|Would this law every pass in the USA to cover cyclist||abicirider|
Sep 1, 2002 4:17 PM
|Just thought I would pass this on just info I was reading in the latest Bicycle Retailer Paper. In the fall the EU(European Union) will try to pass legislation that would automatically place fault with the motorist in any auto collision with a cyclist or pedestrian. The reasoning is that cyclist pedestrians are far more likley to be injured than the person in the auto also automatically the motorist insurance will partially cover the cyclist regardless of whos fault it is. Another major reason for this law is to make motorist more cautious around cyclist and pedestrians.
It would be interesting to see opinions feedback on this proposed Law especially if it was being considered in the US.
|re: Would this law every pass in the USA to cover cyclist||Zyzbot|
Sep 1, 2002 4:31 PM
|I don't see why this would be a good law. Why should the car driver be blamed if the pedestrian or cyclist happens to actually be at fault. What is wrong with the truth?|
|I doubt it . . .||ms|
Sep 1, 2002 4:49 PM
|There are significant differences between the legal systems in the US and the EU that would impact on such a proposal. First, I do not believe that any EU country allows jury trials in civil cases. If such a proposal were enacted in the US, a jury would determine damages. The huge potential damage awards would face strong opposition from the insurance industry. If there were some cap on damages, there would be strong opposition from plaintiffs' lawyers. Second, most EU countries have some form of state-funded health care. Thus, the state, not the driver or the cyclist is responsible for the medical costs of an accident. In the US, if the driver were automatically at fault, he or she (or his or her insurance company) would have to bear medical costs that, I assume, that the driver in the EU would not have to bear. Finally, I think that there is a strong belief in the US (which I share) that people should be responsible for their actions. If a cyclist or pedestrian is at fault, he or she should not be able to impose liability on another. One potential compromise would be a rebuttable presumption that the motorist was at fault. That is, the driver would have the burden of proving that he was not at fault as opposed to the current situation where the cyclist (like any other plaintiff) has the burden of proving that the motorist is at fault.|
Sep 1, 2002 5:13 PM
|Agree with Zizbot. He who is at fault is at fault. This law may be intended to make the motorists more cautious, but another unintended consequence may be that it makes bikers and pedestrians less cautious. Definitely not what the streets need.|
|wouldn't even pass in Europe||off roadie|
Sep 1, 2002 5:55 PM
|You are misrepresenting it; the EU wants litigation guidelines for civial claims cases to be such that bicycle riders do not have to PROVE the motorist was at fault. Currently that's next to impossible; we all know the classic "I didn't see him" gets motrists off 99% of the time without ANY liability. Istead, bicyclist will just have to demonstrate that the accident was avoidable for the driver, and it will be up to the motorist to prove they were NOT at fault.
Basically, it shifts the motorist from being in the position of getting off by saying "you can't prove it was my fault" and not paying anything to one of saying "its not my fault, and heres how I can prove why", or coughing up. Actually, many states already have the same thing for auto collision coverage (no fault).
Sep 1, 2002 6:02 PM
|In Europe, generally a driver's license is considered much more of a priviledge than in the US. A much lower percentage of people own cars, public transportation is MUCH better (you can be out in the boondocks and still catch a city bus). This mentality is furthered by the HIGH cost of fuel (even in Norway, a huge oil exporting nation), the high taxes placed on vehicles, etc... it seems to me there is a very different attitude about "cars." Consider how rare DUI/DWIs are in Europe (in general), how most countries pull the license of a driver involved in an accident on the spot until it is fully investigated... the amount of press accidents resulting in fatalities receive in the national press of any given country... I could go on and on.
Bottom line- they hold drivers more responsible, all vehicles yield to peds in crosswalks, owners take better care of their vehicles, most countries it is illegal to talk on cell phones while driving (and people generally follow this law), road rage is almost unheard of.
It sounds like a good law for Europe- they can handle it. We've had a million campaigns for crosswalk awareness here in Minneapolis, and STILL no one ever seems to stop... road rage deaths are on the rise- it is like the Wild Wild West in the US... cars have replaced guns as a means of expression and freedom- and ANYTHING goes.
|Give cyclists and peds preference over cars||teamsloppy|
Sep 1, 2002 6:57 PM
|We need to encourage more cycling and pedestrian modes of transport. There is a misguided sense in America that cars have the primary right to the roads. And many people are afraid to ride a bike on the roads, because of cars. Most people make some comment about my courage (or recklessness) when they find out I ride a road bike daily to work. And there is truth in their comment: It's almost once a week that I have a life-threatening experience with a car.
We need to encourage cars to cut a wider space for cyclist and pedestrians. I walk to a store for lunch each day and that's pretty scary; 60 mph cars on Crow Canyon Rd in San Ramon, CA. Speed limit is 45. I am the only person in a 1500 person office building that walks the .8 miles to the nearest market at lunch. The road (even with a sidewalk) is terrifying.
More Bikes and Pedestrians result in:
Less Pollution (California was named the pollution capital, with Texas right behind. And it is because of cars.) ,
Better health for our fat kids. Hang out side a supermarket or mall and count the fat kids vs. lean (lean = waist narrower than chest or hips). It's 2 to 1 (maybe 3 to 1) fat over lean. 20 years ago you saw kids riding bikes everywhere. Even on TV (Leave it to Beaver). Today It's rare to see a kid on a bicycle (even the media has dropped it). It's because of the safety factor of how cars are driven today.
Also, 30 to 80% of every gasoline dollar goes to an Arab (if you buy Chevron-Texaco its 80%): some of who support Arab terrorist. And causing cars to slow done a little will only save more gas.
Not only should the presumption of guilt and evidence go against the car (with higher tech brakes, on board navigation, advanced electronics, better visibility); I think it should be against the law to pass within 20 feet, by more than 20 MPH difference in speed, a pedestrian or cyclist. All a car driver has to do is take the lazy ass connected foot off the accelerator.
Oh, and one more improvement, the label that reads "unleaded gasoline only" on new cars should be changed to: "Al Qeda collections go here, use unleaded fuel only".
|Give cyclists...excellent! I'd support this in my community||Spunout|
Sep 2, 2002 3:38 AM
|In Canada, things are a bit different from the USA, cyclists are vehicles and can take a lane and nobody can wave a finger. Of course, cyclists must also keep the car drivers happy.
Bicycle riders don't require insurance, plus I cannot think of a situation where a ped or cyclist intentionally would up the risk because of understood liability to the auto. Would any of us take that risk? I am a cyclist and pedestrian. I do not own a car.
Personally, I find connection with alot of European social values (being Belgian/Finnish myself) and would welcome them into my community.
|hear, hear, except for||weiwentg|
Sep 2, 2002 7:34 AM
|the bit about the Arabs. that wasn't very nice (although might not be incorrect).
some of your tax dollars are used to support comparable crimes. but that's a topic for another board.
|re: Would this law every pass in the USA to cover cyclist||TREKY|
Sep 2, 2002 6:54 AM
|Not an ice cubes chance in Hell!!!!!!|| |