Cyclists part two.

[tinfoilhat]

True.

 

How many idiotic cyclists do I encounter on the roads? Less than one per month.

 

How many idiotic drivers do I encounter on the roads? Several per journey.

 

How many cyclists do you see in a day and how many motorists do you see in a day? I've no idea what the idiot/sensible ratio is in either camp but suggest it's about the same.

[Obelix]

Obleix,, we are well aware of your "loathing" for cyclists

 

Really? Care to prove evidence of that before libelling me?

 

---------- Post added 02-04-2015 at 00:48 ----------

 

I don't loath motorists though, that would be stupid.

 

I'm only focussing my annoyance at one particular cyclist remember

 

He left his bike there?

 

Well, call it karma.

 

Well yes. I must confess to a small chuckle when I realised what had happened.

 

---------- Post added 02-04-2015 at 00:49 ----------

 

I hope that the OP gets better soon.

 

My elbow is still causing me considerable pain after I was knocked off my bike by a car pulling out of a junction. The hysterical driver who helped picked me off the floor loudly proclaimed that she normally looks when she pulls out of junctions. She left me sat on the side of the road still dazed and drove off without leaving her contact details.

 

Ah the dreaded SMIDSY. I guess you didn't get the licence plate then?

[El Cid]

How many cyclists do you see in a day and how many motorists do you see in a day? I've no idea what the idiot/sensible ratio is in either camp but suggest it's about the same.

 

I do the same route most days, a couple of times we have seen the same motor cyclist weeving and then thro his arms up when he struggles to get past stationary traffic.

[Cyclone]

One's witness statement will stand as evidence (in default of better) in civil proceedings.

 

So the cyclist's will, just as much as the drivers', and it will be up to the court to decide who's right and who's wrong (not who's lying and who's not) under the balance of probabilities test.

 

In that context, ambulance-chasing claim firms beg to differ with your 'neither': the driver is insured, so there's something for the cyclist('s no-win no-fee hounds) to go after.

 

And it's still cheaper for the driver's insurance to write a small cheque to make it all go away for sure, than a large cheque to their own hounds for fighting a maybe.

 

You're talking about civil proceedings now though, not criminal ones.

[L00b]

You're talking about civil proceedings now though, not criminal ones.

Of course. That's the only type of proceedings relevant to the driver's insurance (-which doesn't absolve the driver of criminal liability): civil liability is always on the line, criminal liability not necessarily.

 

There's no criminal component to a collision between a cyclist and a driver and its aftermath, until and unless either party has committed a criminal offence.

[JFKvsNixon]

Ah the dreaded SMIDSY. I guess you didn't get the licence plate then?

 

No, I was too stunned and the driver was hysterical so I had to calm her down. It was't until after she left this I considered that I may have hurt myself beyond a little bump or I could have damaged my bike.

 

As my dad said though, it was her responsibility to leave me her details.

[Cyclone]

Of course. That's the only type of proceedings relevant to the driver's insurance (-which doesn't absolve the driver of criminal liability): civil liability is always on the line, criminal liability not necessarily.

 

There's no criminal component to a collision between a cyclist and a driver and its aftermath, until and unless either party has committed a criminal offence.

 

I don't believe that any country has a law that automatically assumes civil liability when a motorist and cyclist are involved in an accident though, it's a presumption of criminal liability that exists isn't it?

 

---------- Post added 02-04-2015 at 10:56 ----------

 

The problem as I see it, is that if they should get accidentally knocked down as a result of such pursuits, and the relevant driver (i) cannot avoid the accident due to the cyclist's recklessness and (ii) has no dashcam (or the angle does not cover the relevant scene) to prove his innocence...who do you think will get it in the neck?

 

It's an unfounded fear isn't it.

 

There is no rash of cyclists winning cases against motorists, whoever was a fault.

Indeed cyclists are often killed by negligent driving and the drivers often escape criminal conviction as well, never mind being sued.

 

You're simply worrying about an issue that doesn't exist.

[L00b]

I don't believe that any country has a law that automatically assumes civil liability when a motorist and cyclist are involved in an accident though, it's a presumption of criminal liability that exists isn't it?

No, it's a presumption of civil liability: if there's a collision, one or both parties are necessarily at fault (criminal or not, that's why civil is the default).

It's an unfounded fear isn't it.

My post never posited that this 'fear' was a certainty. And to answer your question, no, it's a legitimate supposition based on an entirely plausible set of factual circumstances: there is a cyclist (insured or not), there is a motorist (necessarily insured), there is a collision between them, one possible and entirely plausible outcome of the collision is the cyclist lodges a claim against the driver's insurance (or the driver him/herself, e.g. if he/she happens to be uninsured at the time).

There is no rash of cyclists winning cases against motorists, whoever was a fault. Indeed cyclists are often killed by negligent driving and the drivers often escape criminal conviction as well, never mind being sued.

You using anecdotal evidence, Cyclone? How suprising.

You're simply worrying about an issue that doesn't exist.

I'm not worrying, I'm musing: the existence of the issue is down to simple fact and logic, as explained above. You can't deny or wish it away, it just is.

 

How actual and widespread it is, however, would be down to researching precedents. In sufficient quantities to amount to evidence

Edited April 2, 2015 by L00b

[Cyclone]

I say it's an unfounded fear because if it were founded then it would be happening. And it doesn't happen (at least to my knowledge), are you aware of it happening?

 

What's anecdotal about a lack of evidence of something happening? Or indeed the evidence that drivers who kill cyclists routinely get away with it?

 

The existence of the issue would be demonstrable by it actually happening, if it were a real issue. As it stands it's a theoretical risk that for whatever reason apparently doesn't happen.

[L00b]

I say it's an unfounded fear because if it were founded then it would be happening. And it doesn't happen (at least to my knowledge), <...>

What's anecdotal about a lack of evidence of something happening?

That's an argument from personal incredulity:

are you aware of it happening?

I wasn't, since I was musing. But since you have questioned the validity of the hypothesis, I have looked into it and yes, I am now aware that it is happening indeed.

 

I've already given you example links, of an ambulance chasing firm targeting cyclists and of a cyclist suing a driver for £200k. All in the UK.

 

Here's some more: 1; 2 (and see this, interesting how it presumes that it is (i) a driver who is (ii) at fault).

Or indeed the evidence that drivers who kill cyclists routinely get away with it?

Where is that evidence and please define 'getting away with it'.

The existence of the issue would be demonstrable by it actually happening, if it were a real issue. As it stands it's a theoretical risk that for whatever reason apparently doesn't happen.

Links say you're wrong, C.