3 ms·

This has to do with the fact that cyclists are more vulnerable than cars and thats why a car is always responsible. Kinda like in skiing or snowboarding that yo

by tiku 11y ago

This has to do with the fact that cyclists are more vulnerable than cars and thats why a car is always responsible. Kinda like in skiing or snowboarding that you're responsible for who is in front of you.. It works fine because the most roads dont have cycling paths next to them, if they do it is divided so cars cant easily get on the bike path and viceversa.

awjr 11y ago
The dutch implemented presumed liability. The more vulnerable road users is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. On UK roads, you only have this for driving into the back of somebody.
- IkmoIkmo 11y ago
  Just a small note to add is that we implemented this in the 90s, long after cycling was ubiquitous and cycling infrastructure was, too. Not that you made this claim but I just want to add that this wasn't what made cycling popular or safe if anyone is wondering. It was a relative afterthought that surely must have helped, although how significant it has been to improve safety is hard to say. Cycling deaths dropped by about 20% - 25% since then, but that was a relatively minimal drop compared to say car deaths (80%) or even pedestrians. It's important also to know what this liability refers to, it's not criminal (i.e. you go to jail because you're in an accident that kills someone and you're in the car, thus presumed liable. It's not like that at all. You might go to jail but only for the right reasons, it's not presumed.). The liability refers to financial liability to the insurer of the car (and such insurance is mandatory by law in the Netherlands and virtually everyone sticks by that). Apart from a possible increase in insurance premiums because the accident puts you in a 'higher risk' category, there aren't any consequences for the driver. Which means that a lot of people in the Netherlands aren't even aware of this rule. In fact most of the time they aren't even aware after an accident, because it's mostly a thing insurance companies deal with behind the scenes. Not likely to affect driving, then.

by tiku 11y ago

awjr 11y ago

The dutch implemented presumed liability. The more vulnerable road users is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. On UK roads, you only have this for driving into the back of somebody.

IkmoIkmo 11y ago
Just a small note to add is that we implemented this in the 90s, long after cycling was ubiquitous and cycling infrastructure was, too. Not that you made this claim but I just want to add that this wasn't what made cycling popular or safe if anyone is wondering. It was a relative afterthought that surely must have helped, although how significant it has been to improve safety is hard to say. Cycling deaths dropped by about 20% - 25% since then, but that was a relatively minimal drop compared to say car deaths (80%) or even pedestrians. It's important also to know what this liability refers to, it's not criminal (i.e. you go to jail because you're in an accident that kills someone and you're in the car, thus presumed liable. It's not like that at all. You might go to jail but only for the right reasons, it's not presumed.). The liability refers to financial liability to the insurer of the car (and such insurance is mandatory by law in the Netherlands and virtually everyone sticks by that). Apart from a possible increase in insurance premiums because the accident puts you in a 'higher risk' category, there aren't any consequences for the driver. Which means that a lot of people in the Netherlands aren't even aware of this rule. In fact most of the time they aren't even aware after an accident, because it's mostly a thing insurance companies deal with behind the scenes. Not likely to affect driving, then.