Better design of HGVs is key to improving safety for cyclists

[Andy in Germany]

That is done to what disability they have, there are some on here who don't believe I should ride a bike as I have no hearing in one ear.

How does it make sense to say you shouldn't ride because of deafness, when drivers are in a box with music on or having phone conversations and can't hear a damn thing?

Anyway...

The type and severity of a mental ilness is an important part of the question. A person with a severe disability in Germany has the right to a job, which includes transporting them to work, and part of my work was/is finding the best way for them to get to work, the best way being defined as the one which brings them most freedom and independence. Some people will alwways need to be brought, and every workshop has a fleet of minibuses arriving every morning full of clients who can't travel alone. If we had clients who could handle public transport we would often do teach them how to read a timetable and get a ticket there was a risk to this but the psychological boost it gave clients outweighed occasionally being contacted by a someone who had got on the wrong train...

Same applied to cycling. The advantage of a bike is that reactions don't need to be as fast as a car, and frankly some of the clients need exercise or to burn energy. If a client wanted to ride we would give them training, check the route and see what sort of bike they needed. If they were a bit wobbly we'd try a bike or a trike, although in practice they often leaned this in School before they came to us. We'd plan a route with them and trainn them so they were safe.

My point is though that without the network of traffic free routes we have locally, this would be near impossible though: most clients couldn't deal with HGV's and sadly most drivers are not capable of reacting to people with disabilitey on the road, even if they are cycling in a straight line. We need infrastructure than anyone can ride on safely, not just those of us who can deal with traffic...

 

[Andy in Germany]

I notice that many motorists also have this absolute aversion to having to stop, despite it not costing them energy to get moving again like it does cyclists (each extra stop is like riding another 100m). Motorists also want to keep moving at all costs, barging forwards, attempting overtakes where there's not space (like on the approach to junctions) and driving through red lights. These costs are too often other people's lives.

I often think that driver get the most annoyed with cyclists when they are displaying the worst habits of car drivers, and getting away with it.

This is why they want cameras and sensors, so in effect the cyclist is absolved of responsibility and its down to the driver to see them, irrespective of the fact the cyclist should not be there in the first place.

The UK is one of only a few countries where car and truck drivers are not considered to be autiomatically at fault in an accident unless they can prove otherwise. The principle here ins on the basis of risk: A car driver causes a higher potential risk than a cyclist, so in an accident the car driver is considered at fault, a Truck is bigger and more difficult to stop, so they are considered to be at fault in a crach with a car, and so on. As one instructor once said "If a bike falls out of the sky and hits your car, you are liable unless you can prove otherwise"

By the same token I am responsible for the safety of pedestrians when I'm cycling. And if you hit a child when driving or cycling, even on an autobahn... well, just hope the police are in a good mood and wave bye bye to your low insurance premium...

 

[Ming the Merciless]

How many vans & lorries every day?

Take them off tge road to significantly improve capacity.

 

[Smudge]

I often think that driver get the most annoyed with cyclists when they are displaying the worst habits of car drivers, and getting away with it.



The UK is one of only a few countries where car and truck drivers are not considered to be autiomatically at fault in an accident unless they can prove otherwise. The principle here ins on the basis of risk: A car driver causes a higher potential risk than a cyclist, so in an accident the car driver is considered at fault, a Truck is bigger and more difficult to stop, so they are considered to be at fault in a crach with a car, and so on. As one instructor once said "If a bike falls out of the sky and hits your car, you are liable unless you can prove otherwise"

By the same token I am responsible for the safety of pedestrians when I'm cycling. And if you hit a child when driving or cycling, even on an autobahn... well, just hope the police are in a good mood and wave bye bye to your low insurance premium...

Considered by who ?

 

[Andy in Germany]

Considered by who ?

Legally, and by insurance companies.

If the driver of the more dangerous vehicle can prove otherwise, all well and good, but the burden of proof is on them.

 

[Smudge]

Legally, and by insurance companies.

If the driver of the more dangerous vehicle can prove otherwise, all well and good, but the burden of prove is on them.

I doubt its any different than here in the UK.... Insurance wont pay out if they have evidence the other person is found to be at fault. Similarly, no one is considered at fault until all the evidence is looked at.
If a driver hits a cyclist and injures or kills them, the police will look at the evidence and the circumstances of that RTC. If there is any evidence that the driver was at fault, the driver will be charged. But only a court can decide if the case is proven one way or another.

 

[classic33]

I doubt its any different than here in the UK.... Insurance wont pay out if they have evidence the other person is found to be at fault. Similarly, no one is considered at fault until all the evidence is looked at.
If a driver hits a cyclist and injures or kills them, the police will look at the evidence and the circumstances of that RTC. If there is any evidence that the driver was at fault, the driver will be charged. But only a court can decide if the case is proven one way or another.

Without wanting to derail the thread, search for "presumed liability" on here. To get an idea of what the difference between the countries is.

 

[Andy in Germany]

I doubt its any different than here in the UK.... Insurance wont pay out if they have evidence the other person is found to be at fault. Similarly, no one is considered at fault until all the evidence is looked at.

Without wanting to derail the thread, search for "presumed liability" on here. To get an idea of what the difference between the countries is.

As Mr @classic33 says, it's presumed liability, and this makes a big difference. Last time I looked every EU country except the UK and Romania presumed liability on the driver of the more dangerous vehicle. It means that a driver is effectively responsible for making sure that if a pedestrian or cyclist makes a mistake, then he can stop the car or avoid them. SMIDSY ("Sorry mate I didn't see you") isn't a defence against it either. Our own story about being in this situation is here.

 

[Smudge]

Without wanting to derail the thread, search for "presumed liability" on here. To get an idea of what the difference between the countries is.

Yes but 'presumed liability' doesn't absolve the cyclist of being at fault.... and it doesn't automatically assume the driver is at fault.
I would have thought, that any RTC after being investigated, would have the same outcome whether its in a country that does or doesn't have presumed liability.

 

[classic33]

Yes but 'presumed liability' doesn't absolve the cyclist of being at fault.... and it doesn't automatically assume the driver is at fault.
I would have thought, that any RTC after being investigated, would have the same outcome whether its in a country that does or doesn't have presumed liability.

The outcome may differ, after investigation, but it's up to the driver of the more dangerous/larger vehicle to prove they weren't to blame.

 

[Smudge]

The only way i can see PL being in the cyclists favour, is if there's no evidence either way and no witnesses. So it would be the drivers word against the cyclist. Then i assume it would only be insurance involved.
Would the driver be convicted of any motoring offence under these circumstances ?

 

[Andy in Germany]

The only way i can see PL being in the cyclists favour, is if there's no evidence either way and no witnesses. So it would be the drivers word against the cyclist. Then i assume it would only be insurance involved.
Would the driver be convicted of any motoring offence under these circumstances ?

The difference is partly preventative: A driver knows that if (s)he does harm a pedestrian or cyclist then he will be held liable unless he/she can prove otherwise. Of course if a cyclist is drunk or runs a red light, then they are liable. But unless the driver can prove this, (s)he 's liable for the accident. In the UK, a driver seems to be able to say "I didn't see him" and that's all fine. Here that's not considered an adequate response, because if you couldn't stop in time, you were driving too fast. My impression after riding a lot in the UK and EU is that it means car drivers are more careful: I get much less close passes here, and 95% of the time drivers will stop at a zebra crossing: last time I was in York zebra crossings were nice decorations to look at while waiting for a gap in the traffic.

By the same token, if I hit a child on a cycleway I am liable for any harm I may cause.

Another major difference is that the police must in theory be called every time there is a crash, or it is considered a hit and run.

 

[Smudge]

The difference is partly preventative: A driver knows that if (s)he does harm a pedestrian or cyclist then he will be held liable unless he/she can prove otherwise. Of course if a cyclist is drunk or runs a red light, then they are liable. But unless the driver can prove this, (s)he 's liable for the accident. In the UK, a driver seems to be able to say "I didn't see him" and that's all fine. Here that's not considered an adequate response, because if you couldn't stop in time, you were driving too fast. My impression after riding a lot in the UK and EU is that it means car drivers are more careful: I get much less close passes here, and 95% of the time drivers will stop at a zebra crossing: last time I was in York zebra crossings were nice decorations to look at while waiting for a gap in the traffic.

By the same token, if I hit a child on a cycleway I am liable for any harm I may cause.

Another major difference is that the police must in theory be called every time there is a crash, or it is considered a hit and run.

I dont think 'i didn't see him' is automatically a defence here in the uk. It could be argued the driver didn't look properly. We all know they dont look properly many times.
I have to put up with the SMIDSY's not only on my bikes, but on my motorcycles as well.

 

[Slick]

I dont think 'i didn't see him' is automatically a defence here in the uk. It could be argued the driver didn't look properly. We all know they dont look properly many times.
I have to put up with the SMIDSY's not only on my bikes, but on my motorcycles as well.

Smudge, it's well known that a driver can drive right over the top of a cyclist then just claim not to have seen him or her and then get no more than a slapped wrist. Lots of examples in the legal section for you to have a look at.

 

[Smudge]

Smudge, it's well known that a driver can drive right over the top of a cyclist then just claim not to have seen him or her and then get no more than a slapped wrist. Lots of examples in the legal section for you to have a look at.

Yes i accept that does happen..... as unacceptable as it is.
But not everyone gets away with that lame excuse as an only form of defence...... especially when a cyclist or motorcyclist is seriously injured or killed.