectives. Simplistically yes it is the "fault" of the motorist. If there are two parked vans next and you don't have visibility of what is happening in between those vans then you should adapt to the situation. Absolutely!

Care to try that again in English?

I blame corrective text on the phone

Point being many here seem to be wanting to take the extreme interpretation and take everything very literal. Naturally each situation is different, however as motorists we have a duty to look out for weaker participants in traffic. It is not uncommon that people sneak between parked cars, or all of a sudden turn direction, or as demonstrated many a time on these forums things they have the right and everyone should just wait....I'm not and have never said that is good, however we do have a duty of care and shouldn't use their stupidity as an excuse to mow them down....Hopefully that is now put simple enough for you to understand. Remember not all of us are native English speakers, so a little give and take is appropriate...

 

[dejongj]

you can have as hieighted a vigilance as you like, but if they step out inside your stopping distance it won't make any difference because you can't physically stop in time even if you see them imediately

Agreed, however the pedestrian safety measure can then work to do their best to reduce the damage to the person walking in front of you...Which may not work that well when you insist on driving the maximum speed even though that is your right....

 

[Musicman]

So if you are driving at 30mph in a stream of traffic and pass too parked vans you'll slow down to a crawl in case someone emergerges from between them ? - you must be a joy to be behind in the rush hour.

Personally I would say the pedestrian has a responsbility not to be f*****g stupid

I just checked with my wife, who qualified to drive much more recently than me and had to pass the hazard perception test.

She says it would be exactly such circumstance upon which you would be tested, for which

a) leaving more space between yourself and the parked vehicles

b) slowing down​

would be appropriate responses.

Failure to do so would likely result in a failure to pass the test.

See also HC rule 206

Drive carefully and slowly when

• passing parked vehicles, especially ice cream vans; children are more interested in ice cream than traffic and may run into the road unexpectedly

I did precisely that myself just this week while cycling down Oxford Street in London and was overtaking some buses. And it was a good thing too, since two people emerged from between them and it was only because I had left extra space and was not going so fast as I had been that I avoided a collision.

Now, the pedestrians were not following the advice of Rule 7 of the Highway Code

Try to avoid crossing between parked cars (see Rule 14), on a blind bend, or close to the brow of a hill. Move to a space where drivers and riders can see you clearly.

but that does not absolve me of my responsibilities as a cyclist or driver to take extra care. Oxford Street is full of tourists of all ages who are probably unfamiliar with details of the UK Highway Code.

My wife was a witness a few weeks ago to an accident that occurred when a car turned into a side road and struck a bin man crossing the road while working, which was a failure

a) to observe the hazard of a vehicle stopped in the road where people were likely to emerge

b) to give way to pedestrians who have started to cross when turning into a road (HC Rule 170).

As someone who, as a cyclist, apparently "thinks the rules of the road do not apply" to me, I find it somewhat ironic that I am often lectured by drivers who seem to be less than familiar with them (BTW, I'm not aiming this at you BSM).

 

[Mattyd]

all road users have an equal responsibility to look out for each other

equal responsibility?

Im not sure its right, or fair that say that a 10 year old on a bike has the same amount of responsibility of say someone driving a 4x4. I think SL laws probably came into force not because someone might be reckless but because some modes of transportation as vastly more damaging than others. Its seen as a way to level the playing field, and protecting those who are not introducing the danger. Pedestrians (which we all are I assume) have the most to gain from such a law.

But happy to admit SL wont happen in the UK until there is something of a cultural shift regarding road usage. And I don't expect that to happen anytime soon.

Personally speaking - while I do advocate ST, its not high on my cycling radar. The post Musicman posted makes some very solid points, and does back up the idea that really whats needed is good infrastructure and good design.

As someone who, as a cyclist, apparently "thinks the rules of the road do not apply" to me, I find it somewhat ironic that I am often lectured by drivers who seem to be less than familiar with them (BTW, I'm not aiming this at you BSM).

 

[big soft moose]

I just checked with my wife, who qualified to drive much more recently than me and had to pass the hazard perception test.

She says it would be exactly such circumstance upon which you would be tested, for which

a) leaving more space between yourself and the parked vehicles

b) slowing down​

would be appropriate responses.

Failure to do so would likely result in a failure to pass the test.

).

But slowing down how much ?

Even at 20mph the stopping distance is 12 metres , so if they step out when you are 5m distant theres nothing you can do (in fact at 5m they are inside the average persons thinking distance at 20) , so if you're in a 30 limit and you see two parked vehicles it would be appropriate to slow down a bit but that wouldnt actually help if a pedestrian does something cretinous.

 

[neil_g]

You lot need to get outside and enjoy yourselves (maybe on a bike ) while it isn't raining..

 

[big soft moose]

equal responsibility?

Im not sure its right, or fair that say that a 10 year old on a bike has the same amount of responsibility of say someone driving a 4x4.

The ten year old parents have a responsibility to ensure he is able to act responsibly before they let him out on his own (this is why schools used to do cycling profficiency training). End of the day if you want to use the highway you have a responsibility to do sao responsibly and safely and in a way that does not endanger other users ... if you arent able to do that (whether due to age, intelligence, mental capacity, intoxication, or any other reason) then you shouldn't be using it at all

 

[big soft moose]

You lot need to get outside and enjoy yourselves (maybe on a bike ) while it isn't raining..

Sorry , i'm too busy writing the tender specifications for a new cyclepath

 

[SFTPhotography]

didn't hear anyone swearing didn't see anyone p***ing in the street today. however having been in several European cities I see no difference in the way people act. the train was lively and at no time did I feel threatened or worried. people were polite when I had to get off. I'm not saying there isn't bad eggs but that's not the majority of people.

I beg to differ. Lots of rowdy drunken people shouting, swearing is highly unpleasant and this anti social behaviour you don't see in France, Spain or Italy or I've not seen.

In Leeds last night I saw too people p***ing in the street, one getting arrested and the general noise and drunkeness is appalling. It's a cultural problem that needs addressed.

 

[viv1969]

It's widely accepted within the industry that the hazard perception test is little more than a money maker for the DSA.
The high first time failure rate attests not to inability to read the given situations, but on the fact that people will always "perceive" them differently.
People tend to pass second time simply because they remember the test from previously and alter the clicks accordingly.

 

[Cobra]

Last time I knocked a cyclist off was in MK in 2004 - I was on the H5 (Dual carriageway 70MPH limit at the time) doing about 60ish ,

I bet the local cycle population are glad that you moved away