Originally Posted by genec
It is not an issue of ROW, but simply a weighting of the burden of fault in the case of an accident.
It simply means that motorists should take more care to avoid cyclists, but cyclists don't gain any new ROW. What I am talking about is something that puts teeth into the 3 foot laws for instance... which generally are only enforced when violated... typically at an accident situation.
The idea is to remove the carte blanche "I didn't see the cyclist" or the "he swerved in front of me" excuse that is often used... when in fact there is no way for a dead cyclist to rebut that statement.
I think 3 may be going too far... 8 and 9 are pretty close.
No matter what though, the motoring public needs to be made more "aware" than they are now...
However, cyclists are killed in only a very small fraction of car-bike collisions. Therefore, there are many chances for the cyclist to rebut the swerving accusation. As for the "I didn't see the cyclist" excuse, that is susceptible to strong challenges. Lightless cyclists at night, of course, are practically unable to challenge such an accusation. However, if the circumstances are such that there was a direct line of sight between motorist and cyclist at the time when the motorist could have avoided the collision, the standard legal principle of keeping a proper lookout applies. The motorist cannot get away with the excuse of not seeing the cyclist when he should, and was capable of, seeing him. However, any driver who sees another vehicle is entitled to consider that the other driver will obey the law, until the other driver shows that he is, or is about to, disobey the law. At that point, the doctrine of last clear chance to avoid the collision is relevant and might well apply.
Most members of our society operate on the basis that cyclists are incompetent and might do anything, so that a motorist who collides with a cyclist often can "get away" without being held responsible for the collision. As in "the cyclist swerved in front of me" excuse. While the strict legal theory is that cyclists should operate as drivers of vehicles, our social and highway policies are based on the public view that cyclists are, and should be considered to be, incompetent. That is what I hold against the bikeway and bicycle advocates who advocate a system that is based on this public superstition.