Includes many links.
Cars overwhelmingly cause bike collisions, and the law should reflect that
By Soufiane Boufous, Senior Research Fellow, Road Safety and Injury Prevention, UNSW
Published by The Conversation on 14-Jun-2017
Reposted by ABC News on 14-Jun-2017
Drivers are overwhelmingly at fault in collisions with cyclists – should we assume they are liable?
All the facts about 'strict liability' can be found here http://www.copenhagenize.com/search?q=liability and here http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/search?q=liability
It is a step in the right direction but again there are other things that are a lot (like 50 times) more important. Read to find out.
It is a bit like the MHL. Too much emphasis on the wrong thing that is just postponing the inevitable (if you want to have safe conditions for cyclists)........proper infrastructure
Ken, the author notes that:
Such laws would encourage motorists to take extra care when driving alongside vulnerable road users. However, the law alone is not sufficient. Better cycling infrastructure, reduced speed limits in residential areas, and improved education for drivers and cyclists are all needed to keep our roads safe for everyone.
I believe that too much SIDSY, and strict liability is one method to encourage drivers to look for cyclists.
Agree, but I can't help thinking that it is some way down the list on priorities where proper infrastructure is item 1,2 and 3. And although it also has to be done it is taking focus away from the most critical topic and task at hand - building segregated/buffered/raised bike paths on the inside or parked cars (if relevant) on all major arterial roads within 10 km radius of CBD. Once that is done the rest will follow (legislation, training, driver mindset etc.). Easy peasy
It will take years to get Australian drivers, authorities and politicians to accept financing and making space for excellent cycling infrastructure. The latter could include removing carparking and car lanes on urban arterial roads.
In theory it is quick to enact strict liability legislation. A measure while advocating for better infrastructure, legislation, licensing, etc.
Drivers complain about bike-lane-parking-fines, while road-safety-fines are higher than parking-fines. This hip-pocket-education tends to work on the average driver, and his friends who hear his grumbling.
So I believe that insurance-financial-hassles or threat of it, will educate the average driver to reduce some SIDSY and lazy driving.
Strict liability could also help on quiet residential streets where bicycle lanes will not be installed.
My grumble. Today on a residential street and bikedirect route, I claimed the lane as I approached a one-lane-width LATM. A speeding vehicle tried to overtake me on the wrong side of the road, leaving only millimetres overtaking distance rather than one metre minimum. I screamed as the vehicle partially overtook, the driver thought better of side-swiping me, and he eased off as I entered the LATM first. After the LATM, the driver verbally cursed me, as I responded with ‘leave a metre’. Not the average driver who would consider strict liability, but some consolation for the injured cyclist if easier to sort out insurance and compensation.
Agree, but Australian politicians are obviously too thick to understand the content of material like this http://www.cycling-embassy.dk/2015/06/30/making-politicians-invest-... (which is not unique to Copenhagen but all cities with which want to tackle congestion, bad traffic, health problems, bad economy etc.).
It is a wonder that government on all 3 levels cannot work out the business case when they try to run socialy like a capitalistic organisastion, but that may be the problem.
In Japan I had people tell me quite seriously that when driving if you hit a pedestrian or cyclist it is real big trouble. They have strict liability legislation.
That may also come from a different cultural background involving shame/honour considerations which are barely thought of here.