4 ms·
> 50% of the damage, and usually 100% liable Not strictly, the driver (bestuurder) of a vehicle (anything requiring a drivers license, also mopeds) is consider
by consp 6y ago
> 50% of the damage, and usually 100% liable
Not strictly, the driver (bestuurder) of a vehicle (anything requiring a drivers license, also mopeds) is considered a more capable participant in traffic. Pedestrians and cyclists are at the bottom of that food chain. If you hit something in the "lower classification" you have to prove you are innocent and the burden is on you completely. If the cyclist was using his phone, collect witnesses after you help the victim as you are in no way liable if you made every effort to stop and look. (e.g. in a low speed collision, assuming the cyclist made a mistake). High speed collisions are usually completely attributed to the driver as they should be aware of cyclists all the time. e.g. Not slowing down at a crossing (even one with traffic signs) is reason to forgo any rights if you hit a cyclist as you should be aware of any participant in traffic which is less capable (in the protection sense) as you are. Even if the cyclist drives though a red light as you should anticipate mistakes. You are usually liable for the 50% but it is not a given. Always go to court if you consider the cyclist made a mistake.
e: please not that in normal cases the damage is a percentage fault division to both parties, in case a pedestrian or cyclist is involved the minimum will rise to 50% for the other party to cover in case "overmacht" (force de majeure) cannot be proven which is where the "always 50%" comes from. There are however numerous cases in which this has been proven and can be used in a court of law. It will however almost never be 0% for the driver of a vehicle.
- nostromo 6y agoAs someone who has been rear-ended by a cyclist that was riding way too fast downhill and didn’t notice me stopping at a stop sign... that sounds like a terrible policy. Thankfully a “prove your innocence” approach would be unconstitutional in the US.
- schoen 6y ago> Thankfully a “prove your innocence” approach would be unconstitutional in the US. Not in civil liability suits, which is what these rules seem to describe, only in criminal cases.
- stefan_ 6y ago"Capable" is a weird phrasing. The law exists because operating a 100kW+ multi-ton machine in public is (1) an inherently dangerous thing to do and (2) often down to mere convenience. So car drivers are rightly attributed blame and liability because their choice of vehicle both massively increased the likelihood of a crash of any sort and the damage caused.
- stjohnswarts 6y agoI'm glad it's not like that in the USA. If the bicyclist is breaking the law and causes the accident then they are 100% liable for it in most states. When you choose to use a bike you make choices that have consequences and choose to take risks in the current version of reality. I do feel cities should lower speed limits in heavy traffic areas though and provide far more bike lanes than they do in most US urban areas. I would never ride a bike in most cities unless I knew of a bike path (lane) from source to destination that was clearly marked off.