http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: SNP Propose Motion to Support Road Share Campaign for Stricter Liability en Mon, 18 May 2026 16:05:55 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13879&page=3#post-172337 Sat, 15 Nov 2014 01:25:59 +0000 Schemieradge 172337@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Jim Orr (Twitter):<br /> ‏"It means put on pause to return to again, perhaps next year. Not a bad result. Still work 2 do." </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13879&page=3#post-172325 Fri, 14 Nov 2014 20:35:20 +0000 Schemieradge 172325@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><blockquote>Sent back for a rethink by whom?</blockquote></p> <p>exactly.. sounds kind of like a euphemism for "kicked into the long grass". hopefully not though. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13879&page=3#post-172311 Fri, 14 Nov 2014 16:59:55 +0000 PS 172311@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Sent back for a rethink by whom?</p> <p>(ie, who is doing the rethink and what do they need to rethink?) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13879&page=3#post-172269 Fri, 14 Nov 2014 13:53:09 +0000 I were right about that saddle 172269@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>12.36pm GMT12:36 </p> <p>After a rather high-brow debate about the legal implications of “stricter liability”, the cycling motion (see 12.12pm) got remitted back (ie, sent back for a rethink).</p> <p>But delegates did back the motion supporting the Aberdeen-Elgin-Inverness rail upgrade. They have now stopped for lunch. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13879&page=3#post-172088 Thu, 13 Nov 2014 13:35:39 +0000 LaidBack 172088@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Insurance costs dropped in Scandinavia and other places apparently. So Presumed Liability could save money? Add to that the personal costs of dealing with injury and worse and this measure must make sense in a modern country (if that is what we want to be).</p> <p>'We need a culture of tolerance....' Callers in were not as negative as they would have been in past. Small handful of 'I saw someone doing something wrong when I was in my car'.<br /> Mark Beaumont just turned it round neatly though. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13879&page=3#post-172081 Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:52:37 +0000 LaidBack 172081@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>On radio this morning.</p> <p>Mark Beaumont explained the case very clearly about the non-criminal hierarchy of care this motion proposes.</p> <p>On iPlayer - push it to past the first hour to 1.02<br /> <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04nrnkl" rel="nofollow">http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04nrnkl</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13879&page=3#post-171543 Sun, 09 Nov 2014 19:35:24 +0000 Arellcat 171543@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>UtrechtCyclist, some of us had similar thoughts last year on 'strict liability' and whether or not it was a distraction in the pursuit of physical safety.</p> <p><a href="http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10406&amp;page=2#post-114533" rel="nofollow">http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10406&amp;page=2#post-114533</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13879&page=3#post-171531 Sun, 09 Nov 2014 15:15:06 +0000 UtrechtCyclist 171531@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Do I understand correctly that the motion before the SNP is basically presumed liability, plus strict liability for the under 14s and over 70s?</p> <p>For me presumed liability wouldn't make it into the top ten reasons why cycling in Holland is more pleasant than here, but it would be a bonus if we had it. If I were to campaign for presumed liability in as non EEN-antagonising a way as possible, the argument would go something like as follows.</p> <p>1. Presumed liability does not transfer liability for accidents, it transfers the burden of proof to the party likely to have been responsible.</p> <p>2. We already have presumed liability in this country. If one car hits another car from behind, the car behind is presumed to be at fault unless they can prove that the car in front did something to cause the accident. So presumed liability isn't a radical untested concept.</p> <p>3. Presumed liability has been effective in the case of cars hitting from behind because it deals with a type of situation where one party was almost always to blame, and if that party wasn't to blame then there must have been a clear action from the other 'presumed innocent' party which can be shown to have caused the accident. </p> <p>4. This situation is similar to that of collisions between cars and more vulnerable road users, in which statistics show that cars are almost always liable according to the current law, but that this can be difficult to demonstrate in court.</p> <p>The only difficult point is that I don't have any statistics to back up the fourth point. There's a table towards the bottom of <a href="http://rdrf.org.uk/2014/11/07/transport-for-londons-cycle-safety-action-plan-still-getting-it-wrong/#more-1461">this article</a> which shows how a large number of accidents are caused solely by the car, but I don't have the full table, or know where it came from, and it concerns only cyclists rather than all vulnerable road users. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13879&page=3#post-171512 Sat, 08 Nov 2014 22:21:41 +0000 gembo 171512@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Spoke to former SNP MSP today and he confirms the party does not need to accept motions that are passed at conference. He is not a delegate so cannot vote but says he will look out for the motion </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13879&page=3#post-171506 Sat, 08 Nov 2014 21:39:37 +0000 Cyclingmollie 171506@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I think I've also seen the SNP proposal referred to as Strict<em>er</em> Liability. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13879&page=3#post-171505 Sat, 08 Nov 2014 19:19:22 +0000 crowriver 171505@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"is Presumed Liability same as or softer version of SL?"</p> <p>I'm no lawyer (WC in da house?) but I think it's identical. The "softer" language is just to try and not frighten the horsepower enthusuasts in HM Gov (Scottish branch office) I presume. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13879&page=3#post-171504 Sat, 08 Nov 2014 19:17:45 +0000 Schemieradge 171504@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Presumed liability is where the less vulnerable person is presumed liable unless they can prove fault is with the person they hit.<br /> Strict liability means the fault is always with the less vulnerable person no matter what (I think).</p> <p>RoadShare are proposing presumed liability except for under 14's and over 70's where strict liability would apply. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13879&page=3#post-171501 Sat, 08 Nov 2014 18:23:16 +0000 LaidBack 171501@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Right - civil law of course. My mis-understanding probably replicated by a few others then.</p> <p>Anyway - is Presumed Liability same as or softer version of SL? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13879&page=3#post-171497 Sat, 08 Nov 2014 17:46:24 +0000 crowriver 171497@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"Scottish law does allow three verdicts normally. Innocent, Guilty and Not Proven."</p> <p>That's for criminal cases. PL would not apply in criminal prosecutions, it's for civil matters like compensation, insurance, etc.</p> <p>That's a large part of the misapprehensions about this, folk assume it will mean drivers getting prison time: nothing like that. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13879&page=3#post-171496 Sat, 08 Nov 2014 17:41:31 +0000 LaidBack 171496@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>chdot <em>Why not motorist v other motorists?<br /> </em></p> <p>Your enemy's enemy is your friend?</p> <p>I have leaflets at shop for Cycle Law Scotland. I was told that this is a campaign for PL -Presumed Liability. Strict liabiilty was considered too extreme I think. Not sure if that's me misunderstanding the SL campaign - just come to this thread late.<br /> Scottish law does allow three verdicts normally. Innocent, Guilty and Not Proven.</p> <p><a href="http://www.cycling-accident-compensation.co.uk/strict-liability.aspx">Cycle Law Scotland - Presumed Liability</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13879&page=3#post-171491 Sat, 08 Nov 2014 16:25:11 +0000 chdot 171491@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"SNP could adopt strict liability as a manifeso pledge with debate on subject at party conference"</p> <p>The key word is "debate". </p> <p>So far it's been between minister/civil servant and 'cycle campaigners' - largely behind closed doors. </p> <p>This time it's by SNP activists more publicly. </p> <p>I assume they will be well briefed. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13879&page=3#post-171489 Sat, 08 Nov 2014 16:15:19 +0000 crowriver 171489@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"SNP could adopt strict liability as a manifeso pledge with debate on subject at party conference"</p> <p>That's "could" as in, SNP could abandon the Council Tax freeze; could introduce a Land Value Tax instead; could decentralise decision making and devolve more powers to local authorities; could restructure local government to be more democratic and truly local; could stop building pointless dual carriageways; could electrify Scotland's entire rail network instead of pushing for HSR 'twixt Edina and Glasvegas; could invest large amounts in a decent network of segregated cycling infrastructure in Scotland's cities and towns...</p> <p>It "could" do all these things. What are the chances though? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13879&page=2#post-171483 Sat, 08 Nov 2014 14:43:26 +0000 chdot 171483@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><a href="http://road.cc/content/news/134870-snp-could-adopt-strict-liability-manifeso-pledge-debate-subject-party-conference" rel="nofollow">http://road.cc/content/news/134870-snp-could-adopt-strict-liability-manifeso-pledge-debate-subject-party-conference</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13879&page=2#post-171480 Sat, 08 Nov 2014 14:24:50 +0000 chdot 171480@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"</p> <p>If you were looking for a car-friendly justification for cycling infrastructure, you couldn't get much better than reduced congestion. And if it pays for itself, and helps the Government meet some of its own targets (see it's Reduced Traffic Congestion national indicator here) so much the better.</p> <p>"</p> <p><a href="http://www.citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13889#post-171475" rel="nofollow">http://www.citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13889#post-171475</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13879&page=2#post-171478 Sat, 08 Nov 2014 14:08:55 +0000 I were right about that saddle 171478@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>My favourite motoring trope is 'stuck in traffic'. Not 'participating in a traffic jam', not 'holding people up', but 'stuck in traffic'. Epic othering of everyone else on the road. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13879&page=2#post-171477 Sat, 08 Nov 2014 13:48:57 +0000 chdot 171477@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"I was being sarcastic."</p> <p>Yes, but articulating a 'truth'. </p> <p>I'm wondering how much 'everyone breaks motoring laws' - so they are (regarded as) 'redundant'(?)</p> <p>If so why?</p> <p>The most absurd thing is how it's (apparently) a binary motorists v cyclists choice/conflict. </p> <p>Why not motorist v other motorists. </p> <p>Work on the '<em>you</em> wouldn't do anything bad, but we are going to crack down on all the others' psychology. </p> <p>End result - a lot fewer people driving... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13879&page=2#post-171476 Sat, 08 Nov 2014 12:21:50 +0000 Instography 171476@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I was being sarcastic. "Otherwise law-abiding" is a stock phrase used to diminish the significance of whatever piece of illegality it's being applied to. It's job is to imply that the law is wrong since if people are otherwise law-abiding they must have a good reason for breaking this law. It's the opposite of "scoff-law". </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13879&page=2#post-171470 Sat, 08 Nov 2014 10:33:04 +0000 chdot 171470@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"that's the trouble with dealing with everyday idiocy - it appears to punish the otherwise law-abiding motorist"</p> <p>Does "otherwise" mean they obey laws when they are not driving?</p> <p>How is that *society* has decided that measures against speeding, drink driving, double parking, going into ASL boxes are not <em>proper</em> laws - and the police largely agree?? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13879&page=2#post-171469 Sat, 08 Nov 2014 10:25:48 +0000 Instography 171469@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>They could try being anti-idiot. But that's the trouble with dealing with everyday idiocy - it appears to punish the otherwise law-abiding motorist. Hence the need for 'balance' and a crackdown on cyclists' misbehaving. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13879&page=2#post-171468 Sat, 08 Nov 2014 10:22:01 +0000 RJ 171468@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>The difficulty for pols is finding things that appear to be pro cycling without also appearing to be anti car (driver). Strict liability is tough to sell as that sort of road-user win-win. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13879&page=2#post-171463 Sat, 08 Nov 2014 09:27:04 +0000 gembo 171463@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Both scottish labour led coalition and SNp governments had tax varying powers that they were too scared to use.</p> <p>Votes lost from being pro cycling need to be outweighed by votes gained for being pro cycling.</p> <p>Being unable to inhabit the mind of a driver who dislikes cyclists I cannot judge accurately how that balance might pan out. Personally I would have thought more votes in being pro-cycling but I am often wrong. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13879&page=2#post-171460 Sat, 08 Nov 2014 01:20:13 +0000 crowriver 171460@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@Insto, yeah it's getting pretty tiresome the way the SNP tries to offload its own intransigence onto Westminster. Sure, some things Holyrood does not have the power to do, but there's plenty the Scottish government can do if it wants: including reassigning trunk road spend to active travel infrastructure, and it could easily enact strict liability if it wanted.</p> <p>Clearly the SNP ministers have decided to just pay lip service to improving conditions for active travel, while spending vast sums on trunk roads. What I don't quite understand is why they need to make excuses for a very clear position. Or is it a case of trying to keep as many folk on side as possible, ready for the next big push to independence?</p> <p>Well frankly, f**k that: there are issues that need sorting now, not in a decade, or even five years' time. If, as seems likely, we're looking at the SNP in power at Holyrood for at least the next session, then we need to push, and push hard, for change. Call their bluff on all these positive noises they keep making. We need more than the bare minimum of action on this. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13879&page=2#post-171456 Fri, 07 Nov 2014 23:48:18 +0000 Instography 171456@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"I assume they don't need WM permission for SL - they are not using that as an excuse for not doing it."</p> <p>It's in Joan McAlpine's piece. SL needs a change of culture. Culture change comes from cyclists behaving and infrastructure. Infrastructure needs more powers. Those come from Westminster. Ergo, Westminster giving more powers is the key to SL. </p> <p>Christ knows what those powers are but it's Westminster's fault. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13879&page=2#post-171449 Fri, 07 Nov 2014 23:39:40 +0000 chdot 171449@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"Makes me suspect they're not really that fussed about the good ideas that don't actually require independence."</p> <p>It's certainly the case that they are/pretend to be scared of financial consequences of paying for (for instance) childcare and not picking up the (estimated) conseqential income tax. </p> <p>I assume they don't need WM permission for SL - they are not using that as an excuse for not doing it. </p> <p>It's disingenuous to say they won't because there's 'no evidence' it would make things better. I'm pretty sure they haven't 'found' evidence it would make things/anything worse... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13879&page=2#post-171446 Fri, 07 Nov 2014 23:19:34 +0000 PS 171446@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I've not looked into the SNP's governance structure. Is the party bound to adopt policies that the majority of its members vote for? </p> <p>Would be interesting to see a few more policies like this coming through. It's somewhat "disappointing" that so much of the good stuff the party spokespeople claim they want to see needs to wait until the independent promised land is achieved. Makes me suspect they're not really that fussed about the good ideas that don't actually require independence. </p>