Re “Cyclists say their rights go unrecognized” (Page A1, Feb. 15): Cyclists’ rights would be better protected and operators of motor vehicles would take more care if standards of proof were changed.
In Amsterdam, for example, when a motor vehicle collides with a cyclist, the vehicle operator is presumed to be at fault. This is analogous to the presumption of fault in rear-end accidents involving two vehicles.
Comments
NO. standards of fault should follow rules of the road. E.G. if the bike runs a Red light or a Stop sign the bicycle is at fault. .If the bike makes an illegal left turn, the bike is at fault. Or fails to stop before taking a right turn on Red.
Standards like the one she recommends require us to essentially pre-judge the motorist -- guilty until proven innocent -- and to require him to prove a negative, that he wasn't at fault. Cyclists are also often too reckless and arrogant individuals to be the beneficiary of such a standard; indeed, imagine how much worse they would be.
Bet Amsterdam has road rules for bicyclists...here, they get to "use their own judgment"...translation no rules...