Motorist 'operating risk'

[Norm]

And, indeed, the practice of putting zebra-crossing at the junctions of side-roads. Peds should already have priority, by putting in a crossing, it makes drivers think (conditioning again?) that cars have priority when there is no crossing marked.

 

[jonesy]

Manual for Streets reverses this approach, at least in residential areas, but I suspect most highway engineers will continue with their 'tried and tested' approach until forced to do otherwise:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/manforstreets/

 

[Tony]

Before I first went touring in Scandinavia, in 1994, I read a book about the rules of the road there produced by a certain automotive association. They described how cycle paths ran up the sides of roads, and (with an obvious tone of "how peculiar!") went on to explain how drivers had to give way to cycles when turning across them.
That sums up a lot of UK drivers' attirudes to roads, and I regularly hear comments about pedestrians crossing "at the wrong place" because there is no marked facility there. This comes back to the case of David Cameron, as well, "RLJing" by not waiting for the green bike at a TOUCAN crossing, which is not a legal requirement, rather a way of slowing selfish motons for the benefit of human beings.

 

[summerdays]

Thought provoking article.

Can anyone tell me why Germany Holland etc don't have a problem with uninsured cars and we do? How much does their insurance cost in comparison to ours?

Having just returned from a week in Germany with work, this ruling is extant. When on a side road approaching a T junction, you must be aware of crossing a cycle lane that has absolute priority before you get to the T junction. You must also ensure that you do not block the cycle path whilst waiting to turn. It works excellently and allows cyclists to use cycle paths to get somewhere quickly rather than give way continually.

So where does the cycle lane cross the side road in comparison to the junction - is there a car length in front of the cycle lane or does the car driver have to see if its clear from behind the cycle lane? Not having cycled or driven in Germany I just can't imagine how it works in practise?

 

[gavintc]

In many examples, and more often in rural settings, the pavement (pedestrian and cycle path) is recessed back from the road by about 20 feet. You can usually get 1 car between the junction and the cycle path. In towns, the cycle path may well be adjacent to the road and it is common to hold back from the road allowing bikes to cross in front. It is hard to explain, but the engineering of the cycle paths seems to work well. The cycle paths and pedestrian routes are commonly shared, but there is a respect for the cyclist and the friction between pedestrian, cyclist and motorist seem to be far less.

 

[kbrumann]

Drivers should be liable for the operating risk of cars and be insured accordingly.

"With an alleged 1.2 million uninsured drivers on Britain’s roads and a new risk concept (i.e. operating risk) to cover, the cycling campaigners’ ally on this could well be the insurance industry."

http://tr.im/operatingrisk

With "Operating Risk" British courts could not treat lack of insurance like an administrative issue, as a risk has to be covered for simply moving the vehicle. Such changes in law would mean result in less uninsured drivers AND cheaper car insurance AND more business for the insurance industry.

 

[Dan B]

That's exactly the same link you just posted as the one that started the thread.

Are you the author of the article, by any chance?

 

[Bman]

If you were walking down the road carrying a running chainsaw, and someone ran round the corner into you and got their arm lopped off, it would be their fault for running into your path unexpectedly, but it would also be your fault for operating potentially dangerous machinery in a public place.

If you were driving down the road and someone ran round the corner into you and got their arm broken, it would be their fault for running into your path unexpectedly and I doubt that an English court would hold you part-responsible for operating potentially dangerous machinery in a public place. But German law, apparently, would.

I like that analogy. But what if we were to strap a chainsaw to our bike? :?:

 

[CopperBrompton]

But German law, apparently, would.

I think the article is based on a bit of a misapprehension of the German system.

I'm speaking here only as a regular visitor to the country, so one of the locals may be able to correct me, but I think the article is unknowingly referring to specific pedestrian-priority zones in Germany.

These are typically small towns and residential areas away from main roads, generally with speed limits of 30kph or less. In those zones, car drivers are 100% responsible if there is a collision with a pedestrian. A pedestrian can wait for a car to be two feet away, step into the road and it's still the car driver's fault.

 

[PK99]

With regard to the first point raised by Norm, I take great delight as a pedestrian in enforcing my right to cross a side road and will demand a car stop for me. It usually brings a blare of a horn and occasionally a confrontation, but I just tell them to read the HC and walk on.

i trust you only do that when you have started to cross before the car begins to turn, if you step off the pavement after the car has started to turn you do not have priority

rule 170: watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way

 

[kbrumann]

I think the article is based on a bit of a misapprehension of the German system.

I'm speaking here only as a regular visitor to the country, so one of the locals may be able to correct me, but I think the article is unknowingly referring to specific pedestrian-priority zones in Germany.

Are referring to the article in the Cambridge Cycling Campaign Newsletter (which I wrote)? This is not referring to special zones but to the principle of "Betriebsgefahr" (Operating Risk) in German law; which is not limited to pedestrian-priority zones, it is not even limited to cars.

 

[kbrumann]

Motorists' Operating Risk in the Absence of Fault

if the cyclist was hit by another cyclist and somehow severe damage was caused to the first guy who was "in the wrong" then why should any insurance claim be split by both parties? (presumably in a 50/50 split according to the logic as they both bring the same risk to the situation). It was clearly the first guy's fault, why does the innocent guy have to pay anything?

Am I missing something obvious with this?

You are hitting an interesting point. The reference to the German's Court Judgement in the article is incomplete. Aparently in the first instance a court ruled 25% cyclist, 75% motorist. The cyclist had stated that he got onto the opposite lane by accident after his front wheel made contact with another bicycle. Based on this the motorist appealed on the grounds of this being caused by a cyclists to cyclist accident. However, the appeal court held the decision up on the principle of the motor's "Betriebsgefahr" (Operating Risk"). A tonne of metal is dangerous at speed, and it should be for motorists to insure against this risk.

 

[CopperBrompton]

"Betriebsgefahr" (Operating Risk) in German law; which is not limited to pedestrian-priority zones, it is not even limited to cars.

Interesting. I'll be in Germany over the xmas break so will ask my German friends about it.

 

[thomas]

i trust you only do that when you have started to cross before the car begins to turn, if you step off the pavement after the car has started to turn you do not have priority

rule 170: watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way

That doesn't say if a car has started to turn the pedestrian doesn't have priority, does it.


It only says that crossing pedestrians have priority and you should look out for them before turning into a junction....that rule does not say that pedestrians loose priority if the car starts to turn (or can't gain it).

 

[PK99]

That doesn't say if a car has started to turn the pedestrian doesn't have priority, does it.


It only says that crossing pedestrians have priority and you should look out for them before turning into a junction....that rule does not say that pedestrians loose priority if the car starts to turn (or can't gain it).

taht is dealt with in rule 7 c for pedestrians:

D. If traffic is coming, let it pass. Look all around again and listen. Do not cross until there is a safe gap in the traffic and you are certain that there is plenty of time. Remember, even if traffic is a long way off, it may be approaching very quickly.