Advocacy & Safety - Proposed EU Cycling Laws Would Increase Motorist Responsibility

Ooops, I see this is like seven years old, sorry, can't delete OP without mod support.

:o

Driver fury over Euro cycle laws
Motorists face soaring premiums for bike crashes
Joanna Walters, transport editor
The Observer, Sunday 4 August 2002
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/aug/04/politics.transport

A furious row is set to erupt between Britain and Europe over proposed legislation to make car drivers responsible for all accidents involving cyclists - even when the bike rider has broken the law and is in the wrong.

To the delight of cyclists and the dismay of drivers, a European law is being planned to force motorists to pay compensation and damages in all accidents with cyclists. The measure will put car insurance premiums up by an average £50.

The move prompted a furious response last night from motoring and insurance organisations, which claimed it would encourage 'bicycle guerrillas' who do not obey the Highway Code and frequently shoot red lights.

The proposed law, supposedly designed to harmonise car insurance terms across Europe, contains measures to crack down on drivers in Britain, where officials believe legislation is biased in favour of motorists.

The European Commission document says: '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.'

The British Government is expected to oppose the move, arguing that Britain should be allowed to opt out of the legislation provoking a battle between Britain and European officials, who want it to be imposed Europe-wide.

Insurers and motoring groups have vowed to fight 'tooth and nail' to prevent the law being imposed on Britain.

'Drivers are going to have to pay higher premiums to compensate cyclists for their own mistakes,' said Kevin Delaney of the RAC.

'Many cyclists behave as if there were no legal constraints upon them - ignoring traffic lights, signs, one-way streets and pedestrian crossings, travelling as fast as possible with no lights or bell: they are bicycle guerrillas.'

The pro-cycling lobby says the law would 'redress the balance' against 'the most vulnerable road user'. Supporters want motorists to be criminally liable for any acci dent involving a cyclist or pedestrian.

Refusing to condemn cyclists who break the law and are to blame for some accidents, Kevin Mayne, director of national cycling body CTC, said the numbers of aggressive cyclists breaking the law and harassing drivers were hugely exaggerated.

The law could lead to a tougher criminal process for drivers who injure or kill cyclists, he said. 'It's not the person sitting in their steel box who gets killed by the cyclist.'

The proposals have been drawn up by from the Internal Market Directorate of the European Commission and will be debated by the European Parliament in the autumn. If Britain opposes the plan, it would be imposed here with majority support from other EU countries.

European officials believe the move will make the roads safer and encourage more people to get on their bikes.

In Britain, drivers are presumed innocent and not liable for compensation unless the cyclist can prove negligence. But in France, Belgium, Scandinavia, Holland and Germany, drivers are almost always liable and must pay compensation from their insurance policies.

Cycling in Britain now accounts for less than 2 per cent of all journeys undertaken each year, compared with 80 per cent of journeys by car. Britons made an average of 16 trips per person by bike last year, compared with 21 in 1991.

The RAC claimed insurance premiums could jump by 10 per cent, adding about £50 to the price of the average comprehensive motor policy.

Mayne said: 'We expect a ferocious fight from the motor and insurance industries.'

That's a little too far. I'd put an at fault accident with a pedestrian, motorcycle, or bicycle at the same level as a DWI with a mandatory 6 month suspension. I've seen a lot of bad riding by bikes to justify a blanket at fault with any type of accident.

This all goes back to the fact that if police actually enforced laws that prevent accidents, we wouldn't need this. I don't like new laws being passed for anything.

In NYC, it looks like enforcement is down and fatalities are up.

:eek:

http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07_16/lead_0715_1.jpg

http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/07/14/ta-report-reckless-driving-casualties-rising-as-nypd-enforcement-lags/

Man. It's a shame that the USA doesn't take cycling as seriously as a method of transportation as Europe. The laws in the USA are so weak at protecting riders on the road.

Man. It's a shame that the USA doesn't take cycling as seriously as a method of transportation as Europe. The laws in the USA are so weak at protecting riders on the road.

This isn't talking about protecting cyclists. It's talking about making someone else pay if a cyclist doesn't follow the law.

This isn't talking about protecting cyclists. It's talking about making someone else pay if a cyclist doesn't follow the law.

I think it's more about creating a stronger incentive for motorists to drive defensively

motorists control the largest deadliest vehicles on the road and they need to take more responsibility not only for themselves but for those around them in traffic

It's all about balance. Europe (and I believe Japan, as well) is leaning too far one way by nailing innocent motorists, but the U.S. and U.K. have been overly lenient with motorists, taking an "accidents to happen" attitude toward careless, inattentive driving.

It's all about balance. Europe (and I believe Japan, as well) is leaning too far one way by nailing innocent motorists, but the U.S. and U.K. have been overly lenient with motorists, taking an "accidents to happen" attitude toward careless, inattentive driving.

Is Europe and Japan really going after "innocent motorists?"

The way I understand the laws, the motorist is presumed responsible for injuries to more vulnerable parties, IE peds and cyclists. The laws typically provide provisions for situations in which a vulnerable party acted poorly, and may have been the root cause of any subsequent injuries.

What the laws primarily do is establish the burden of responsibility with the party who has the greater potential for injury and damage... the motorist.

Our system establishes that any party is innocent until proven guilty, but the burden of proof has to come from either the injured party or their lawful representative... and very rarely do LEOs or DAs fulfill their duties when cyclists are involved... based on a false premise that cyclists "bring it upon themselves" by committing the "offense" of riding a bicycle in an "automotive environment." This lack of enforcement has even gone to level of mocking irony when cyclists have been hit and tickets have not been even issued for violations of the three foot passing laws. The exceptions for actions by LEOs and DAs has been when alcohol is involved.

Is Europe and Japan really going after "innocent motorists?"

The way I understand the laws, the motorist is presumed responsible for injuries to more vulnerable parties, IE peds and cyclists. The laws typically provide provisions for situations in which a vulnerable party acted poorly, and may have been the root cause of any subsequent injuries.

What the laws primarily do is establish the burden of responsibility with the party who has the greater potential for injury and damage... the motorist.

Our system establishes that any party is innocent until proven guilty, but the burden of proof has to come from either the injured party or their lawful representative... and very rarely do LEOs or DAs fulfill their duties when cyclists are involved... based on a false premise that cyclists "bring it upon themselves" by committing the "offense" of riding a bicycle in an "automotive environment." This lack of enforcement has even gone to level of mocking irony when cyclists have been hit and tickets have not been even issued for violations of the three foot passing laws. The exceptions for actions by LEOs and DAs has been when alcohol is involved.
+1; I'll support any idea that reduces the rights and increases the responsibilities of motor vehicle operators.

+1; I'll support any idea that reduces the rights and increases the responsibilities of motor vehicle operators.

Around here I see plenty of wrong-way and otherwise completely clueless cyclists, many of them unlit and wearing black or dark blue or gray at night. The one time my car collided with a bicyclist, it was the (fortunately, only very trivially) injured cyclist "victim" who was clearly at fault. He was man enough to admit his error and to apologize to me, but not everyone exhibits that level of maturity.

Around here I see plenty of wrong-way and otherwise completely clueless cyclists, many of them unlit and wearing black or dark blue or gray at night. The one time my car collided with a bicyclist, it was the (fortunately, only very trivially) injured cyclist "victim" who was clearly at fault. He was man enough to admit his error and to apologize to me, but not everyone exhibits that level of maturity.

But those very situations are probably good examples of cyclists that would be found at fault, even with the aforementioned laws. Consider for instance that lighting is a requirement and is sold as part of many commuter type bikes in Europe. Consider also that in Copenhagen for instance, school kids are given classes on how to be proper bike riders.

Here in the US we give carte blanche to motorists, poorly train those same motorists, and then don't enforce the laws and any lessons on proper cycling generally are either difficult to find or are scant. And we wonder why people in US generally depend only on automobiles for transportation and why motorists have such strong convictions regarding their "ownership" of the road.