4 ms·

I’m happy that in the Netherlands it’s ALWAYS the car driver’s responsibility (she always pays).

flakes 3y ago
I don't agree with most laws that impose absolutes. The courts exist to deal with grey areas. A large number of pedestrians struck by cars each year (at least in North America), are themselves intoxicated, and not fit to walk along roadways. There are many cases where the driver should not reasonably be at fault for a pedestrians erratic behavior. There's also the "hit-to-kill" phenomenon in China, where it can be financially devastating to leave a person living with significant injuries, but affordable if you had simply killed them (50K USD vs 1M over a lifetime). In extremely sad circumstances, this has motivated people to hit the victim multiple times.
- teekert 3y ago
  You mean laws that forbid pedestrians from crossing roads? It’s just a matter of where you put your priorities. Here we prioritize our bike based transportation. Drivers just have to be careful, also insurance is obligatory so drivers don’t really feel it financially. They just pay collectively for all the other traffic participants they hit. We have a very different system, nobody goes bankrupt from causing an accident or from healthcare related costs.
  - zilti 3y ago
    I am a cyclist myself, and let me tell you... cyclists are the fucking worst. Many of them drive so recklessly, like going full-speed through an intersection while their traffic light is red. There is just no way in many cases for a car driver to avoid hitting such idiots, no matter how much attention they pay. Neither cars nor bicycles can just stop on a whim, they need a couple meters to do so.
    - teekert 3y ago
      That is a US perspective. We don't have "cyclists" everybody uses a bike from time to time, our infrastructure is build for it [0], and when you get your driver’s license your learn how to deal with it. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynwMN3Z9Og8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynwMN3Z9Og8
      - lolc 3y ago
        I hate the thought of being restricted to that slow speed. But my look at the throughput!
- vlz 3y ago
  I call bullshit on "unfit to walk along roadways". This is victim blaming from people who want to go fast, fast, fast. The one moving a ton of metal is the one to pay attention. And the US needs to build roadways actually usable by pedestrians.
  - zilti 3y ago
    Pay some fucking attention in traffic, even if you are on two feet instead of on wheels, for fuck's sake!
    - CalRobert 3y ago
      Would you say this to bereaved parents?
      - zilti 3y ago
        Sure, yes.
- CalRobert 3y ago
  A lot of pedestrians are kids, who by their nature are erratic. Saying that it's the kid's fault for getting hit because they were "erratic" is effectively banning children from walking places, which is exactly what the US has done ("WHy don't kids play outside anymore???") The person operating the dangerous machinery where there could be people walking bears responsibility for not hitting people.
  - flakes 3y ago
    This is all true. As a driver, you are definitely expected to be aware at all times. Things like schoolzones enforce drivers being more aware and slowing even more. We have rules to not pass school buses when children are departing. We have speed limits that are lower in suburbs. Even if you follow all of these rules, theres not too much you can do about someone suddenly staggering infront of your car. Obviously if you see them ahead of time, be even more cautious. (also drunk people are in-part banned from roadways- public intoxication is a misdemeanor)
    - teekert 3y ago
      Sometimes it’s unavoidable, and then your insurance will take care of it as will the care system. You are responsible but you won’t pay, your obligatory insurance will.
- Symbiote 3y ago
  If there are intoxicated people around, or children, it's necessary to reduce driving speed. That can mean moving at walking pace, or remaining stopped entirely, if you happen to be driving past a concert hall as everyone is leaving, for example.
- _dain_ 3y ago
  >A large number of pedestrians struck by cars each year (at least in North America), are themselves intoxicated, and not fit to walk along roadways. There are many cases where the driver should not reasonably be at fault for a pedestrians erratic behavior. Excuse me? How can someone be unfit to just walk somewhere just because they're drunk? You don't need a license to walk!
  - CobrastanJorji 3y ago
    You don't need a license to go downhill skiing, but you still shouldn't do it while intoxicated. But yes, if it is unsafe to walk home while drunk, that's an infrastructure and safety problem more than it is a failing of the drunk person.
zilti 3y ago
No, that is absolute bullshit. So so often, it is obviously the reckless cyclist's fault.
- teekert 3y ago
  That's a US perspective you have a car-first culture. If you have a bike first infrastructure you wouldn't talk like that. Here Bikes and cars are often even on different roads, where they need to cross, it's made very clear how that will work (traffic lights, clear lanes).
  - LtWorf 3y ago
    I mostly go on foot and… I'd go for a bicycle is always at fault law to be honest. Meek with cars and assholes with pedestrians is how cyclists mostly are.
    - teekert 3y ago
      You obviously are not from a culture where everybody is a cyclist. We have more bikes than cars in our country because you can use them at all ages and get to more places using a bike. My kids learned to ride a bike at 2. We have some research [0], on average anybody over 6 rode a bike 232 times and an average of about 1000 km in 2022. [0] https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/visualisaties/verkeer-en-vervoer/personen/fietsen https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/visualisaties/verkeer-en-vervoer/pe...
      - LtWorf 3y ago
        I'm from a culture where mountains exist. Geography isn't a culture. Having said that. In Sweden this routinely happens: To clear the bike and car paths from snow, a mountain is of snow is made over the pedestrian path, then INEVITABLY bicyclists angry ring at pedestrians all the time… because pedestrians should walk in 1 meter high piled up snow of course? The same also happens if there is a digging in progress and there is a 2 meter hole… cyclists still expect pedestrians to jump down in a hole and then climb up. However where there is no bicycle path, they will go on the side walk (which is not allowed). Of course a good % of them actually have an electric engine and zoom around very fast.
Someone 3y ago
It isn’t ALWAYS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability#Bicycle–motor_vehicle_collisions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability#Bicycle–motor... “In a nutshell, this means that, in a collision between a car and a cyclist, the driver is deemed to be liable to pay damages and his insurer (n.b. motor vehicle insurance is mandatory in the Netherlands, while cyclist insurance is not) must pay the full damages, as long as 1) the collision was unintentional (i.e. neither party, motorist or cyclist, intentionally crashed into the other), and 2) the cyclist was not in error in some way. Even if a cyclist made an error, as long as the collision was still unintentional, the motorist's insurance must still pay half of the damages. This does not apply if the cyclist is under 14 years of age, in which case the motorist must pay full damages for unintentional collisions with minors. If it can be proved that a cyclist intended to collide with the car, then the cyclist must pay the damages (or their parents in the case of a minor.).” For more detail, see https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/strict-liability-in-the-netherlands/ https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/strict-liabili...

I don't agree with most laws that impose absolutes. The courts exist to deal with grey areas. A large number of pedestrians struck by cars each year (at least in North America), are themselves intoxicated, and not fit to walk along roadways. There are many cases where the driver should not reasonably be at fault for a pedestrians erratic behavior. There's also the "hit-to-kill" phenomenon in China, where it can be financially devastating to leave a person living with significant injuries, but affordable if you had simply killed them (50K USD vs 1M over a lifetime). In extremely sad circumstances, this has motivated people to hit the victim multiple times.

teekert 3y ago
You mean laws that forbid pedestrians from crossing roads? It’s just a matter of where you put your priorities. Here we prioritize our bike based transportation. Drivers just have to be careful, also insurance is obligatory so drivers don’t really feel it financially. They just pay collectively for all the other traffic participants they hit. We have a very different system, nobody goes bankrupt from causing an accident or from healthcare related costs.
- zilti 3y ago
  I am a cyclist myself, and let me tell you... cyclists are the fucking worst. Many of them drive so recklessly, like going full-speed through an intersection while their traffic light is red. There is just no way in many cases for a car driver to avoid hitting such idiots, no matter how much attention they pay. Neither cars nor bicycles can just stop on a whim, they need a couple meters to do so.
  - teekert 3y ago
    That is a US perspective. We don't have "cyclists" everybody uses a bike from time to time, our infrastructure is build for it [0], and when you get your driver’s license your learn how to deal with it. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynwMN3Z9Og8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynwMN3Z9Og8
    - lolc 3y ago
      I hate the thought of being restricted to that slow speed. But my look at the throughput!
vlz 3y ago
I call bullshit on "unfit to walk along roadways". This is victim blaming from people who want to go fast, fast, fast. The one moving a ton of metal is the one to pay attention. And the US needs to build roadways actually usable by pedestrians.
- zilti 3y ago
  Pay some fucking attention in traffic, even if you are on two feet instead of on wheels, for fuck's sake!
  - CalRobert 3y ago
    Would you say this to bereaved parents?
    - zilti 3y ago
      Sure, yes.
CalRobert 3y ago
A lot of pedestrians are kids, who by their nature are erratic. Saying that it's the kid's fault for getting hit because they were "erratic" is effectively banning children from walking places, which is exactly what the US has done ("WHy don't kids play outside anymore???") The person operating the dangerous machinery where there could be people walking bears responsibility for not hitting people.
- flakes 3y ago
  This is all true. As a driver, you are definitely expected to be aware at all times. Things like schoolzones enforce drivers being more aware and slowing even more. We have rules to not pass school buses when children are departing. We have speed limits that are lower in suburbs. Even if you follow all of these rules, theres not too much you can do about someone suddenly staggering infront of your car. Obviously if you see them ahead of time, be even more cautious. (also drunk people are in-part banned from roadways- public intoxication is a misdemeanor)
  - teekert 3y ago
    Sometimes it’s unavoidable, and then your insurance will take care of it as will the care system. You are responsible but you won’t pay, your obligatory insurance will.
Symbiote 3y ago
If there are intoxicated people around, or children, it's necessary to reduce driving speed. That can mean moving at walking pace, or remaining stopped entirely, if you happen to be driving past a concert hall as everyone is leaving, for example.
_dain_ 3y ago
>A large number of pedestrians struck by cars each year (at least in North America), are themselves intoxicated, and not fit to walk along roadways. There are many cases where the driver should not reasonably be at fault for a pedestrians erratic behavior. Excuse me? How can someone be unfit to just walk somewhere just because they're drunk? You don't need a license to walk!
- CobrastanJorji 3y ago
  You don't need a license to go downhill skiing, but you still shouldn't do it while intoxicated. But yes, if it is unsafe to walk home while drunk, that's an infrastructure and safety problem more than it is a failing of the drunk person.

zilti 3y ago

No, that is absolute bullshit. So so often, it is obviously the reckless cyclist's fault.

teekert 3y ago
That's a US perspective you have a car-first culture. If you have a bike first infrastructure you wouldn't talk like that. Here Bikes and cars are often even on different roads, where they need to cross, it's made very clear how that will work (traffic lights, clear lanes).
- LtWorf 3y ago
  I mostly go on foot and… I'd go for a bicycle is always at fault law to be honest. Meek with cars and assholes with pedestrians is how cyclists mostly are.
  - teekert 3y ago
    You obviously are not from a culture where everybody is a cyclist. We have more bikes than cars in our country because you can use them at all ages and get to more places using a bike. My kids learned to ride a bike at 2. We have some research [0], on average anybody over 6 rode a bike 232 times and an average of about 1000 km in 2022. [0] https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/visualisaties/verkeer-en-vervoer/personen/fietsen https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/visualisaties/verkeer-en-vervoer/pe...
    - LtWorf 3y ago
      I'm from a culture where mountains exist. Geography isn't a culture. Having said that. In Sweden this routinely happens: To clear the bike and car paths from snow, a mountain is of snow is made over the pedestrian path, then INEVITABLY bicyclists angry ring at pedestrians all the time… because pedestrians should walk in 1 meter high piled up snow of course? The same also happens if there is a digging in progress and there is a 2 meter hole… cyclists still expect pedestrians to jump down in a hole and then climb up. However where there is no bicycle path, they will go on the side walk (which is not allowed). Of course a good % of them actually have an electric engine and zoom around very fast.

Someone 3y ago

It isn’t ALWAYS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability#Bicycle–motor_vehicle_collisions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability#Bicycle–motor... “In a nutshell, this means that, in a collision between a car and a cyclist, the driver is deemed to be liable to pay damages and his insurer (n.b. motor vehicle insurance is mandatory in the Netherlands, while cyclist insurance is not) must pay the full damages, as long as 1) the collision was unintentional (i.e. neither party, motorist or cyclist, intentionally crashed into the other), and 2) the cyclist was not in error in some way. Even if a cyclist made an error, as long as the collision was still unintentional, the motorist's insurance must still pay half of the damages. This does not apply if the cyclist is under 14 years of age, in which case the motorist must pay full damages for unintentional collisions with minors. If it can be proved that a cyclist intended to collide with the car, then the cyclist must pay the damages (or their parents in the case of a minor.).” For more detail, see https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/strict-liability-in-the-netherlands/ https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/strict-liabili...