Cycling plan to blame motorists for all crashes

[ShiftingGears]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6841326.ece

Seriously, do these people think?

I did not know these illogical, and frankly, insane laws existed in several European countries.

Crazy. I wouldn't want to be held responsible if an idiot cyclist ran red lights across main roads (as I have seen happen many times), and I happened to collect him. There are better ways to promote cycling than by effectively rewarding stupidity. If you cause the accident, you are the one at fault.

Your thoughts?

[Rollo]

Crazy. I wouldn't want to be held responsible if an idiot cyclist ran red lights across main roads (as I have seen happen many times), and I happened to collect him. There are better ways to promote cycling than by effectively rewarding stupidity. If you cause the accident, you are the one at fault.


Congratulations, you live in Australia and are already held at fault if you hit a pedestrian or cyclist in all circumstances except an expressway or motorway where pedestrians are not allowed.


I did not know these illogical, and frankly, insane laws existed in several European countries.

You also do not seem to know Australian law either. The Australian Road Rules were broadly similar in the states and territories and held that pedestrians and cyclists had right of way at the time of federation in 1901.

It took a further 99 years for the rules to be synchronised under the Australian Road Rules Act, which came into force on 1st December 2000. There are cases in common law dating to the 19th century giving precedence to foot over motive power.

Perhaps you need to read this:
http://www.ntc.gov.au/filemedia/Reports/ARR_February_2009_final.pdf
It's a mere 399 pages long and contains the road rules. It's basically the summary of the Australian Road Rules Act (2000) which is just over 2000 pages long.

[Dave B]

I read that t'other day in the Times.

Let me get this straight. I'm doing 29mph, alert and stone cold sober, when from out of nowhere a cyclist rides into the side of my car.

And that's my fault how? :s

Crazy.

[Mark]

I read that t'other day in the Times.

Let me get this straight. I'm doing 29mph, alert and stone cold sober, when from out of nowhere a cyclist rides into the side of my car.

And that's my fault how? :s

Crazy.

Because you were driving on the pavement? :p

[BeansBeansBeans]

I cycle quite a bit and I'm frequently amazed at how badly some motorists handle sharing the road with bicycles. I don't think this broad-brush solution is the answer though. There are plenty of misbehaving cyclists on the roads too.

[GridGirl]

I agree with Beans, blaming motorists for everythng isnt the solution but sometimes drivers are just plain stupid or just dont know how to drive when around cyclists.

I'm a keen cyclist although mostly offroading but bank holiday weekend for example I was cycling towards the Hawkshead ferry in the Lake District when a coach heading for Beatrix Potters house no doubt (I was not far from it and heading in that direction) decided to overtake me on a bride that was wide enough for one vehicle only. The coach clearly hadnt read the road in front of him and then has to stop on the bridge which was on a slight bend which then got me wedged between the side of the coach and the bridge. Being squashed to death between a bridge and a coach is not really the way I want to leave this world. Thats one of the reasons I mainly stick to bridleways, forrest tracks like Grizedale and when I'm really feeling reckless I cycle up Wainwrights.

I was actually more annoyed by this article written by James Martin this weekend. Its a pathetic attempt at being Jeremy Clarkson in attempting to scare cyclists of the road so you can laugh at them just isnt cool and sets a bad example to other road users.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/TV-Chef-James-Martin-Issues-Apology-To-Cyclists-After-Article-In-The-Mail-On-Sunday/Article/200909315382087?lid=ARTICLE_15382087_TVChefJamesMa rtinIssuesApologyToCyclistsAfterArticleInTheMailOn Sunday&lpos=searchresults

[BeansBeansBeans]

The most frequent error I see from motorists is when you're approaching a left-turn, which they wish to take, and instead of waiting for you to pass it, they overtake you and cut you off. My girlfriend got knocked off her bike by someone doing this. It wasn't a boy racer either, just some daft old woman.

[BDunnell]

I cycle quite a bit and I'm frequently amazed at how badly some motorists handle sharing the road with bicycles. I don't think this broad-brush solution is the answer though. There are plenty of misbehaving cyclists on the roads too.

I agree. And I genuinely think a campaign is in order to try and stop cyclists from crossing red lights. Whenever I'm out on my bike I always obey all traffic signals. As a pedestrian, it can be very irritating having to deal with cyclists going over pedestrian crossings and things of that order.

[Lousada]

It's the presumption of blame that rests on the more powerfull vehicle. If you hit a cyclist with your car, then it's for you to prove that the cyclist skipped the red light or was driving in another way irresponsible.

[Daniel]

The problem in the UK is that people think the road is a place for bikes when really it's not. You can blame cars for accidents all you want but when your skull impacts the tarmac like a melon and splatters itself all over the road then it's rather a moot point.

Sure, blame me for hitting you when you're driving too far from the side of the road on a national speed limit bit of road but you'll be dead so......

[Daniel]

I agree. And I genuinely think a campaign is in order to try and stop cyclists from crossing red lights. Whenever I'm out on my bike I always obey all traffic signals. As a pedestrian, it can be very irritating having to deal with cyclists going over pedestrian crossings and things of that order.
if it were me I'd kick them off their bike. How can you kick someone off their bike Mr Officer when they're not meant to be there?

[BeansBeansBeans]

The problem in the UK is that people think the road is a place for bikes when really it's not. You can blame cars for accidents all you want but when your skull impacts the tarmac like a melon and splatters itself all over the road then it's rather a moot point.

Excellent logic.

You can blame gunmen for shootings all you like, but if you're lying on the deck with a bullet in your head it's kind of a moot point.

[Daniel]

Excellent logic.

You can blame gunmen for shootings all you like, but if you're lying on the deck with a bullet in your head it's kind of a moot point.
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not so let me twist it around a bit.

Someone on the forum started a thread the other day about legal highs. Now taking these chemicals is legal right? But legal doesn't translate into safe now does it?

It's like going to Hillbrow in Johannesburg and complaining that you got raped, shot and murdered - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillbrow It's not legal for someone to do this to you but it WILL happen so just don't put yourself in that situation.

If someone places themselves in a situation where they face increased risk then they've only themselves to blame. Now I completely understand what happened with your girlfriend and that's just a case of a bonehead driver making a safe situation unsafer by not paying attention but around where I live there is a lot of road where 60 is the limit and bikes simply aren't safer on the road and even where paths are provided, people (usually the bike short wearing types) don't even use them.

[BDunnell]

Daniel, roads are not just for cars, and therefore such things as bikes and horses should be able to use them as they see fit, so long as they obey the rules of the road. End of story.

[Daniel]

Daniel, roads are not just for cars, and therefore such things as bikes and horses should be able to use them as they see fit, so long as they obey the rules of the road. End of story.
I'm not questioning the legality of it all. I'm merely saying that if you go and ride on a lot of the roads in the UK that you're taking your life and risking it on whether the drivers are attentive etc etc. I could go out for a drive now and with little or no trouble find people riding a good metre and a half from the side of the road in a 60 zone which is just frankly suicidal.

Little bit of a story but I used to work with a guy who had a horse and he used to walk it down lanes till one day someone came and must have hit it doing all of 5-10mph and broke its somethingorother and it had to be put down. Now of course it's legal for him to do what he did but in hindsight was it sensible? just like it's not sensible to be riding practically in the middle of the road in a 60 zone which people seem to enjoy here.

[BDunnell]

I'm not questioning the legality of it all. I'm merely saying that if you go and ride on a lot of the roads in the UK that you're taking your life and risking it on whether the drivers are attentive etc etc. I could go out for a drive now and with little or no trouble find people riding a good metre and a half from the side of the road in a 60 zone which is just frankly suicidal.

Little bit of a story but I used to work with a guy who had a horse and he used to walk it down lanes till one day someone came and must have hit it doing all of 5-10mph and broke its somethingorother and it had to be put down. Now of course it's legal for him to do what he did but in hindsight was it sensible? just like it's not sensible to be riding practically in the middle of the road in a 60 zone which people seem to enjoy here.

Behaving stupidly on a bike or a horse is not acceptable. Being there at all is acceptable.

[Daniel]

Behaving stupidly on a bike or a horse is not acceptable. Being there at all is acceptable.
Quite true and I think what's needed is more education and policing that needs to be devoted to people using non-car forms of transport. For the record he wasn't being silly with the horse, he was walk it down the road at walking pace, driver simply didn't have enough time to react and hit the horse.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I have no sympathy for cyclists when they seem to think that it is fine to ride side-by-side when I'm trying to overtake them, or when they ride on the road when there is a perfectly good cycle lane.

[Mark]

You realise of course that this is just a proposal by a cyclists interest group and the government has said it has no intention of implementing it.

[Daniel]

You realise of course that this is just a proposal by a cyclists interest group and the government has said it has no intention of implementing it.
Yeah but we just want to be outraged :p

[sal]

The problem I have with suggestions like this is that the only way we seem to be able to "encourage" people to change their behaviour in the UK is to increase the price of the offending subject matter or bring in dranconian measures that force rather than cajole people into accepting them. We are already paying much higher insurance premiums in part due to the number of claims from cyclists and pedestrians who have been involved in incidents with cars where the motorist is often the innocent party. Most insurers now encourage their party to accept liability rather than contest the incident as it is cheaper for them to pay up rather than pursue it through the courts and be faced by a no win no fee ambulance chaser. As a result fraudulent claims and staged accidents are at an all time high and this proposal will surely just open the flood gates once and for all.

We also seem to be overun with quangos, blue sky think tanks and the like that come up with ideas that seem to favour one part of the community at the expense of the rest. If an MP or "advisor" is based in London it is all well and good banging on about using public transport or cycling to work. If however god forbid you choose to live outside of an urban area then the holes in that option appear straight away.

What we need is a balanced transport policy were all parties are catered for and not just take the lazy option of waging war on the motorist. By all means reduce speed limits to 20mph out side schools etc. However add to that stop giving planning permission to out of town developments that are not adequatley served by public transport. Reinvest the billions raised in fuel duty back into providing suitable transport options rather than using the money to prop up the welfare state. I could go on...

Rant over.

[Daniel]

The problem I have with suggestions like this is that the only way we seem to be able to "encourage" people to change their behaviour in the UK is to increase the price of the offending subject matter or bring in dranconian measures that force rather than cajole people into accepting them. We are already paying much higher insurance premiums in part due to the number of claims from cyclists and pedestrians who have been involved in incidents with cars where the motorist is often the innocent party. Most insurers now encourage their party to accept liability rather than contest the incident as it is cheaper for them to pay up rather than pursue it through the courts and be faced by a no win no fee ambulance chaser. As a result fraudulent claims and staged accidents are at an all time high and this proposal will surely just open the flood gates once and for all.

We also seem to be overun with quangos, blue sky think tanks and the like that come up with ideas that seem to favour one part of the community at the expense of the rest. If an MP or "advisor" is based in London it is all well and good banging on about using public transport or cycling to work. If however god forbid you choose to live outside of an urban area then the holes in that option appear straight away.

What we need is a balanced transport policy were all parties are catered for and not just take the lazy option of waging war on the motorist. By all means reduce speed limits to 20mph out side schools etc. However add to that stop giving planning permission to out of town developments that are not adequatley served by public transport. Reinvest the billions raised in fuel duty back into providing suitable transport options rather than using the money to prop up the welfare state. I could go on...

Rant over.
No sensible discussion in this thread please! :p

[sal]

Sorry Daniel!

Perhaps I should have suggested following "celebrity chef" James Martins's example and aim to force groups of cyclists into hedges at the slightest opportunity...

[Daniel]

Sorry Daniel!

Perhaps I should have suggested following "celebrity chef" James Martins's example and aim to force groups of cyclists into hedges at the slightest opportunity...
I believe that Mr Martin is known as an 'uber-cock' and not a celebrity chef these days :p

[Wade91]

that would be such a rediculess law! if your driving a car, and hit a cycalest, it shouldn't be your fault if they wern't following the rules of the road,

if someone wants to ride a bike to work or where ever that perfectly fine, but they need fallow the rules of the road and show respect for the cars on the road, and like-wise the cars need to show respect for the cycalest, if a cycalest gets hit then whoever wasn't fallowing the rules of the road, should be the one responsable, thats the only thing that makes sence, and the laws shouldn't be changed to promote this "greener transport" crap,

i personally wouldn't wanna ride a bike any real distance, becouse even if i knew how to ride one without training wheels i would be to lazy to do so for a good leangth of time, i'm sure it must be pretty tireing :s

[Hazell B]

You realise of course that this is just a proposal by a cyclists interest group and the government has said it has no intention of implementing it.


I did, and wondered from most of the post if anyone else had actually read the story ....


Anyway, to those saying cyclists and other road users such as horses are pretty much stupid to be there, I have a question. Why in hells teeth do you think they are there? It's generally because they have no choice!

As a rider and cyclist I wasn't there for the fun of it. I had places to go and the road is the only way to get to them. Obviously on horses we try to use fields as much as is possible, but how do you get to those fields exactly? By road. It's actually illegal to take horses on the verges (and indeed footpaths)if they are cut ditched (as about 80% of roadside ones are) and you can't get into fields easily as they tend to be a) owned by somebody you don't know, b) full of crops or animals and c) not offering access to other fields to continue the journey.
Horse riders die at a rate of about three a week on the roads and very, very few are found to be at fault - though I would never say motorists are the main culprits in these deaths. Generally it's an unforeseen thing startling the horse into a car's path, so no blame is laid at all. Insurance is not required to ride on the roads, either.

I've passed road tests on cycles, horses, motorcycles and in my car.
I think other people should too. It's only sensible.

[Rollo]

Pedestrians according the Highway Code (which is based on the Road Traffic Act, already have rights of way on the road:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070332

I suspect that the provisions of the Act would also currently also give rights of way to Cyclists and Horse-Drawn vehicles as well, but as yet, I'm having to sift through definitions.

[Mark in Oshawa]

This is an interesting debate, for it was sparked here locally when an ex-member of the Provinical Parliament and cabinet minister was out for a drive in his Saab Convertable when he had a run with a bicycle courier right in the trendy section of downtown Toronto. They had an altercation, likely because the courier was later figured to be drunk, and a fight of sorts was breaking out. The witnesses say the car drove off with the courier hanging onto either the seat or steering wheel as the car crareened down Bloor Street at dusk on a weeknight with this guy hanging. Until they hit a Mail box...

Bicycle Courier dead, ex politician charged. The downtown bicycle community shut down traffic the next few nights with their protest. Toronto papers kill endless amounts of newsprint about the merits of bike lanes downtown and whether the cyclists should follow the rules of the road.

The point is, they should, the courier who was dead in this sad incident turned out to be a drunk with numerous charges against him in his native Alberta, who had temper issues..and everyone is investigating and sad....

Point still comes back to two things: Cyclists should NEVER think that they own the road, or even a piece of it, even if the law says they have justification to be there; and two: if you are an idiot, and on a bike, you could end up dead....

[Daniel]

I quite agree. Right or wrong if you're dead it doesn't matter.

[Daniel]

I quite agree. Right or wrong if you're dead it doesn't matter.

[Daniel]

Silly phone posted twice :mark:

[ShiftingGears]

Congratulations, you live in Australia and are already held at fault if you hit a pedestrian or cyclist in all circumstances except an expressway or motorway where pedestrians are not allowed.


Care to provide a supporting link that isn't 400 pages long? I haven't seen anything anywhere suggesting that Australian laws are like those proposed in the UK.

[Rollo]

Care to provide a supporting link that isn't 400 pages long? I haven't seen anything anywhere suggesting that Australian laws are like those proposed in the UK.

Since you won't follow the link, I'll provide the relevant sections for NSW (since for other states the actual acts will be different).

Traffic Act 1909 - NSW
Regulation 117K:
(vi). an offence arises under the provisions of this act for any motor vehicle to be involved in a motor accident and liability falls to the person or persons in control of the motor vehicle(s)
(vii). an offence arises under the provisions of this act for any motor vehicle to be involved in a motor accident involving pedestrians and liability falls to the person or persons in control of the motor vehicle(s)
(viii). an offence arises under the provisions of this act for any motor vehicle to be involved in a motor accident involving velocipedes and liability falls to the person or persons in control of the motor vehicle(s)
(ix). an offence arises under the provisions of this act for any motor vehicle to be involved in a motor accident involving beasts of burden and liability falls to the person or persons in control of the motor vehicle(s)

The rules might be slightly different depending on which state and or territory you happen to live in; and as with any country bound by a Westminster Parliament and Common Law: Ignorantia juris non excusat - Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

[ShiftingGears]

Since you won't follow the link, I'll provide the relevant sections for NSW (since for other states the actual acts will be different).

Traffic Act 1909 - NSW
Regulation 117K:
(vi). an offence arises under the provisions of this act for any motor vehicle to be involved in a motor accident and liability falls to the person or persons in control of the motor vehicle(s)
(vii). an offence arises under the provisions of this act for any motor vehicle to be involved in a motor accident involving pedestrians and liability falls to the person or persons in control of the motor vehicle(s)
(viii). an offence arises under the provisions of this act for any motor vehicle to be involved in a motor accident involving velocipedes and liability falls to the person or persons in control of the motor vehicle(s)
(ix). an offence arises under the provisions of this act for any motor vehicle to be involved in a motor accident involving beasts of burden and liability falls to the person or persons in control of the motor vehicle(s)

The rules might be slightly different depending on which state and or territory you happen to live in; and as with any country bound by a Westminster Parliament and Common Law: Ignorantia juris non excusat - Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

Intruiging - I didn't know Australian traffic laws got that stupid.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Definaetly doesn't make you want to go OZ does it?

[Rollo]

Why?

99% of the time, you don't see cyclists on the road because the distances to get anywhere are too vast even in the cities. Cyclists are more than aware that if they get hit then there isn't much separating them from the landscape, so except for cowboy cyclist couriers in the city, they aren't really a problem.

Besides which, how hard is it to wait the extra... 40 seconds (?) to take the time and go around them with all due care? Motoring in principle isn't a right, it's a legal privilege.

[TheFamousEccles]

I like to make a nuisance of myself on my pushie, at certain times. Mostly in congested traffic, where I get in people's faces, making eye-contact and ensuring that they have actually seen me. It's not a game, more a survival tactic - you may annoy the sh!te out of people, but at least they know you are there.

Other times I stick to footpaths (it's illegal to ride on them here, too) and bikeways. Car drivers here in Oz are largely very inattentive at best, plain homicidal at other times - my right pedal still has red duco from some dickhead who thought he might give me a scare (congrats, it worked), though the dents on his roof and bonnet from when I caught him at the train crossing further up the road should give him pause....

No,I'm not a militant cyclist, just sick of being nearly killed at least once a week (yes I do own and drive a car - and motorbike, and I do try to watch out for other cyclists/riders - though some of us do not do any positive image projection, however).

Rollo, If i could I would buy you a beer for the last sentence in your post #36.

[Daniel]

I like to make a nuisance of myself on my pushie, at certain times. Mostly in congested traffic, where I get in people's faces, making eye-contact and ensuring that they have actually seen me. It's not a game, more a survival tactic - you may annoy the sh!te out of people, but at least they know you are there.

Other times I stick to footpaths (it's illegal to ride on them here, too) and bikeways. Car drivers here in Oz are largely very inattentive at best, plain homicidal at other times - my right pedal still has red duco from some dickhead who thought he might give me a scare (congrats, it worked), though the dents on his roof and bonnet from when I caught him at the train crossing further up the road should give him pause....

No,I'm not a militant cyclist, just sick of being nearly killed at least once a week (yes I do own and drive a car - and motorbike, and I do try to watch out for other cyclists/riders - though some of us do not do any positive image projection, however).

Rollo, If i could I would buy you a beer for the last sentence in your post #36.
I prefer to drive on footpaths when possible too. You seem a sensible guy TFE and not at all like the people here who seem to think they're a car.

[GridGirl]

Drive on footpaths? I hope not Daniel, besides even your little Fiat 500 isn't that small. :p

[Daniel]

Drive on footpaths? I hope not Daniel, besides even your little Fiat 500 isn't that small. :p
:facepalm:

Doh!

I meant to say RIDE on footpaths :p

[Bezza]

Cyclists are the bane of my life!

I don't understand why they "are allowed" to consistently run red lights, mount the pavement, drive side by side, overtake illegally? I almost ran into one the other day because he was in a "race" and overtook me on my right going into a right hand junction and was hiding in my blindspot.

When I almost hit him, he swore at me as if I'm supposed to leap out of the way.

Seriously, to me, 75% of all cyclists don't know how to use the road. And the other 25% do but don't bother to follow the rules!

Possibly the most pathetic possible government plan ever. Well done Gordon!

[Hazell B]

Good old Bezza, firm but fair! :p :

[GridGirl]

I'm glad I cycle on bridle ways or forrest tracks. Road cycling sounds like too much hastle. :s

[Mark in Oshawa]

Driving may be a privledge, but using the roads is one, and if a cyclist cannot understand that they have to protect themselves by following such suggestions such as red lights and stop signs, they shouldn't be too upset when the drivers don't see them.

I used to ride a bike everywhere. Then I started driving and understood the risks I was taking. I do my level best to give cyclists room, but I am not going to kiss their ring either. Most people on bicycles are playing chicken in traffic with no sense of the law or the danger they put themselves.

Cycling is a leisure activity, and yes, maybe a form of commuting for some, but in Canada at least, they are wholly impracticable for 3 to 4 months a year and it galls me the city of Toronto spends megadollars carving out lanes for them NOT to follow on busy city streets. Believe me...drive into Toronto and watch the bike couriers weaving in and out of traffic, and notice the effort made to give cyclist their own lane...and then actually count the numbers of cyclists. Notice also the millions spent on bike carriers on every bus in the city..and I will give you 5 bucks for every bike you see on the city bus bike carriers...and never have to open my wallet.

When it comes to bikes, some cities have lost their MINDS.....just like some of the mindless twerps on the bikes.