• coyootje@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    It’s the same in the Netherlands. The most vulnerable traffic participant is always protected. Bicycle gets hit by a car? Cars fault. Pedestrian gets hit by a bicycle? Cyclists fault. And so on.

      • idiomaddict@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 day ago

        I lived in a town with a huge seeing impaired population and it did take a little getting used to, but you adapt to being more aware of your surroundings pretty quickly. I didn’t ever actually collide with any person, but I’ve bumped into a couple of canes when the angle was such that I couldn’t tell they were coming towards me. I did feel like a huge dick though.

        • Ragnor@feddit.dk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          20 hours ago

          The cane is there to detect obstacles. They are used to it hitting things, it’s part of their life.

          You don’t have to feel bad about it even though it is something you should try to avoid. It’s hard to see that cane when it is poking out in front of the person all the way at the ground if you turn around or things like that.

          If I had to guess you both apologized when it happened, and both of you should be able to walk away satisfied after a random friendly interaction like that.

    • InFerNo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Dat is wel een serieuze oversimplificatie. Ik denk niet dat een vrachtwagen meer of minder aansprakelijk is in een ongeval.

    • Zak@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      I’ve been the car driver in a bike versus car crash and I’m glad that wasn’t the law where it happened. It was 100% the cyclist’s fault; he ran a red light on a fairly fast road and was obscured by a box truck until he was in my lane.

      I do think car drivers should be held to a higher standard because cars are more dangerous, but automatic fault based on vehicle size takes it a bit too far.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        23 hours ago

        But they’re not claiming the car driver is always at fault, only the presumption of fault. Clearly demonstrating the other person ran a red light has a good chance of changing the judgement

        • Zak@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          22 hours ago

          The comment about Japan said there’s a presumption. The comment about the Netherlands suggests it’s always the car driver’s fault (I think this may be technically incorrect).

          • 8uurg@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            13 hours ago

            It is complicated. It is not technically always, but in practice is may very well be. As this page (in Dutch) notes that, unless the driver can show that ‘overmacht’ applies (they couldn’t have performed any action that would have avoided or reduced bodily harm), they are (at least in part) responsible for damages. For example, not engaging the brakes as soon as it is clear that you would hit them, would still result in them being (partially) liable for costs, even if the cyclist made an error themselves (crossing a red light).

            Because the burden of proof is on the driver, it may be hard to prove that this is the case, resulting in their insurance having to pay up even if they did not do anything wrong.

            • Zak@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 hours ago

              Thanks for the clarification. That’s probably reasonable, especially if it only determines whose insurance has to pay, not some additional penalty.