driver at fault petition

[KitsuneAndy]

But a situation may occur where no other evidence is present and the 1st car caused the accident (e.g. rolled backwards).

In such an incident, without witnesses etc this could also be abused.

The rear driver is at fault - unless he can prove he wasn't

The precedent is that if you drive into the back of someone, it's your fault. If someone rolls into the front of you, that's entirely different. Yes, they could lie and say you drover into them. But they'd have to have been rolling a fair distance to actually cause any damage. A car rolling 2 foot backwards into the car behind isn't going to be going faster than a couple of miles per hour and is unlikely to do anything other than scuff a bumper.

 

[gambatte]

A car rolling 2 foot backwards into the car behind isn't going to be going faster than a couple of miles per hour and is unlikely to do anything other than scuff a bumper.

You've never had a car with a tow bar roll backwards into you, have you?
It does significantly more than scuff a bumper

 

[MartinC]

What's more likely is that someone overtakes you, cuts in and brakes. Happens all the time.

 

[gambatte]

Theres apparantly a scam operating where people are buying old bangers and setting up exactly this kind of 'accident'

 

[Smokin Joe]

Theres apparantly a scam operating where people are buying old bangers and setting up exactly this kind of 'accident'

Which is exactly what would happen if motorists had to accept presumption of guilt in accidents with cyclists.

 

[mr_hippo]

What is rule number one if you are involved in an accident? 'Never accept liability'

 

[sheddy]

But if the driver was not at fault, hopefully there would be witnesses to say so.
I think we need some Dutch posters to help out here

 

[Cab]

Which is exactly what would happen if motorists had to accept presumption of guilt in accidents with cyclists.

I can't see how.

Either you have an accident and damage a bike, in which case you either have to have a cheapo bike and make nearly no money or you have a good bike and damage it sufficiently that you risk taking real harm, or you come off your bike and actually really risk harming yourself a lot. It would seem a short lived career, wouldn't it?

 

[KitsuneAndy]

But if the driver was not at fault, hopefully there would be witnesses to say so.
I think we need some Dutch posters to help out here

Using the same argument - if the driver is at fault, there will be witnesses to say so. So no need to have anyone at fault automatically

 

[MartinC]

It seems to me that it's impossible to have a sensible discussion about this in the UK. People start talking about 'guilt' and 'fault'. In large chunks of the world it's simple - people with cars insure the risk of their car damaging or hurting anyone or anything. They get the benefit, they pick up the cost of mitigating the risks. It works for them. Here we get really contrived and childish arguments about the poor victim motorist who might have to pay increased premiums because something happened they're not legally responsible for. IMO the average UK motorist doesn't consider themselves responsible for anything - how they get themselves up in the morning is beyond my understanding.

 

[gambatte]

In large chunks of the world it's simple - people with cars insure the risk of their car damaging or hurting anyone or anything. They get the benefit, they pick up the cost of mitigating the risks. It works for them. Here we get really contrived and childish arguments about the poor victim motorist who might have to pay increased premiums because something happened they're not legally responsible for.

I can see the motorists point.

The fear is

Would you like to pay £100 a year more, because some 'yoof' shoots out of an alley, straight in front of you, and theres no other witnesses?

I'd rather put the £100 towards toys for my kids or my next MTB.

At minimum wage it'd also be remuneration for half a weeks work.....

 

[MartinC]

I rest my case.

 

[gambatte]

I rest my case.

OK, not particularly made it tho'
Nothing contrived or childish about the argument.

 

[spindrift]

Would you like to pay £100 a year more, because some 'yoof' shoots out of an alley, straight in front of you, and theres no other witnesses?

1/

Liability would not be the motorists in this situation. You've not understood properly what strict liability means.

2/

Countries that have adopted strict liability have seen accidents fall because idiot drivers take more care. Fewer accidents means lower premiums, not higher.

 

[gambatte]

Liability would not be the motorists in this situation. You've not understood properly what strict liability means.

Please expand upon this statement. At present it leaves me no wiser....