6 ms·

> Just noting that the bicyclist is fully at fault I disagree. Legislation does not abrogate drivers of all moral responsibility. Quite frankly, if a child jum

by tmnvix 2y ago

> Just noting that the bicyclist is fully at fault I disagree. Legislation does not abrogate drivers of all moral responsibility. Quite frankly, if a child jumps out from behind a parked car and you hit them despite following the law to the letter, you share some of the blame. I would argue that in all cases where a driver hits someone, they share some blame, because they chose to drive at a speed beyond their ability to react. It is the driver after all that causes the damage. Obviously, the only solution is to drive at a much, much slower speed, which at some point becomes impractical, so we don't do this.

viraptor 2y ago
> because they chose to drive at a speed beyond their ability to react That's just not possible to solve in practice. Unless you're moving at an extremely slow pace, there's always the lag of noticing + decision + activation. You can drive 10km/h and if someone walks right in front of you, there may be physically no way for you to prevent a collision. Sure, slower speeds prevent many accidents, but always sharing the blame is a very bad idea.
- Xylakant 2y ago
  You’ll be appalled. Germany has a notion of “Allgemeine Betriebsgefahr” which encapsulates the general danger of operating dangerous machinery. For a car/bike accident, the default minimum damages split is at least 20% for the car, even if the driver has complied with all rules. In the Netherlands, it’s even more strict: accidents between cars and anyone below 14 are automatically considered 100% the drivers fault for damages, unless you can prove that the accident was caused deliberately and maliciously by the child. For accidents with > 14 years olds, it’s still at least 50% automatic damages, unless you can prove reckless or deliberate behavior. This is intended to reflect the inherent danger of driving a heavy machine in a public space.
- tmnvix 2y ago
  > That's just not possible to solve in practice. It is never a necessity to drive so close to people that 10km/h is too fast to notice someone who may veer into the path of your vehicle without you having the ability to stop. Likewise to drive at a speed at which someone could appear from behind a nearby obstacle leaving you no time to react. It is a convenience that most people assume they are entitled to - largely due to it being codified in law (there are lots of things we do that are like this). You may consider it to be a necessity, and I would have once too. But I never do this now. I gave up the convenience - something I couldn't have done if it was a necessity. I understand this is not a choice everyone feels free to make. But it is a choice.
  - viraptor 2y ago
    I'm not talking about the cases where you have any choice about what's going to happen or your safety margin. A person jumps from a place fully obstructed by a truck, 1cm in front of your car - it doesn't matter how slow you're going - you're going to hit them before you register what happened.
    - Moru 2y ago
      That is why you don't drive past busses parked at a bus stop. There is always someone late for class or work, running out of the bus, and then across the street behind or in front of the bus. I'm even slowing down if I'm in the opposite lane meeting the bus because this happens so frequently. And the law (here in Sweden) says I should drive no faster than that I can stop on the road surface I can see. And that I have to antissipate people jumping out in front of the car from behind obstacles. Busses are luckily pretty high from the ground so you can see legs sticking out under it, this makes it a bit safer if you remember to look out for them.
      - viraptor 2y ago
        You're assuming you've always got the choice to keep the distance. Sometimes you don't. If you get in a tight alley where you have to pass a truck, you can't do it differently. Whatever safety system you use, one day it either won't help in the situation, or you'll forget about it. Overconfidence in your control may give you a really bad lesson in humility. You can also see the recent video of a Tesla avoiding a person falling onto the street and crashing into another car. There's no reason to keep the speed lower in that area, no extra space to be away from the sidewalk and no time to react to the change.
te_chris 2y ago
In the UK the highway code was changed recently and pedestrians then cyclists have highest priority in all circumstances.
kube-system 2y ago
> Legislation does not abrogate drivers of all moral responsibility. Quite frankly, if a child jumps out from behind a parked car and you hit them despite following the law to the letter, you share some of the blame. There is a legal doctrine in the US called the 'last clear chance'. Even if the other person was breaking the law, you still have the responsibility to avoid an accident if you can. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/last_clear_chance https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/last_clear_chance

by tmnvix 2y ago

viraptor 2y ago

> because they chose to drive at a speed beyond their ability to react That's just not possible to solve in practice. Unless you're moving at an extremely slow pace, there's always the lag of noticing + decision + activation. You can drive 10km/h and if someone walks right in front of you, there may be physically no way for you to prevent a collision. Sure, slower speeds prevent many accidents, but always sharing the blame is a very bad idea.

Xylakant 2y ago
You’ll be appalled. Germany has a notion of “Allgemeine Betriebsgefahr” which encapsulates the general danger of operating dangerous machinery. For a car/bike accident, the default minimum damages split is at least 20% for the car, even if the driver has complied with all rules. In the Netherlands, it’s even more strict: accidents between cars and anyone below 14 are automatically considered 100% the drivers fault for damages, unless you can prove that the accident was caused deliberately and maliciously by the child. For accidents with > 14 years olds, it’s still at least 50% automatic damages, unless you can prove reckless or deliberate behavior. This is intended to reflect the inherent danger of driving a heavy machine in a public space.
tmnvix 2y ago
> That's just not possible to solve in practice. It is never a necessity to drive so close to people that 10km/h is too fast to notice someone who may veer into the path of your vehicle without you having the ability to stop. Likewise to drive at a speed at which someone could appear from behind a nearby obstacle leaving you no time to react. It is a convenience that most people assume they are entitled to - largely due to it being codified in law (there are lots of things we do that are like this). You may consider it to be a necessity, and I would have once too. But I never do this now. I gave up the convenience - something I couldn't have done if it was a necessity. I understand this is not a choice everyone feels free to make. But it is a choice.
- viraptor 2y ago
  I'm not talking about the cases where you have any choice about what's going to happen or your safety margin. A person jumps from a place fully obstructed by a truck, 1cm in front of your car - it doesn't matter how slow you're going - you're going to hit them before you register what happened.
  - Moru 2y ago
    That is why you don't drive past busses parked at a bus stop. There is always someone late for class or work, running out of the bus, and then across the street behind or in front of the bus. I'm even slowing down if I'm in the opposite lane meeting the bus because this happens so frequently. And the law (here in Sweden) says I should drive no faster than that I can stop on the road surface I can see. And that I have to antissipate people jumping out in front of the car from behind obstacles. Busses are luckily pretty high from the ground so you can see legs sticking out under it, this makes it a bit safer if you remember to look out for them.
    - viraptor 2y ago
      You're assuming you've always got the choice to keep the distance. Sometimes you don't. If you get in a tight alley where you have to pass a truck, you can't do it differently. Whatever safety system you use, one day it either won't help in the situation, or you'll forget about it. Overconfidence in your control may give you a really bad lesson in humility. You can also see the recent video of a Tesla avoiding a person falling onto the street and crashing into another car. There's no reason to keep the speed lower in that area, no extra space to be away from the sidewalk and no time to react to the change.

te_chris 2y ago

In the UK the highway code was changed recently and pedestrians then cyclists have highest priority in all circumstances.

kube-system 2y ago

> Legislation does not abrogate drivers of all moral responsibility. Quite frankly, if a child jumps out from behind a parked car and you hit them despite following the law to the letter, you share some of the blame. There is a legal doctrine in the US called the 'last clear chance'. Even if the other person was breaking the law, you still have the responsibility to avoid an accident if you can. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/last_clear_chance https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/last_clear_chance