expect the unexpected!

[TripleS]

So you reserve your right to go out mowing down cyclists because it'll all be their fault? Well that's reassuring, not!

Heaven forbid you should actually take any responsibility for your own actions. Whatever next?

Nick - I fail to see how that amounts to a rational response to what I said.

I can only repeat: I can not see any justification for a policy that says, in effect, that in all collisions between a cyclist and a vehicle, the vehicle driver shall always be deemed to be exclusively at fault, and that the cyclist shall always be deemed to be completely guilt-free.

In the meantime it is perfectly possible that my ability to protect the safety of cyclists, and other road users, in not inferior to your own. Perhaps you think it is.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Ancient]

Which is not what presumed liability means (unless you get your 'facts' from the Daily Heil). I suggest you do a little research.

[TripleS]

Which is not what presumed liability means (unless you get your 'facts' from the Daily Heil). I suggest you do a little research.

Ancient - have I misunderstood the effect of the policy I complained about?

If you think I have, perhaps you can explain how it works. That might be more helpful.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

In the meantime it is perfectly possible that my ability to protect the safety of cyclists, and other road users, is not inferior to your own. Perhaps you think it is.

It's hard to judge when your attitude is so deplorable. Immediately the subject of vulnerability was raised, your response was "well they should take more care of themselves". My point is that we all have a responsibility in that direction, whether imposed or not.

I'm sure we agree really, but is there really any need to be so deliberately reactionary and trollish?

This looks to be a reasonably fair explanation of presumed liability.

[TripleS]

In the meantime it is perfectly possible that my ability to protect the safety of cyclists, and other road users, is not inferior to your own. Perhaps you think it is.

It's hard to judge when your attitude is so deplorable. Immediately the subject of vulnerability was raised, your response was "well they should take more care of themselves". My point is that we all have a responsibility in that direction, whether imposed or not.

I'm sure we agree really, but is there really any need to be so deliberately reactionary and trollish?

This looks to be a reasonably fair explanation of presumed liability.

So, my attitude is 'deplorable', is it? On what basis? I don't think my good safety record (over a very long period) would support any such notion. You may not care for my attitude in certain respects, but I feel you have taken to making a wild accusation, without any justification.

You talked about drivers' minds being concentrated by this policy, and quite likely it will have that effect; but I was simply pointing out that as cyclists are clearly more likely to suffer harm in an accident, they should be more wary themselves. That does not in any way lessen my responsibility to make my best possible contribution to protecting their safety, and nothing that I have said gives you grounds for suggesting that I to take that less seriously than you, or anybody else here, does.

The point I'm seeking to make is merely that it is wrong to start by presuming any sort of blame/liability/resonsibility when there is a mishap, and the fact that one participant is more vulnerable than the other, and more likely to suffer harm, does not change that.

When there is a conflict/collision between a cyclist (or a pedestrian, for that matter) and a motor vehicle, the incident should be investigated on an even handed basis, and only then should any kind of blame or responsibility be apportioned. To do otherwise is to introduce a quite unjustified distortion of the system of justice.

Best wishes all,
Dave - a part time driver, and cyclist.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

The obvious answer is to impose more constraints on drivers, innit?

What ought to happen, of course, is that those who are especially vulnerable should recognise that, and look out for their own safety rather more diligently, rather than leaving it to others; but that's not how we do things these days!

So this quote (the second reply to the original post about increases in KSI figures for vulnerable road users) does not demonstrate an abnegation of responsibility, or an attitude that demonstrates self-righteousness to the extent that it doesn't matter if others get injured, because it'll be their own fault? My interpretation of your attitude is based on your posts, because I've had no exposure to your driving.

That does not in any way lessen my responsibility to make my best possible contribution to protecting their safety, and nothing that I have said gives you grounds for suggesting that I to take that less seriously than you, or anybody else here, does.

You don't feel the first quote contradicts what you just said?

You and I were both on the roads when 8 year old children had no fear of cycling on main roads - you as a driver, no doubt, and I as a cyclist (and in those days the motorists would have accepted that they had some responsibility, without any rancour). Now you're suggesting those days are gone, and it's every man/child for themselves.

There seems to be a cynical viewpoint expressed in the above post, that suggests that drivers have no responsibility, because they are already hard done by, and that it is now up to other road users to look out for themselves, because the drivers in their tin boxes are going to carry on on their own course, and woe betide any who happen to cross their path...

[Ancient]

Which is not what presumed liability means (unless you get your 'facts' from the Daily Heil). I suggest you do a little research.

Ancient - have I misunderstood the effect of the policy I complained about?

If you think I have, perhaps you can explain how it works. That might be more helpful.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

What Nick said (including the link, which is the one I would probably have tried to find).

Dave, with all due respect (and that's not a cop-out, I normally agree with your posts - mostly ) neither Nick nor I know how you drive, but your posts on this subject (as Nick has demonstrated) have a 'Daily Heil' / Clarksonish flavour. I have come across far too many drivers who genuinely feel that it' s a cyclist's duty to simply get out of their way (including drivers in the 'Advanced Driving' community, because that's what they were taught as children), who believe that a cyclist's journey cannot be as important as a driver's and that the gutter is where cyclists belong with vehicles passing inches away and "if I didn't hit you it's OK, if I did it's your fault". Most drivers have no understanding of cycling roadcraft and believe that a cyclist in the middle of the lane "deserves to be run over" (these are direct quotes from passengers I've carried and from drivers who have tried to push me off the road - sometimes literally).

Presumed liability does not mean that a driver is always held to blame, but (simplified) that unless the cyclist has done something wrong, the vehicle driver is presumed liable - because it is the vehicle that brings the most danger to the equation. If the cyclist has (for example) leaped off the pavement then it would need to be decided whether the driver should have expected that; if the driver has overtaken and 'left hooked' the cyclist (all too common) then the driver is presumed liable (as opposed to the present situation where inquests tend to describe this as 'unfortunate'). The purpose of this is to change attitudes from (as has happened to me) a car pulling out into me at a roundabout (me correctly positioned to go ahead with electron II on the front, front and rear helmet lights, reflective jacket, leg & armbands and stripes on the bike, three rear lights) - no slowing down, glancing collision (I was lucky - and quick to swerve) - all on camera - where the attitude of the police was "I think he waved an apology there and there's no real damage to you". Please read Nick's link for a much better description.

[GJD]

The obvious answer is to impose more constraints on drivers, innit?

What ought to happen, of course, is that those who are especially vulnerable should recognise that, and look out for their own safety rather more diligently, rather than leaving it to others; but that's not how we do things these days!

So this quote (the second reply to the original post about increases in KSI figures for vulnerable road users) does not demonstrate an abnegation of responsibility, or an attitude that demonstrates self-righteousness to the extent that it doesn't matter if others get injured, because it'll be their own fault? My interpretation of your attitude is based on your posts, because I've had no exposure to your driving.

To me, your interpretation comes across as being based on something other than, or in addition to, Dave's posts, as I also have had no exposure to his driving, have read the same posts as you, and seem to have interpreted them very differently. I haven't picked up any of the deplorable attitude, abrogation of responsibility or self-righteousness you have.

That does not in any way lessen my responsibility to make my best possible contribution to protecting their safety, and nothing that I have said gives you grounds for suggesting that I to take that less seriously than you, or anybody else here, does.

You don't feel the first quote contradicts what you just said?

I don't see any contradiction.

[GJD]

I have come across far too many drivers who genuinely feel that it' s a cyclist's duty to simply get out of their way (including drivers in the 'Advanced Driving' community, because that's what they were taught as children), who believe that a cyclist's journey cannot be as important as a driver's and that the gutter is where cyclists belong with vehicles passing inches away and "if I didn't hit you it's OK, if I did it's your fault". Most drivers have no understanding of cycling roadcraft and believe that a cyclist in the middle of the lane "deserves to be run over" (these are direct quotes from passengers I've carried and from drivers who have tried to push me off the road - sometimes literally).

I don't doubt anything you say, but I don't get the impression Dave falls into that category.

Presumed liability does not mean that a driver is always held to blame, but (simplified) that unless the cyclist has done something wrong, the vehicle driver is presumed liable - because it is the vehicle that brings the most danger to the equation.

Nick's link was careful to distinguish blame and liability (as in the obligation to pay someone some money). I understand the distinction, although I'm not sure I like the idea of decoupling the two.

The point about bringing most danger to the equation seems to me to muddle two separate questions: "is one party liable to the other for anything", and "how much should the liable party pay" (the second question obviously only being relevant if the answer to the first is yes). Presumed liability is about the first question. But the point about vehicles bringing more danger - i.e. cars cause more damage to cyclists than cyclists cause to cars - is covered by question 2. A cyclist found liable for collision damage to a car will have to pay far less than a car driver found liable for serious injury to a cyclist.

If the cyclist has (for example) leaped off the pavement then it would need to be decided whether the driver should have expected that;

Wouldn't it be at least as pertinent to ask whether the cyclist first checked the road was clear? Leaping off a pavement (let's assume it's a combined pavement/cycle path) onto the road without checking the road is clear would seem to me a fairly uncontroversial example of the cyclist doing something wrong.

if the driver has overtaken and 'left hooked' the cyclist (all too common) then the driver is presumed liable (as opposed to the present situation where inquests tend to describe this as 'unfortunate').

If inquests are really looking at cases of left-hooking like that and concluding that they are just unfortunate, then isn't that an issue with the apportioning of blame, not the apportioning of liability?

The purpose of this is to change attitudes

This is an interesting point. Is the purpose to change attitudes? Because I've also seen it suggested that the purpose is to make the process of receiving compensation after a traumatic, possibly life-changing incident of which one may have little memory, quicker, easier and less stressful. Those two purposes are very different things. One of the problems I have with the debate is that it's not always clear which purpose people are trying to achieve (although I'm not sure presumed liability is a good way to approach either purpose).

[gannet]

Didn't see that thread hijack coming


carry on though...

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

The obvious answer is to impose more constraints on drivers, innit?

What ought to happen, of course, is that those who are especially vulnerable should recognise that, and look out for their own safety rather more diligently, rather than leaving it to others; but that's not how we do things these days!

So this quote (the second reply to the original post about increases in KSI figures for vulnerable road users) does not demonstrate an abnegation of responsibility, or an attitude that demonstrates self-righteousness to the extent that it doesn't matter if others get injured, because it'll be their own fault? My interpretation of your attitude is based on your posts, because I've had no exposure to your driving.

To me, your interpretation comes across as being based on something other than, or in addition to, Dave's posts, as I also have had no exposure to his driving, have read the same posts as you, and seem to have interpreted them very differently. I haven't picked up any of the deplorable attitude, abrogation of responsibility or self-righteousness you have.

That does not in any way lessen my responsibility to make my best possible contribution to protecting their safety, and nothing that I have said gives you grounds for suggesting that I to take that less seriously than you, or anybody else here, does.

You don't feel the first quote contradicts what you just said?

I don't see any contradiction.

Hmmm - well I'm sure Dave will be along to explain why there's no contradiction for himself soon, and Gannet's right - we've hijacked his thread due to a chance comment. Let's agree that all road users have responsibilities, and that none of them should be taken lightly, or as more significant than those of the other users they're sharing the road with. Will that do?

[martine]

...Let's agree that all road users have responsibilities, and that none of them should be taken lightly, or as more significant than those of the other users they're sharing the road with. Will that do?

That's an 'olive branch' and it gets my vote.

I wonder how many RTCs are actually caused by someone doing something directly wrong as per the Highway Code (I don't mean the all encompasing 'rules' like you shouldn't make another road user change speed or direction) rather the 'black and white' ones like not stopping for a red light?

[fungus]

As Gannet has given permission to continue, I'll add my 2d worth.

So far the conversation has revolved around a collision between a motorist and a cyclist, or pedestrian. I would like to know what you all think where the collision is between a cyclist and a pedestrian, neither of whom is likely to have liability insurance. Should the presumed liability be weighted against the cyclist?

Perhaps the moderators could place this subject under a different heading.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

I believe that would be the case in Holland, Nigel. The "bigger" party is held liable to the "smaller" in each case, if I've got my facts right.