E.U. Law
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: N.E.England.(geordieland)
Posts: 605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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
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
#2
Love Me....Love My Bike!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,231
Bikes: Bikes: Giant hybrid, Trek 4500, Cannondale R800 Some commuting 20mi/day, mostly fitness riding - 20-50 mile rides
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
__________________
"...perhaps the world needs a little more Canada" - Jean Chretian, 2003.
"...perhaps the world needs a little more Canada" - Jean Chretian, 2003.
#3
human
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: living in the moment
Posts: 3,562
Bikes: 2005 Litespeed Teramo, 2000 Marinoni Leggero, 2001 Kona Major Jake (with Campy Centaur), 1997 Specialized S-Works M2, 1992 Specialized Rockhopper
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
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.
__________________
when walking, just walk. when sitting, just sit. when riding, just ride. above all, don't wobble.
The Irregular Cycling Club of Montreal
Cycling irregularly since 2002
when walking, just walk. when sitting, just sit. when riding, just ride. above all, don't wobble.
The Irregular Cycling Club of Montreal
Cycling irregularly since 2002
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 80
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
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.
#5
Sumanitu taka owaci
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 8,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
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
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
__________________
No worries
No worries
#6
riding a Pinarello Prince
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Downtown Toronto,Canada
Posts: 2,409
Bikes: Pinarello, Prince and an FP5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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
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
__________________
"Racso", the well oiled machine;)
"Racso", the well oiled machine;)
#7
feros ferio
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: www.ci.encinitas.ca.us
Posts: 21,793
Bikes: 1959 Capo Modell Campagnolo; 1960 Capo Sieger (2); 1962 Carlton Franco Suisse; 1970 Peugeot UO-8; 1982 Bianchi Campione d'Italia; 1988 Schwinn Project KOM-10;
Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1390 Post(s)
Liked 1,322 Times
in
835 Posts
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.
__________________
"Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." --Theodore Roosevelt
Capo: 1959 Modell Campagnolo, S/N 40324; 1960 Sieger (2), S/N 42624, 42597
Carlton: 1962 Franco Suisse, S/N K7911
Peugeot: 1970 UO-8, S/N 0010468
Bianchi: 1982 Campione d'Italia, S/N 1.M9914
Schwinn: 1988 Project KOM-10, S/N F804069
"Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." --Theodore Roosevelt
Capo: 1959 Modell Campagnolo, S/N 40324; 1960 Sieger (2), S/N 42624, 42597
Carlton: 1962 Franco Suisse, S/N K7911
Peugeot: 1970 UO-8, S/N 0010468
Bianchi: 1982 Campione d'Italia, S/N 1.M9914
Schwinn: 1988 Project KOM-10, S/N F804069
#8
We drive on the left.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 1,096
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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
CHEERS.
Mark
#9
Every lane is a bike lane
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
__________________
I am clinically insane. I am proud of it.
That is all.
I am clinically insane. I am proud of it.
That is all.
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Greenwich, UK
Posts: 394
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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
https://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/...769369,00.html
Todays Guardian (A national upmarket broadsheet)
Never let a little truth get in the way of a good story
https://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/...769369,00.html
Todays Guardian (A national upmarket broadsheet)
#11
The Flying Scot
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: North Queensferry Scotland and London (and France)
Posts: 1,904
Bikes: Custom (Colin Laing) 531c fast tourer/audax, 1964 Flying Scot Continental, 1995 Cinelli Supercorsa, Holdsworth Mistral single speed, Dahon Speed 6 (folder), Micmo Sirocco and a few more
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
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.
__________________
plus je vois les hommes, plus j'admire les chiens
1985 Sandy Gilchrist-Colin Laing built 531c Audax/fast tourer.
1964 Flying Scot Continental (531)
1995 Cinelli Supercorsa (Columbus SLX)
1980s Holdsworth Mistral fixed (531)
2005 Dahon Speed 6 (folder)
(YES I LIKE STEEL)
2008 Viking Saratoga tandem
2008 Micmo Sirocco Hybrid (aluminium!)
2012 BTwin Rockrider 8.1
plus je vois les hommes, plus j'admire les chiens
1985 Sandy Gilchrist-Colin Laing built 531c Audax/fast tourer.
1964 Flying Scot Continental (531)
1995 Cinelli Supercorsa (Columbus SLX)
1980s Holdsworth Mistral fixed (531)
2005 Dahon Speed 6 (folder)
(YES I LIKE STEEL)
2008 Viking Saratoga tandem
2008 Micmo Sirocco Hybrid (aluminium!)
2012 BTwin Rockrider 8.1
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 80
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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 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.
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 211
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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 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.
#14
serial mender
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bonn, Germany
Posts: 416
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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
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
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 211
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
#16
The Flying Scot
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: North Queensferry Scotland and London (and France)
Posts: 1,904
Bikes: Custom (Colin Laing) 531c fast tourer/audax, 1964 Flying Scot Continental, 1995 Cinelli Supercorsa, Holdsworth Mistral single speed, Dahon Speed 6 (folder), Micmo Sirocco and a few more
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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
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
__________________
plus je vois les hommes, plus j'admire les chiens
1985 Sandy Gilchrist-Colin Laing built 531c Audax/fast tourer.
1964 Flying Scot Continental (531)
1995 Cinelli Supercorsa (Columbus SLX)
1980s Holdsworth Mistral fixed (531)
2005 Dahon Speed 6 (folder)
(YES I LIKE STEEL)
2008 Viking Saratoga tandem
2008 Micmo Sirocco Hybrid (aluminium!)
2012 BTwin Rockrider 8.1
plus je vois les hommes, plus j'admire les chiens
1985 Sandy Gilchrist-Colin Laing built 531c Audax/fast tourer.
1964 Flying Scot Continental (531)
1995 Cinelli Supercorsa (Columbus SLX)
1980s Holdsworth Mistral fixed (531)
2005 Dahon Speed 6 (folder)
(YES I LIKE STEEL)
2008 Viking Saratoga tandem
2008 Micmo Sirocco Hybrid (aluminium!)
2012 BTwin Rockrider 8.1
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 211
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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?
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?
Last edited by JDP; 08-05-02 at 09:27 AM.
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 2,794
Bikes: litespeed, cannondale
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
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.
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.
#19
We drive on the left.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 1,096
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
That's not true. The law applies to a bikelane rather than a bike path as such.
CHEERS.
Mark
#20
Just ride.
Originally posted by willic
Motoring insureres are stating that this will increase car premiums by £50 a year
Motoring insureres are stating that this will increase car premiums by £50 a year
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.
#21
Every lane is a bike lane
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.
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.
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.
Basically it is an injustice to label someone at fault by default in a two party accident. Even presuming guilt is an injustice.
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.
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 am clinically insane. I am proud of it.
That is all.
I am clinically insane. I am proud of it.
That is all.
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 211
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
Assuming, of course that it is an accident. I don't believe anything resulting from negligence can be considered any more accidental than deliberate.
#23
Every lane is a bike lane
Originally posted by JDP
The injustice arises when the cyclist is negligent, causes an accident, and then is treated as a victim.
The injustice arises when the cyclist is negligent, causes an accident, and then is treated as a victim.
If they actually did this, traffic collisions of all kinds would be reduced.
__________________
I am clinically insane. I am proud of it.
That is all.
I am clinically insane. I am proud of it.
That is all.
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 211
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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?
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?
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 701
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
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.