General Cycling Discussion - E.U. Law

Listening to radio this morning I heard that the E.U,(European Union).
Is introducing a Legaslative Law whereby any motorist involved in an accident with a cyclist is liable to be charged and costed with the accident regardless of wether it was their fault or not.

Is this a victory for the cyclist?

Motoring insureres are stating that this will increase car premiums by £50 a year , with the usual reaction from motoring orginisations and drivers

A motorist came onto the radio programme slagging off cyclists, the usual thing "cyclists should not be on the roads" why should we pay through the nose for using the roads when cyclists pay nothing.

Is this as much a victory as it sounds though i can now see the situation where a hit and run occurs rather than a motorist hanging around to face the consequences!

what do others think

As much as I like to think the motorists should be responsible for any accidents they cause, whether with a cyclist or another car, I think cyclists or anyone for that matter, should also be responsible for their actions if they are in the wrong. This ruling doesn't seem to embrace that concept.

It has long been the case in places like Belgium and the Netherlands [or so I am given to understand] that, in the event of an accident between a car and a cyclist or pedestrian, the presumption of guilt is on the motorist. Basically, assuming that no one does anything really stupid, like step right out into traffic, motorists have a legal responsibiity to be more careful than cyclists and pedestrians. If this is being adopted across Europe, I think it is a good thing.

As motorists are in control of a vehicle that has a much greater potential for damage and harm, then yes an increased responsibility lies with them. It should be pointed out to irate motorists that this also applies to cyclists who choose to use split cycle/pedestrian paths and shouldn't hurtle along at 20 mph.

The presumption of guilt excepting stupid behaviour seems sensible but according to most press info on the proposed law though, this doesn't seem to be the case, as Willic describes.

Even if it was, where do you draw the line for stupid behaviour? What a cyclist may describe as an assertive maneuver to maintain a safe position may be described as reckless or aggressive by many drivers.

On the other hand perhaps drivers should realise that driving is not a racing computer game and that they are in control of a ton (and upwards) of metal going at speeds man was not designed to react at, or survive.

Of course care and tolerance from all road users would make the situation infinitely better but that's just not going to happen.

Blaming the motorist for every car/bike crash is not fair.

In the Netherlands, where this law is already in effect, it is forbidden to cycle on any road that has a cycle path alongside it.
In the United States, the law often allows police to order a cyclist off the road (and on to the path) whenever there is a path next to the road.


Here's something interesting:

www.hsa.lr.tudelft.nl/~bvo/fiets/nlbybike.htm

Originally posted by willic
Listening to radio this morning I heard that the E.U,(European Union).
Is introducing a Legaslative Law whereby any motorist involved in an accident with a cyclist is liable to be charged and costed with the accident regardless of wether it was their fault or not.

!

what do others think
that is good to hear,:beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :fun: :roflmao:

I favor the E.U. law, in the sense that every motorist's Prime Directive is to avoid a collision with another road user. In the U.S., the legal system too frequently sides with the motorist. However, whenever the bicyclist or pedestrian clearly causes the collision, the motorist should not be held accountable.

In the Netherlands, where this law is already in effect, it is forbidden to cycle on any road that has a cycle path alongside it

I have learnt that those rules apply year also. If a bike path is available alongside a road, on the same side you are travelling, then you are required to use it. It isn't enforced though, the police don't hassle cyclist's. The revenue gained wouldn't be worth the paper work, especially if it goes to court. Thankfully the police put most of their attention at speeding cars and drunk driver's

CHEERS.

Mark

Originally posted by Niall
The presumption of guilt excepting stupid behaviour seems sensible but according to most press info on the proposed law though, this doesn't seem to be the case, as Willic describes.

I'd like to see the press release of the actual law before making too many comments. However, I have long advocated the presumption of guilt policy being applied to the larger vehicle (whatever that vehicle may be) on the condition that there is a clause excepting exceptional circumstances (like stupidity on the part of the smaller vehicle).


Originally posted by Niall

Even if it was, where do you draw the line for stupid behaviour? What a cyclist may describe as an assertive maneuver to maintain a safe position may be described as reckless or aggressive by many drivers.

In theory at least, this is why we have courts and judges.


Originally posted by Dutchy
I have learnt that those rules apply year also. If a bike path is available alongside a road, on the same side you are travelling, then you are required to use it.

That's not true. The law applies to a bikelane rather than a bike path as such. There is a difference. There was a post here from Allister some time ago where he successfully argued this one with a cop in Brisbane who thought he shouldn't be on the road.

For those outside the UK, the proverbial has hit the fan, this story has made the first few pages of every national newspaper and the TV news - Obviously now the Commonwelth Games are over, and they are bored with reporting yet another bombing in India/Israel/Spain, they have all found a nice 'local' story that will run and run.

Never let a little truth get in the way of a good story

http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,2763,769369,00.html

Todays Guardian (A national upmarket broadsheet)

Nice link Brains.

I'm covering for 83 Brits who don't cycle (if the average is 77km per year)

I think we shouldn't get confused about the difference between civil and criminal law.

From what I read this relates to civil actions (i.e claims for compensation) and if it does, I'm not in favour, as it means presumably that insurers will have to prove liability by a cyclist to refute a claim for damages, leading to increased costs all round. However, it may push more cyclists to get insurance and you can decide for yourselves if it's a good idea.

I don't think it will affect criminal actions(i.e in Uk the presumption of innocence until proven guilty) so I'm not sure there'll be more hit and runs.

The placing of the onus to prove innocence on the driver (if that is indeed what this law will mean), is fairly reasonable as they are probably the cause of more accidents. Unfortunately most TV and printed reports only mention that drivers' insurance will cover compensation whoever's fault it is. A bad reaction from the public is inevitable.

This is probably intentional PR handling by the government, hoping to please a motorists lobby which is inevitably far stronger than any cylcists one.

Final point: In every report I've read or seen (and I tend to watch quite a few bulletins on different channels) the term "guerilla cyclist" used with no mention of the crap and agro from motorists that we recieve at every junction or roundabout.

This is a defeat.

I can understand the desire for affirmative action but this will ultimately hurt cycling. It will create too much animosity among drivers. Basically it is an injustice to label someone at fault by default in a two party accident. Even presuming guilt is an injustice. If there is a disagreement about who is at fault, let the courts decide it. I would hope that most people out there would take responsibility for their actions.

I don't know the law here exactly, nor how it is applied(civil/criminal), but I just read that in Germany an accident invloving a car and a bicycle or an inline skater will automatically confer *some* guilt to the driver. This works under the presumption that the bigger the vehicle, the more responsibility. This came as part of a ruling from a German court that effectively extended the law governing pedestrians to bikes and inline skaters.

Interesting to note that the same general principle applies to boating, whereby the vessel under less power (a sailboat, for example) has greater rights of way.

Also in Germany, although a stretch of Autobahn may have no speed limit, a driver going more than 180 kmh (110 mph) will automatically have to bear some guilt in an accident.

Cheers,
Jamie

In the case of boating, I believe a sailboat is given right of way because of its lack of manueverability. It can't stop or turn as quickly as a power boat under a variety of conditions. This is also why a smaller boat must yield right of way to a larger boat. This analogy hurts the argument that motorists should be presumed guilty in a car/bicycle accident.

Again I would say we have to watch the distinction between presumed guilt vis a vis a criminal law and presumed liability vis a vis civil law.

they are not the same. Presumption of guilt rather than presumption of innocence goes against the the very fabric of the law here, but strict liability ( fault) does exist in many circumstances in UK law in respect of liability for damages

I suppose there should be a difference in civil vs. criminal but traffic accidents are not always purely civil matters. If the accident is caused by a violation of a traffic law shouldn't that be considered criminal. At least in cases where intent to harm or accidental death, criminal charges are sometimes pursued.

Regardless, I don't think liability should be a default in any case. Let the circumstances of each accident decide who is responsible. If there is a clear guilty party and a clear innocent party, why should liability be handed by default (possibly to the innocent party)? Is it not an injustice for a victim to take responsibility for the actions of the transgressor?

I know the EU law making motorist at fault for accidents with cyclists sounds wacky. But it may make policy sense.

I assume that motorists are required to have insurance. Few cyclists have insurance. Serious accidents involving cyclists are rare. Having the motorist's insurance policy cover the damages is almost certainly pretty cheap and maybe it is even cheaper in the long run then figuring out who is at fault and who is liable. We are talking about civil liability here and not about anything else. Civil liability can be counter intuitive.

That's not true. The law applies to a bikelane rather than a bike path as such.

You are right, I have checked my road rules and I was incorrect.

CHEERS.

Mark

Originally posted by willic
Motoring insureres are stating that this will increase car premiums by £50 a year

I'll bet you this is the real cause of the up-roar. And I expect that the amount of the rate hike is unjustified, but is being leveraged an opportunity to increase profits, using cyclists as the scapegoat.

I've never been involved in a case here in the US, but barring a few exceptions, the cyclist is presumed guilty. Or at least, the motorist is let off with little more than a nod and a wink.

There are exceptions. A recent incident in North Carolina comes to mind. An intoxicated driver hit a stopped cyclist, apparently on the side of the road, and "left the scene." There must have been witnesses, because amazingly, the vehicle and owner were located and charged with an assortment of infractions. The cyclist was in critical condition... I don't know the outcome. They may have found some way to fault the cyclist.

Originally posted by JDP
This is a defeat.

I can understand the desire for affirmative action but this will ultimately hurt cycling. It will create too much animosity among drivers.

You're telling this to a guy who gets honked/abused on a almost daily basis. I would argue the animosity already exists. As far as I am concerned, it's now only a question of trying to curb the behaviour that results from this animosity, something this law will do very effectively.


Originally posted by JDP

Basically it is an injustice to label someone at fault by default in a two party accident. Even presuming guilt is an injustice.

Assuming, of course that it is an accident. I don't believe anything resulting from negligence can be considered any more accidental than deliberate.


Originally posted by JDP
If there is a disagreement about who is at fault, let the courts decide it. I would hope that most people out there would take responsibility for their actions.

Agreed. Unfortunately, history tells us that generally people don't take responsibility for their actions. It's about time that motorists started to face up to the fact that being in control of a vehicle that can easily kill another human being is, in itself, an awesome responsibility.

Originally posted by Chris L


Assuming, of course that it is an accident. I don't believe anything resulting from negligence can be considered any more accidental than deliberate.



I disagree to a certain extent. There is a grey area there. Negligence certainly deserves a just punishment but I think there is a special place in hell reserved for people that intend to harm others. I guess that's what you are saying though, part accident and part deliberate. The injustice arises when the cyclist is negligent, causes an accident, and then is treated as a victim.

Originally posted by JDP
The injustice arises when the cyclist is negligent, causes an accident, and then is treated as a victim.

People tend to forget just how easy it is for a driver to prove their innocence in such a situation. The rules of the road state things like speed limits, stopping at red lights, allowing at least 1 metre of space when passing a cyclist etc very clearly. If a driver wants to get off the hook, all they have to do is prove they were doing these things properly and actually following the rules of the road.

If they actually did this, traffic collisions of all kinds would be reduced.

It's not always so easy. Everyone always has their version of how an accident happens. If there are no witnesses and no conclusive evidence, who can be believed.

As an example, I was in a fender bender in my car not long ago. The guy that hit me was reversing down the road and didn't see me turning. I didn't see him until the last minute because I was looking for traffic coming in the proper direction down the road. Sounds like a pretty simple case in my favor, right? His insurance company denied my claim. I've got my ins. co. working on the legal battle but it baffles me that this even has to happen.

Besides, the EU law would place liability on the motorist regardless of how well he was driving. Imagine that you are driving your car down the road at the speed limit, following all traffic laws, and being the most defensive driver in history. Then, a biker jumps the curb and you plow right into him before you can react. You would be liable for all his medical bills, property damage, etc. including the property damage to your car. How is that fair?

Originally posted by willic
any motorist involved in an accident with a cyclist is liable to be charged and costed with the accident regardless of wether it was their fault or not.

How/why is it possible to lay the blame on the motorist if it is not the fault of the motorist? That's assinine.

Originally posted by JDP

Besides, the EU law would place liability on the motorist regardless of how well he was driving. Imagine that you are driving your car down the road at the speed limit, following all traffic laws, and being the most defensive driver in history. Then, a biker jumps the curb and you plow right into him before you can react. You would be liable for all his medical bills, property damage, etc. including the property damage to your car. How is that fair?

This was not how I read the law. It merely suggested that the motorist had to prove they weren't negligent in order to avoid a civil law suit claim. And having seen the way most drivers around here flout the road rules without even caring about the consequences, I'd say the laws of probability are that the guilty until proven innocent assumption would be correct far more often than not.

Originally posted by Chris L


This was not how I read the law. It merely suggested that the motorist had to prove they weren't negligent in order to avoid a civil law suit claim.

This is exactly how I read the law.




Drive safely and drive with consideration and you'll have nothing to worry about.

My driver's education teacher insisted that all drivers involved in an accident were at least partially to blame. We came up with the most extreme examples to prove him wrong (like a deer jumping from behind a boulder into the road at the last nano-second). He held his ground.

His point was 1) virtually all accidents are avoidable if the drivers are all paying full and proper attention to every aspect of their driving, and driving accordingly; 2) if you are not willing to take the consequences for getting behind the wheel, you shouldn't do it.

I think that there is something to this.

Cheers,
Jamie

while i believe that no one should be assumed guilty until proven innocent... i don't think that this is what this law means.


Guardian article quoting EU Commission: "a growing demand from pedestrians and cyclists - the weakest parties in traffic accidents - to be protected by the insurance coverage of the vehicle involved".

i haven't read the full text, but i don't think it means a flat: accident occured = driver has to pay, but merely changes the process and makes it easier for cyclists to collect damages and easier to get the "fair" responsibility: currently motorists have big insurance companies handling their caes, denying claims and picking up most legal/administrative costs to PREVENT payment to cyclists when motorists are at fault. most cyclists do not have insurance and either have to fight the big insurance companies alone or pay for a lawyer out of their own pocket --


further EU Commision: "Motor vehicles cause most accidents. Whoever is responsible, pedestrians and cyclists usually suffer more. In some member states the cyclist is covered by the insurance of the vehicle involved in the accident irrespective of whether the driver is at fault."

i completely aggree --- most of the severe accidents involve motor vehicles b/c they travel at greater speeds and are SO much larger and can inflict so much more damage. thus, these users should bear the brunt of responsibility and the processing/administrative costs (also since motorists are required to be insured and most of the work is handled w/i the insurance realm anyway)


"This new law will mean that the driver will have to prove that he/she was not at fault whereas at the moment the onus is on the victim to prove negligence. That is the big difference," said Brigitte Chaudhry, national secretary of traffic accident charity Roadpeace.

my interpretation of the little i have seen --- is that this is exactly right! if a cyclist is truly at fault, then an insurance company can so rule (you don't think insurance companies would just pay out a huge settlement w/o a legal appeal do you?) and then a judge or court can determine what's really right and the user with more potential to do damage (motorist) and more ability to get the right "profesional help" through an insurance representative (motorist) bears more of the burden.

although i have only been involved in one collision with an Auto and it was not serve (a motorist stopped at a stop sign, inched forward to turn right w/o looking left, running over my front wheel as i had slowly come to the intersection but i stopped before my body was in front of the car b/c i saw he wasn't looking, but my wheel got run over) i simply asked the driver to pay for the repair cost (i think i asked for $200 for a whole new wheel/tire + my time and loss of the bike for a few days) and got it b/c he didn't want a claim...

but a friend of mine had a collision with a car who turned right in front of him - only an injured hand and maybe $100 medical, but his expensive MTB was almost totaled --- probably $1100 damage - the insurance company refused to pay because of "yadda, yadda, yadda, xyz" and my friend sought free legal advice and tried to fight on his own and after a few months had to hire a lawyer who negotiated with the insurance company but he didn't want to go to court for fear of being responsible for huge legal costs (i told him to anyway, but he was "poor" with a new baby and couldn't risk it) and then was "graciously" only determined 50% at fault (main technicality sighted: it was near-dark (before sunset) and he had a rear light, but no headlight --- even though the cyclist had right of way b/c he was going straight and the driver should have yeilded AND the driver approached from the rear, so the rear light should have been sufficent as the front light would not have been visible until the driver had already hit the cyclist...

anyway, this is exactly the kind of law that switches the balance a little more to give the cyclists a more equal playing field... and besides, motorists ARE the real danger out there and therfore, should be MORE RESPONSIBLE for their actions. currently motorists fall under the protection of the big powerful insurance companies while the cyclist is left to fight alone. cyclists are more vulnerable and need at least equal protection if not better protection than motorists!

The way you explain it, Nathan, the more sense it makes. If the new law only shifts the balance to help the underdog (cyclists) without making an automatic judgement that's written in stone against the motorist, but allows adequate appeal for the innocent, it would be a good thing.