Advocacy & Safety - Strict Liability Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_Bq1vxCUvo&feature=player_embedded

With Strict Liability, it's always the motorist at fault when they collide with vulnerable road users like pedestrians and cyclists.

In the film, Hans Voerknecht, international coordinator of the Dutch Fietsberaad explains how this works in practice.

Basically, cars kill. Those who drive cars and kill or injure people are liable, simply because of the responsibility involved in operating a 2000 kg machine.

- The UK is only one of four Western European countries that doesnt have 'strict liability' to protect cyclists and pedestrians.

- Strict liability entitles a crash victim to compensation unless the driver can prove the cyclist or pedestrian was at fault.

- Strict liability encourages more careful driving (and cycling, because a cyclist would be deemed to be at fault for crashing into a pedestrian).

Interesting that the UK is one of the places without "strict liability." The UK also has the lowest cycling modal share of Europe.

I also tend to fully agree with the speaker regarding the issue of the car driver knowing that cyclists have the potential for doing "odd things," so the car driver is responsible for avoiding the cyclist... as cyclists do "odd things."

Here in the US it is not uncommon to be passed by a motorist that gives you less than a foot clearance... and of course we all know the common "I didn't see the cyclist" confession... as well as "the cyclist swerved."

The "cyclist swerved;" ha! But of course he did dear... cyclists do that, so why are you driving so friggen' close to the potentially swerving cyclist?

Baffles the mind, eh?

Of course the typical response here will be, "you can't do that." "That is akin to being found guilty without trial." Hey, guess what we have such laws in place now... ever hear of "use a gun, go to jail?"

Well enough of me ranting...

Bob Mionske has some interesting insight into a similar topic... while not strict liability, it is about vulnerable user laws.

http://bicycling.com/blogs/roadrights/2010/02/01/traffic-injustice-part-ii/#comment-618

Strict liability was new to me so I did a quick check. (http://law.freeadvice.com/general_practice/legal_remedies/strict_liabilty.htm)

"Strict liability is a legal doctrine that makes some persons responsible for damages their actions or products cause, regardless of any "fault" on their part.

Strict liability often applies when people engage in inherently hazardous activities, such as doing "blasting" in a city, or keeping wild circus animals. If the blasting damages you -- no matter how careful the blasting company was -- it is liable for the injury. Similarly if the animals escape and injure someone, the fact that the circus used the world's strongest cages and the highest standard of care imaginable will not let it get off the hook."

It seems the Dutch don't go quite this far. I like their approach in which the burden of proof shifts to the least vulnerable category.

It seems the Dutch don't go quite this far. I like their approach in which the burden of proof shifts to the least vulnerable category.
This seems like a smart idea. Also to note, the laws don't apply to criminal cases, only civil cases.

Driving a car and you hit a bicyclist or pedestrian, you should be the one to pay for the damages, unless you can prove the cyclist or pedestrian wasn't at fault. None of this, "I didn't see him!" crap. You didn't see him, guess you can't prove its not your fault, eh?

I've always felt that motorists have a greater responsibility, in much the same way that semi drivers have a greater responsibility than motorists. The difference, of course, is that the law recognizes the greater responsibility of a semi driver...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_Bq1vxCUvo&feature=player_embedded

With Strict Liability, it's always the motorist at fault when they collide with vulnerable road users like pedestrians and cyclists.

In the film, Hans Voerknecht, international coordinator of the Dutch Fietsberaad explains how this works in practice.

Basically, cars kill. Those who drive cars and kill or injure people are liable, simply because of the responsibility involved in operating a 2000 kg machine.

- The UK is only one of four Western European countries that doesnt have 'strict liability' to protect cyclists and pedestrians.

- Strict liability entitles a crash victim to compensation unless the driver can prove the cyclist or pedestrian was at fault.

- Strict liability encourages more careful driving (and cycling, because a cyclist would be deemed to be at fault for crashing into a pedestrian).

I'm not expert, but I think the "four Euro countries" bit is a bit misleading, since not many countries have it to the same extent as Holland. Denmark, for example, has a much looser application. Again, that's from my understanding -- I can't seem to find much detail right now.

I have seen some crazy stuff in Holland, though, where cyclists just ride right out in front of cars, even without the right of way, and practically dare them to hit them. Very extreme, but still a problem.

Regardless, I totally support such laws, even with their flaws.

I seem to remember that when this law was first accepted in Holland, the UK was flat out against it, but now it's considering it.

I can't remember all the countries that have adopted it (just Holland, Denmark, and Germany) but again, if I remember right, it's worked out well. There wasn't nearly the chaos predicted, cyclists just didn't start cutting off cars. From my understanding, collisions between cyclists and motorists decreased.

If that's the case (and if anyone knows anything any differently than what my impression is, please say so) maybe that's why the UK is reconsidering it.

I don't like this law. Simply because sometimes cyclists do dumb things and ride dangerously. Why should a safe motorist be penalised in this situation where there weren't actually at fault? I agree that more needs to be done about awareness of cyclists and motorists driving more safely, but you can't just put blame on them. Perhaps a situation where to get a driving licence you must spend a year on a bicycle / motorbike / scooter / moped so you see why we do what we do.

It's not blame, it's liability; there is a difference

I don't like this law. Simply because sometimes cyclists do dumb things and ride dangerously. Why should a safe motorist be penalised in this situation where there weren't actually at fault? I agree that more needs to be done about awareness of cyclists and motorists driving more safely, but you can't just put blame on them. Perhaps a situation where to get a driving licence you must spend a year on a bicycle / motorbike / scooter / moped so you see why we do what we do.

Since cyclists do in fact "do dumb things and ride dangerously," why is it that so many freakin' motorists drive so close to those dumb cyclists?

That is a good point and one which would be, hopefully, fixed with education. On second thoughts nothing that can be reasonably done will stop motorists "having to get to the traffic jam 5 seconds quicker". I am now leaning more to agreeing with the proposed law, however would like to see some caution taken with its implementation.

Since cyclists do in fact "do dumb things and ride dangerously," why is it that so many freakin' motorists drive so close to those dumb cyclists?

Because dumb cyclists and dumb motorists are one and the same.

-Kurt

I understand the approach but it makes me uncomfortable because

1. North America is not Europe and with attitudes towards bikes here, my concern is that this would lead to a bigger push to get bicyclist off the street.

2. I see a lot of "in the wrong" cyclists...... ninja black no lights, blowing reds fast, riding on wrong side of street etc. This type of law would do nothing to discourage that type of behavior

That said there has to be a better way to stop and ticket drivers who pass too close, etc.....but ways to do this like traffic cams are often opposed in North America

I understand the approach but it makes me uncomfortable because

1. North America is not Europe and with attitudes towards bikes here, my concern is that this would lead to a bigger push to get bicyclist off the street.

2. I see a lot of "in the wrong" cyclists...... ninja black no lights, blowing reds fast, riding on wrong side of street etc. This type of law would do nothing to discourage that type of behavior

That said there has to be a better way to stop and ticket drivers who pass too close, etc.....but ways to do this like traffic cams are often opposed in North America

Actually regarding the ninjas et. al., the law may be enough incentive for LEOs to start ticketing those cyclists to prevent abuse of said law.

I'm not sure how it would really be possible for cyclists to abuse strict liability laws. Are cyclists going to suddenly start risking death or serious injury just to spite motorists? Liability doesn't really matter that much after you're dead, does it?

Since cyclists do in fact "do dumb things and ride dangerously," why is it that so many freakin' motorists drive so close to those dumb cyclists?

In North America it's because the motorist can do no wrong, and there is no penalty for the motorist, the cyclist or pedestrian on the other hand, does pay, sometimes with their life. I think the real issue with buzzing passes, is that the modern automobile is designed as a rolling living room rather then as a mode of transport. You crank up the tunes, settle back with your phone in your hand, even though it's illegal, and your not paying attention to what you are doing, which is piloting a motor vehicle. Every year they add more and more crap to grab the attention of the driver away from the real task at hand. Part of the problem, I think is that realistically, driving the modern motor vehicle is a boring activity, and drivers are not paying attention to it, so they don't see the bicycle until they are dragging it down the road with them.

Drivers need better education, and government transportation authorities need to make it much easier to lose driving privileges, and there need to be stiff penalties for driving with suspended privileges. A fine equivalent to one years income would be a good example, the fine must be paid before driving privileges can be restored. There should be a required retesting of all drivers every 5 years, for drivers over the age of 60, this would be every 2 years, and every year for drivers more then 70, every driver should permanently fail the test somewhere between 70 and 80 years of age.

Testing would fall into 5 possible results, depending on your score out of 30:
24+ - the drivers skills and faculties are sufficient for their licence to be renewed.
21-23 - the driver did not pass, should take a skills refresher course then take the test again. Licence NOT suspended, but not renewed either.
18-20 - the driver did not pass, should take a skills refresher course then take the test again. Licence suspended until they pass.
15-17 - the driver did not pass, driver should be required to retrain from beginning, licence cancelled.
< 15 - the driver did not pass, this person should NEVER be allowed to drive again.

Testing should consist of a 30 minute simulator road test, that has 200 possible scenarios, it randomly throws 30 of those scenarios at you each is worth a point, they are grouped so that they get progressively harder as you go along, an easy one might be a stop sign, a little harder one might be a speed limit sign (better not be over that speed), a hard one might be a drunk ninja on a bicycle, weaving all over the place (you can't hit him). This test would be sufficiently hard that the best drivers are worried. An ideal is that the first time through the test, somewhere around two thirds to three quarters of drivers do not pass, with at least one third scoring below 18.

I don't like this law. Simply because sometimes cyclists do dumb things and ride dangerously. Why should a safe motorist be penalised in this situation where there weren't actually at fault? I agree that more needs to be done about awareness of cyclists and motorists driving more safely, but you can't just put blame on them. Perhaps a situation where to get a driving licence you must spend a year on a bicycle / motorbike / scooter / moped so you see why we do what we do.

"unless the driver can prove the cyclist or pedestrian was at fault."

the modern automobile is deYou cransigned as a rolling living room rather then as a mode of transport.
I feel the same way, the only thing left is to figure out how to get away with a 50 inch HD flat screen attached to the hood.


Testing would fall into 5 possible results, depending on your score out of 30:
24+ - the drivers skills and faculties are sufficient for their licence to be renewed.
21-23 - the driver did not pass, should take a skills refresher course then take the test again. Licence NOT suspended, but not renewed either.
18-20 - the driver did not pass, should take a skills refresher course then take the test again. Licence suspended until they pass.
15-17 - the driver did not pass, driver should be required to retrain from beginning, licence cancelled.
< 15 - the driver did not pass, this person should NEVER be allowed to drive again.

Testing should consist of a 30 minute simulator road test, that has 200 possible scenarios, it randomly throws 30 of those scenarios at you each is worth a point, they are grouped so that they get progressively harder as you go along, an easy one might be a stop sign, a little harder one might be a speed limit sign (better not be over that speed), a hard one might be a drunk ninja on a bicycle, weaving all over the place (you can't hit him). This test would be sufficiently hard that the best drivers are worried. An ideal is that the first time through the test, somewhere around two thirds to three quarters of drivers do not pass, with at least one third scoring below 18.

The problem is if that a person cannot pass the test, they'll just bypass the license altogether, and drive anyway. What is needed is severe penalties for driving without a license, something close to a first offense US DUI.

"unless the driver can prove the cyclist or pedestrian was at fault."

hmm perhaps I should learn to read! Thanks for pointing this out. In this case - BRING IT ON :D

The "cyclist swerved;" ha! But of course he did dear... cyclists do that, so why are you driving so friggen' close to the potentially swerving cyclist?


I don't... A foot or two here and there, or a very slow progression over, or a signaled move over. But I don't randomly swerve... I read a lot of newspaper comments about how cyclists swerve and I wonder who they're talking about.

I really don't expect anymore room than you give a car traveling at speed. You don't see people passing other cars within 2-3 feet...

I understand the approach but it makes me uncomfortable because

1. North America is not Europe and with attitudes towards bikes here, my concern is that this would lead to a bigger push to get bicyclist off the street.

2. I see a lot of "in the wrong" cyclists...... ninja black no lights, blowing reds fast, riding on wrong side of street etc. This type of law would do nothing to discourage that type of behavior

That said there has to be a better way to stop and ticket drivers who pass too close, etc.....but ways to do this like traffic cams are often opposed in North America


I don't think behavioral law can improve cycling.

Cyclists should join the walkability and smart growth movements with their own recommendations for city planning. Better city planning is what Europe has and what we need to:
1. Get people out of their cars.
2. Slow down the cars they do use.

In the US if you say either of those two things in a public forum you'll be looked at with more contempt than an open Marxist.

Testing should consist of a 30 minute simulator road test, that has 200 possible scenarios, it randomly throws 30 of those scenarios at you each is worth a point, they are grouped so that they get progressively harder as you go along, an easy one might be a stop sign, a little harder one might be a speed limit sign (better not be over that speed), a hard one might be a drunk ninja on a bicycle, weaving all over the place (you can't hit him). This test would be sufficiently hard that the best drivers are worried. An ideal is that the first time through the test, somewhere around two thirds to three quarters of drivers do not pass, with at least one third scoring below 18.

The test should be adaptive. Fail to deal with a pedestrian crossing wrong? You get more issues that deal with pedestrians.

I'm not expert, but I think the "four Euro countries" bit is a bit misleading, since not many countries have it to the same extent as Holland. Denmark, for example, has a much looser application. Again, that's from my understanding -- I can't seem to find much detail right now.

I have seen some crazy stuff in Holland, though, where cyclists just ride right out in front of cars, even without the right of way, and practically dare them to hit them. Very extreme, but still a problem.

Regardless, I totally support such laws, even with their flaws.

My understanding is that in Germany it is at least as strict, but ONLY when the bike is in a bike lane. That has pros and cons for cyclists.