Are cyclists a different breed to the rest of us?

[sten_super]

Does this mean it would be a cyclist's fault if they run over a pedestrian?

That's how assumed liability works, yes. Although I should point out that it's only in the absence of any conflicting evidence - if a pedestrian steps out in front of a car or a bike they would be held responsible, rather than the driver of the vehicle. The idea is that use of the roads is not a game of equals, and that the bigger you are, the more responsibly (and carefully) you should behave, not to give carte blanche to smaller road users.

 

[Codner's Wallop]

Agree with the comments about cycling on the Continent. Cycling in France is a joy, but then again, it's a considerably larger country.

The cyclist/car conflict in the UK is another by-product of a country which has run out of room - and patience.

 

[brightn'ove]

The cyclist/car conflict in the UK is another by-product of a country full of Neanderthal, sun worshipping thugs.

Agreed

 

[symyjym]

Do they actually think when they put on their skintight clobber that the rules of cycle paths don't apply to them?

I'm just happy that they are wearing something in this day and age

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Wasn't trying to come across as 'righteous', so apologies for that - I just think that the expectations should be the same across all types of vehicle.

It sounds like you and I would disagree on who's creating danger on our roads though, for sure. My view is that assumed liability would be a very positive development on our roads - effectively that the more weighty road users have a clear duty of care towards other road users (as measured in descending weight order).

Making overarching assumptions that might affect liability sees a bit of a precedent. We all have a duty of care to each other, whether it's a nine-stone jogger running past a (heavier) old pensioner or a Mini driver overtaking a (lighter) Fiat 500. As a driver I accept that I have a duty of care towards everyone, and that most definitely includes cyclists. My point was the most simple of practical ones - for their own safety cyclists should, like motorcyclists, be required to wear certain apparel. Helmets in the case of motorcyclists, high-viz clothing for cyclists. I'd like to reduce the chances of disaster in the first place. It's more important than establishing a (dodgy, I'd argue) legal assumption that might assist in the prosecution of someone after a fatal accident had taken place.

 

[sydney]

groups of 150 cyclists blocking both lanes of dual carriage ways piss me off , large groups of cyclists blocking roads when there are cycle lanes in place for them piss me off , cyclists who think red lights don't apply to them piss me off , at the end of the day they are using a public facility that is built and maintained using money from petrol and road taxes to which they are not subject , assumptions by cyclists that the roads are there to share piss me off.

 

[El Sid]

I think ALL road users should be trained, passed a theory and practical test, licensed and insured.

 

[Notters]

groups of 150 cyclists blocking both lanes of dual carriage ways piss me off , large groups of cyclists blocking roads when there are cycle lanes in place for them piss me off , cyclists who think red lights don't apply to them piss me off , at the end of the day they are using a public facility that is built and maintained using money from petrol and road taxes to which they are not subject , assumptions by cyclists that the roads are there to share piss me off.

full house!!!

 

[sten_super]

Making overarching assumptions that might affect liability sees a bit of a precedent. We all have a duty of care to each other, whether it's a nine-stone jogger running past a (heavier) old pensioner or a Mini driver overtaking a (lighter) Fiat 500. As a driver I accept that I have a duty of care towards everyone, and that most definitely includes cyclists. My point was the most simple of practical ones - for their own safety cyclists should, like motorcyclists, be required to wear certain apparel. Helmets in the case of motorcyclists, high-viz clothing for cyclists. I'd like to reduce the chances of disaster in the first place. It's more important than establishing a (dodgy, I'd argue) legal assumption that might assist in the prosecution of someone after a fatal accident had taken place.

One quick clarification, as both you and [MENTION=153]perseus[/MENTION] have mentioned it - my 'descending weight order' comment was a bit of an over-complication, in an effort to be brief - it creates a heirarchy of road users (e.g. HGV - Van - Car - Motorcycle - Bike - Pedestrian), rather than being based on weight (so there'd be no distinction between a light car and a heavy car).

I agree with you entirely that we want safety on the roads. I'm not sure that mandating outfits is the best way to go about it. For starters, high-vis clothing makes cyclists look like e an 'out group' (i.e. not normal), as well as making it look like a dangerous thing to do, both of which may put people off cycling (and, given there are substantial health benefits to physical activity, that's a bad thing). It also introduces 'barriers to entry' - i.e. more stuff that you need to buy, or consider doing, before you can start a cycling trip. It's effectiveness is also very situation-dependent. Please note that I'm not against wearing high vis (and I do, when the situation calls for it, such as when it's dark or weather conditions make seeing other road users more difficult), but against making it mandatory, at least without exploring some of these other effects.

There are similar (IMHO much stronger) arguments against making helmets mandatory, which I know you've not bought up but often is.

I don't think presumed liability is just about apportioning blame after the event - it should encourage behavioural change which results in less accidents taking place. That should be the aim of any policy involving road safety, IMHO, and is another black mark against the mandatory helmets idea (as that is absolutely only dealing with the outcome, rather than the cause).

 

[beorhthelm]

i think they must be. they seem to be unable to see left indicators when undertaking traffic.

 

[Monsieur Le Plonk]

full house!!!

From the budget -
From 2017, new cars will pay emissions-based vehicle excise duty, he says, £140 on average. No extra revenue will be raised, but it will be "more secure", and the money will be spent on roads,

 

[Bombadier Botty]

groups of 150 cyclists blocking both lanes of dual carriage ways piss me off , large groups of cyclists blocking roads when there are cycle lanes in place for them piss me off , cyclists who think red lights don't apply to them piss me off , at the end of the day they are using a public facility that is built and maintained using money from petrol and road taxes to which they are not subject , assumptions by cyclists that the roads are there to share piss me off.

Bit of a ridiculous post. Like most cyclists I should imagine, I own a car (that my other half uses most of the time) and so pay the taxes of which you speak and yet spend most of my time cycling everywhere, thus freeing up traffic jam space on overcrowded roads for those who purely choose to drive everywhere. Quite a decent, altruistic gesture towards motorists on my part wouldn't you say? In fact people like me should get a discounted rate on road tax, and maybe petrol as well now you come to mention it. Lycra I would never wear.

 

[Codner's Wallop]

Agreed

Well, I was aiming to be a tad more diplomatic...but you're on the money here.

It's hard to imagine another country where drivers are more inconsiderate or aggressive than here. Others with more experience of driving abroad than I do, may disagree?

 

[Notters]

From the budget -
From 2017, new cars will pay emissions-based vehicle excise duty, he says, £140 on average. No extra revenue will be raised, but it will be "more secure", and the money will be spent on roads,

Thanks. Are low emissions vehicles now going to be paying?

 

[Hillian1]

Thanks. Are low emissions vehicles now going to be paying?

I tend to fart quite a bit while cycling.

Wonder how they'll monitor that.

 

[Monsieur Le Plonk]

Thanks. Are low emissions vehicles now going to be paying?

Pegged to emissions allegedly. George reckons there will be three duty bands - zero emission, standard and premium - 95% of car owners will pay £140 a year.

 

[Notters]

Pegged to emissions allegedly. George reckons there will be three duty bands - zero emission, standard and premium - 95% of car owners will pay £140 a year.

Thanks. Are we in agreement that bicycles would still fit into the zero emission category? (not including the riders!)

 

[Bombadier Botty]

I tend to fart quite a bit while cycling.

Wonder how they'll monitor that.

Indeed. I'm often surprised not to see a mushroom cloud above the peloton in the Tour de France.

 

[Dr. Notthenineo'clocknews]

I'm also a cyclist, pedestrian and car owner.

Just on a side issue, I'm presently in liaison with Sussex OB regarding some footage I have of a 4 wheel drive owner that constantly mounts the pavement drives on the grass verge and the wrong side of the road, at speed out side Telscombe Cliffs School, as was witnessed by many yesterday narrowly missing my six year old son.

Carry on

 

[portlock seagull]

I'm also a cyclist, pedestrian and car owner.

Just on a side issue, I'm presently in liaison with Sussex OB regarding some footage I have of a 4 wheel drive owner that constantly mounts the pavement drives on the grass verge and the wrong side of the road, at speed out side Telscombe Cliffs School, as was witnessed by many yesterday narrowly missing my six year old son.

Carry on[/QUOTE

can sort out more locally if occurring regularly? Is it a commuter? Parent?