The best way to improve safety for cyclists in a city...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
Paul R wrote:
Personally, I believe that in ANY altercation between a cyclist and
motorized vehicle, the motorized vehicle should be held 100% at
fault.
Likewise, in any altercation between a cyclist and pedestrian the
cyclist should be held 100% responsible. This is unfair, but I think
the benefits to society outweigh the few cases where someone gets
burned. Before people start screaming, be aware that this is how the
law is in Holland, a cyclists utopia.

Yep, that was me.

Bicyclists are rarely the cause of accidents, but often make mistakes
that
lead to them being hurt. For example, you can't blame a cyclist for
getting
doored, even though the cyclist may have been driving within range of
the
door.

However there will be times when the cyclist is at fault. But my point
is
that life's not fair anyway, so why not try to make things better for
everybody?

I believe you've slightly overstated the current state of the law
in the Netherlands. According to
http://www.fevr.org/anwbfevr%20E%20netherlands.htm
"However, if an accident involves a motor vehicle (car or motor bike)
and a non-motorised road user (pedestrian or cyclist) risk liability
applies. This means that the driver is liable unless he can prove force
majeure. If the pedestrian or cyclist is younger than 14 years of age,
the driver is 100% liable. If the pedestrian or cyclists is over 14
years of age, the driver is 50% liable. The amount of the compensation
for the remaining 50% is dependent on the degree of fault of all the
parties involved."

So in an accident between an adult cyclist and a motorist where the
cyclist was primarily at fault the motorist would still have to pay
50% of the damages - but he wouldn't be held 100% responsible as you
stated above.

Thanks for correcting me. It's good to be better informed.

Regardless, I'd love to see something like that here, especially for
altercations involving children. Might even slow down drivers in residential
areas. I live on a 1 lane (+ parking) residential section of Adelaide St.,
in Toronto (west of Bathurst) where the speed limit is 40km/h (there is a
primary school on the corner). People driver over 80 on this section all the
time because they think it's the same as the other side of Bathurst, where
it's a 4 lane street.

Cheers,
Paul

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:23:06 -0500, "Paul R" wrote:

For example, you can't blame a cyclist for getting
doored, even though the cyclist may have been driving within range of the
door.

Up to a point, Lord Copper. In law the responsibility lies with the
doorer, but the event is sufficiently predictable that the dooree must
carry at least some of the blame. Luckily the courts have thus far
(in the UK) held that the doorer is wholly liable, since they were
committing an offence (cause or permit the door to be opened
endangering someone, or some such) at the time. On the whole, though,
it's better not to run the risk of giving the weasels^W lawyers
something to play with :-)

If you were doored, wouldn't you feel even the tiniest suggestion of
"silly me?"

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:23:06 -0500, "Paul R" wrote:

For example, you can't blame a cyclist for getting
doored, even though the cyclist may have been driving within range of the
door.

Up to a point, Lord Copper. In law the responsibility lies with the
doorer, but the event is sufficiently predictable that the dooree must
carry at least some of the blame. Luckily the courts have thus far
(in the UK) held that the doorer is wholly liable, since they were
committing an offence (cause or permit the door to be opened
endangering someone, or some such) at the time. On the whole, though,
it's better not to run the risk of giving the weasels^W lawyers
something to play with :-)

If you were doored, wouldn't you feel even the tiniest suggestion of
"silly me?"

Sure I would (right after I checked that my bike was ok!) - but I'm a very
experienced urban cyclist who's seen my fair share of doors miss me by
inches (classic story - I'm sure we've all experienced something like this -
travelling north on yonge street, about a metre from the parked cars. One
lane of traffic can safely pass me. cars in the inside lane (shared with the
parked cars and me) must wait to safely pass me. Fur coat wearing women
driving jag behind me is waving her hands around and honking at me for being
in her way. this carries on for a couple of hundred metres when a driver
opens door right beside me - missing by inches. All I have to do is point
out the door to driver behind me and she immedietly stops honking.).

Regardless, would you blame someone who was mugged in a rough side of town
for being in the bad area of town? would you blame a woman wearing a short
skirt for being raped?

the fact of the matter is, someone opening a vehicle door in another
vehicles path is illegal and very dangerous to cyclists. That person should
take 100% of legal blame.

Paul

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:55:57 -0500, "Paul R" wrote in
message :

the fact of the matter is, someone opening a vehicle door in another
vehicles path is illegal and very dangerous to cyclists. That person should
take 100% of legal blame.

Which is what I said. Legally, the doorer gets 100% of the blame.
But my sympathy for the cyclist is tempered by the certain knowledge
that it really isn't that hard to predict the consequences of riding
too close to parked cars.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University