There are idiots everywhere, but you must have noticed all the other cyclists not behaving like that Dork.
I have my wife sitting next to me for such events Wully. She has a habit of "accidentally" opening the door when passing Dorks like that.
I think you’ll find that’s pretty much the case in Holland. It doesn’t, however, mean you will be automatically to blame. You just need to prove you aren’t. I worked in motor claims, in Amsterdam, for a British ins company some 40 years ago.
Absolutely. It’s almost as though the British motorist thinks they have some special rights to the public highway.
There's long been a campaign for UK to mirror the "Strict Liability" law of the Netherlands. Over there, in any collision between parties the least vulnerable is presumed 100% at fault unless it can be proved that the more vulnerable was to blame. The 'hierarchy of road users' is one step towards that and I foresee an increase in "crash for cash" incidents, such as the clips on the 'net showing cyclists and motorcyclists throwing their steed backwards into the front of a car and then jumping on the bonnet. Also consider how the incident below reported in 2018 would now be viewed in the absence of third party dashcam footage even though the cyclist jumped a red light and ran into the car rather than the car running into the cyclist.
Yes - as the driver of a large vehicle, I’d advise you to be very aware of lots of motorists attempting to scam you. Meanwhile, im a bit short of cash so i think I’ll go and do a ‘crash for cash’ with my bike. Or perhaps walk into the side of a car. Meanwhile, in the real world, yeh, get your dash cam.There's long been a campaign for UK to mirror the "Strict Liability" law of the Netherlands. Over there, in any collision between parties the least vulnerable is presumed 100% at fault unless it can be proved that the more vulnerable was to blame. The 'hierarchy of road users' is one step towards that and I foresee an increase in "crash for cash" incidents, such as the clips on the 'net showing cyclists and motorcyclists throwing their steed backwards into the front of a car and then jumping on the bonnet. Also consider how the incident below reported in 2018 would now be viewed in the absence of third party dashcam footage even though the cyclist jumped a red light and ran into the car rather than the car running into the cyclist.
Cyclist accused of 'crash-for-cash' scam after running red light
Antonio Moreira filmed the clip of a blue-haired cyclist colliding with a car in Lewisham, south London, last year, but only made it public recently. After the crash she lies still on the ground.www.dailymail.co.uk
10 years + ago, we had a local chap who rode his bike holding a stick as a spacer in his right hand.
You lot are far to nice in Yorkshire, up here he would have developed a tail, and he would not be wagging it, and sitting on his bike would be impossible.
Unless it was side-facing, the a dash cam in the car the cyclist hit would not have helped -- and you can bet your last quid that the cyclist would have claimed it was the car rather than she who jumped the lights and with strict liability and nothing to prove the driver was in the right, the motorist would have been deemed to blame.
See above -- with nothing to prove who was at fault, I'd have viewed it as both drivers failing to exercise due care and attention. The driver of the 'bicycle' should have paid attention to their surroundings and noted the other start to move and also the driver starting to move on green should have checked for conflict. This is basic COAST. However, with evidence of the traffic light status, I'd have said the driver of the 'bicycle' was at fault.
I guess that you were either lucky or the strict liability law allowed every "crash for cash" to succeed. As I wrote above, the 'net is littered with incidents, including one where a cyclist deliberately scratched the side of a stationary car, "fell over" then demanded the motorists' insurance details. I wasn't able to find that one after a few minutes searching, but here's some more to get along with that show the danger/idiocy of "strict liability":
The facts are there for all to see. To many cyclists are killed on our roads. And no matter what the government tried to do, there would be folk lining up to find holes in it. It’s not perfect nothing can or will be, but if it saves some lives it has my support. Possibly things are different in Scotland, but I have far more issues with car drivers, than I have with cyclists. Sifting through the internet looking for dick head cyclists with chips on their shoulders behaving like muppets is utterly pointless. What this all comes down to is the laws of physics. When a large object moving faster hits a small item moving slower, we all know who suffers most. And most accidents involving cyclists are due to poor driving, sadly in some cases aggressive driving from folk who simply don’t like cyclists.
Sorry, but your denial that "crash for cash" is a problem is derisory. As for your comment, "How anyone could suggest the motorist in the vid you posted showing a cyclist hitting the stationary car is anything other than to blame beggars belief." -- Really? Seriously? A cyclist smashes into a parked car and it's the driver's fault? -- now that truly beggars belief. Given that the stationary car was facing oncoming traffic, its driver would have been to blame had it been moving. However, the camera footage proved that not to be the case and probably saved disingenuous claims from the cyclists. Note that I never said that strict liability would render cyclists 'guilt free'. However, in a collision between a cyclist and a motorist, the motorist is assumed at fault unless there is evidence to the contrary notwithstanding who is the guilty party.
I've already noticed that these new changes have brought about more stupid behaviour from cyclists and pedestrians - cyclists and pedestrians using a mobile phone and crossing the road without looking, headphones in and therefore unable to hear approaching traffic, crossing the road without bothering to look - well I walk and I cycle but I sure as hell am not going to argue with a bloody juggernaut!
I drive a hybrid, all electric and hybrid vehicles are fitted with a "rumble" - but if your chatting on your phone or listening to loud music then you won't hear it!
As (bad) luck would have it I've spent the last week driving into Cambridge, a city which is probably the cycling capital of UK, plus I live on a very popular cycle route, so since the rule change I've seen hundreds of cyclists, shock horror they seem unchanged, and are certainly not the evil morons described on this forum.
That's a common misconception and the rules are a lot more complex. A tanker constrained by draft is the 'stand-on' vessel in a conflict with a sailboat not so constrained and hence the sailboat must 'give-way'. For that, the rules require the 'stand-on' vessel to maintain course and speed unless it becomes apparent that the 'give-way' vessel isn't going to comply. (see https://www.i-capt.com/post/who-has-the-right-of-way)
How much could you make ?