introducing strict liability for motorists

[Jacomus-rides-Gen]

Which IC has screwed you?

I think that elswere in Europe this law can work, because they have a modicum of decency on the roads, and are not taught that anyone on two wheels is scum.

 

[davidwalton]

Which IC has screwed you?

The one that decided to get a Doctor to say something that could not be proved, but was enough for them to be able to deny a claim.

All back problems are connected was what I was told, hence I was not covered because I had a back problem 2 years earlier, and all back problems are related.

 

[John Ponting]

"It would not be appropriate to change the law to provide that motorists should automatically be liable for any accident involving a motor vehicle and a pedestrian or cyclist. This would lead to unfair results in cases where the motorist is driving entirely responsibly and the accident is caused by the irresponsible behaviour of the pedestrian or cyclist. The current law enables the court to decide where responsibility for the accident lies and to award damages accordingly."

See
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page13961.asp

I do believe the Government don't care much for Cyclists or Pedestrians.

Total non sequitur.

 

[davidwalton]

Total non sequitur.

In what way?

 

[John Ponting]

In what way?

david, I posted that before reading the full thread - something which I normally try hard to avoid.

However, there is nothing in your post to support your believe (IN MY OPINION).

"The current law enables the court to decide where responsibility for the accident lies and to award damages accordingly."

"I do believe the Government don't care much for Cyclists or Pedestrians."

The first is a statement of fact. The second is just your opinion. There is no connection.

Put your money where your mouth is and take out third party insurance of your own. Then when you lose a case you will at least be able to recompense the other person for your negligent, or careless, behaviour. I have been the loser following a collision with a non insured motorist who subsequently did a runner but I still cannot support your argument.

However, will you share a virtual glass of wine with me while we discuss other subjects?

 

[davidwalton]

david, I posted that before reading the full thread - something which I normally try hard to avoid.

However, there is nothing in your post to support your believe (IN MY OPINION).

"The current law enables the court to decide where responsibility for the accident lies and to award damages accordingly."

"I do believe the Government don't care much for Cyclists or Pedestrians."

The first is a statement of fact. The second is just your opinion. There is no connection.

Put your money where your mouth is and take out third party insurance of your own. Then when you lose a case you will at least be able to recompense the other person for your negligent, or careless, behaviour. I have been the loser following a collision with a non insured motorist who subsequently did a runner but I still cannot support your argument.

However, will you share a virtual glass of wine with me while we discuss other subjects?

The first bit of my first post is a copy of some of the reply given by the Government. The opinion at the bottom is me and how I feel the Government sees cyclists and pedestrians.

I have ALWAYS had 3rd party insurance minimum. However, that doesn't stop an insurance company refusing a claim just because there is not enough evidence.

The way things are now is fine, as long as there is enough evidence to make a claim. As soon as there isn't, you will get nothing, ever. I don't think that is right.

The exception is where there are criminals involved. There again, why can't there be a victim pot that all insurance companies pay in to to cover those eventualities as well?

 

[Smokin Joe]

What is wrong with a bit of positive discrimination in favour of people who have had their bodies damaged over people whose cars have been damaged? The government can legislate in favour of all sorts of groups if it suits.

Because if some idiot sideswipes me as he tries to squeeze past on his ratbike and then claims i moved out on him I don't want my insurance to rise because the company have had to pay for his new full suspension shitmachine from Halfords.

 

[bonj2]

can see the logic behind it - in that it would encourage all motorists to be ultra considerate to, and careful around, cyclists - because they know they're at fault if they get hit. But all in all I think it's wrong. However good the intentions, too many people would see it as grossly unfair. You would get all sorts of problems, like cyclists deliberately riding into cars to get signed off work and compo flowing in, more hit and runs like smokin joe says, nah - it wouldn't work.

 

[bonj2]

That's what the motoring lobby want you to think. Doesn't happen on the continent though as far as I am aware.

what is "the motoring lobby"? Is there a specific organisation called "The Motoring Lobby", in the same way as there is a specific organisation called "The Political Correctness Brigade"?

 

[Bigtallfatbloke]

I think contact between a car and a cyclist should be assumed to be the car drivers fault unless prooved otherwise. Watch the morons slow down and pass wide when they realise it might cost them.

 

[davidwalton]

I think contact between a car and a cyclist should be assumed to be the car drivers fault unless prooved otherwise. Watch the morons slow down and pass wide when they realise it might cost them.

It did make sense to me that those who could do the most damage were the ones made responsible for the safety of others who are not in a cage.

A car can be a weapon, and has been used as such. With the addition of increased road rage, I can only see things getting worse for both cyclists and pedestrians. If I were to carry a weapon that was as lethal, I would expect every use of it to be scrutinized; assuming I was allowed to carry it in public at all.

 

[snorri]

Put your money where your mouth is and take out third party insurance of your own.

If I thought that insurance would protect me from personal injury and death, then I would take out a policy. Insurance merely provides some financial compensation, whilst the law change which the OP calls for will reduce the risk of injury to cyclists.
The relative danger imposed by a person in a car compared with a person on foot or bicycle calls for a different approach, just as people who carry knives and guns are subjected to a more rigorous investigation of their actions than people who are unarmed in public places.

 

[NickM]

and the damage a cycle or pedestrian does to a motor vehicle is little in comparison to the damage they can do to your body.

David, you are entirely right, and this is the crux of the argument.

But nothing will change, because (despite the nearby example of the Netherlands) the British public is too stupid to see that you are right; and the politicians they elect are more interested in keeping their seats on the Westminster gravy train than in doing anything which might cost them some votes.

 

[davidwalton]

David, you are entirely right, and this is the crux of the argument.

But nothing will change, because (despite the nearby example of the Netherlands) the British public is too stupid to see that you are right; and the politicians they elect are more interested in keeping their seats on the Westminster gravy train than in doing anything which might cost them some votes.

I will be buying a Camera for the bike, and hope any incident is recorded sufficiently to prove a case.

Which will depend on how much money is left in the kitty after buying the new recumbent. Very least, the ATC2K Waterproof Action Camera.

 

[NickM]

...the new recumbent...

Nice one!