On Tuesday, MSPs will debate a motion stating that the level of cyclists being killed on Scottish roads is ‘unacceptably high’ and that motorists should be presumed at fault in the event of a collision, unless they could prove otherwise.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Scotland to debate 'strict liability' civil law change
(44 posts)-
Posted 10 years ago #
-
Good to hear that Scottish Cycling are now supporting this too..
Posted 10 years ago # -
Dear Bikeability Edinburgh
Thank you for writing to me. I am aware of the issue and the understandable anger and concerns over cyclists safety. Having met two bereaved families recently I am aware of the tragedies that have occurred and the need for action. Myself and my colleague the Transport Minister recently met with the Head of the Road Policing Unit at Police Scotland and discussed this amongst other issues.
Sadly there is no one single solution. There needs to be investment in infrastructure as well as laws and their enforcement allied to education and a cultural change.
I am aware of the arguments in favour of strict liability and have discussed them with my ministerial colleague. I am also aware though that there is not uniformity in support amongst all cycling organisations.
I have a Justice commitment that evening but my colleague the Minister for Transport will be responding on behalf of the Government. He will no doubt be advising of further steps being taken.
Kenny MacAskill
Posted 10 years ago # -
"
I am aware of the arguments in favour of strict liability and have discussed them with my ministerial colleague. I am also aware though that there is not uniformity in support amongst all cycling organisations."
The first sentence suggests that he is reasonably in favour, but not enough to
argue strongly again more sceptical colleagues.I'm not following this closely enough to know which "cycling organisations" might be sceptical.
BUT I think it would be worth writing back to him to point out that Scottish Cycling (10,000 members) has recently become a supporter of the idea.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Posted 10 years ago # -
I read, on the parliament website maybe, that this motion has "cross party support". In the bag, I thought, yes! Now I realise, the term just means the motion has supporters in more than one party. Stand down, celebration committee.
I too am intrigued as to which organisations would not be in favour of SL, and why (£?).
Posted 10 years ago # -
How can anyone not be in favour of presumed liability?
It's shameful that this allows the government to weasel out of it by saying "not even all cyclists support it".
Did the Daily Mail set up a shill group of "cyclists" or something?
Posted 10 years ago # -
"
Ian Beattie (@ianbeattie1)
29/10/2013 07:50
I am just about to leave house and cycle in to work. Anything that makes cycling safer and encourages more cycling has my support."
Twitter profile -
"
Chairman of Scottish Athletics, Trustee of SAMH, Race Director of the West Highland Way Race. And Chief Operating Officer of Lindsays, a top Scottish law firm.
"
Posted 10 years ago # -
The first sentence suggests that he is reasonably in favour, but not enough to
argue strongly again more sceptical colleagues.I guess we will find out soon but I read the letter as:-
Dear BE,
Nae chance.
Kenny MacAskill
I suppose the fact that it is even being debated and not just dismissed out of hand is reason for at least some optimism though!
Posted 10 years ago # -
I think MacAskill's response is code for "drivers will never stand for it".
Here's the Green Party announcement from last week:
----
MEDIA RELEASE
SCOTTISH GREEN MSPs
Sunday 27 October 2013
GREENS SECURE CROSS-PARTY BACKING FOR ROAD USERS DEBATE
Alison Johnstone, Scottish Green MSP for Lothian and co-convener of Holyrood's group on cycling, has secured cross-party support for a debate in parliament this Tuesday (29 Oct) on a popular European system designed to protect road users.
"Strict liability" presumes a motorist is liable in a civil claim against them by an injured cyclist or pedestrian, and that a cyclist is liable in a claim by a pedestrian. Campaigners say, as part of a package of measures, it can encourage respect, helping make roads safer for all.
The debate comes as figures are published showing a worrying trend in people injured and killed on Scotland's roads while cycling and walking. Between 2011 and 2012 there was a nine per cent increase in cycle casualties and a 33 per cent increase in pedestrians killed. 2013 is on course to record an even higher number of cycle deaths than the 9 fatalities in 2012.
Alison said:
"The number of fatalities and injuries to pedestrians and cyclists on Scotland's roads is unacceptably high. Versions of a strict liability rule exist in the civil law of many European countries and it could make a difference here as part of a package of measures. It is heartening to see MSPs from all parties agreeing that it deserves debate.
"A petition by Cycle Law Scotland has secured over 5,000 signatures and there are many walking and cycling campaigners who see the benefits. To date the Scottish Government has dismissed the suggestion of looking at the idea; hopefully Tuesday's debate will persuade ministers to think again."
(Ends)
Transport Scotland statistics published this week showing 23 per cent increase in cycle casualties since 2008 despite cycle traffic only increasing by 14 per cent. Also, cars represent 83 per cent of accidents involving cyclists despite only accounting for 77 per cent of mileage:
Posted 10 years ago # -
"5.00 pm
Decision Time
followed by Members’ Business
Debate on the subject of—S4M-07934 Alison Johnstone:
Strict Liability—That the Parliament believes that the number of fatalities and injuries to pedestrians and cyclists on Scotland’s roads, including in the Lothian region, is unacceptably high; recognises that the Scottish Government has funded a number of national cycle safety initiatives; notes that versions of a strict liability rule exist in the civil law of many European countries; notes that a number of walking and cycling organisations support the introduction of such a law in Scotland; understands that a petition by Cycle Law Scotland on this topic has secured nearly 5,000 signatures; considers that a stricter liability rule could have positive benefits for the safety of more vulnerable road users as part of a package of measures, and would welcome further debate on this proposal."RJ
Posted 10 years ago # -
"I am also aware though that there is not uniformity in support amongst all cycling organisations."
Been thinking about this more.
It's possible that that is the semi-official 'view' of Cycling Scotland - which is funded by Transport Scotland which is (and its minister) against SL.
I suspect that the "uniformity" relates to 'segregated infrastructure' rather than SL.
In which case Kenny MacAskill is either misinformed or mischievous.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"You've now read three articles in the last four weeks. If you're already registered with us, please sign in below to read more."
Thanks, but no thanks...
Posted 10 years ago # -
"uniformity of support" - excellent civil service phrase. Support for strict liability could be unanimous amongst cyclists and still not "uniform" - some may strongly support it while others are hardly bothered at all.
Keith Brown is opposed to strict liability - but there is always the possibility he could be over-ruled by someone more senior. I doubt the Scottish Government will support strict liability (just now) as it is too easily protrayed as "war on the motorist" by the media and Government don't want any controversy before the referendum.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@ Morningsider
Yes - interesting/useful nuances.
Perhaps some of Kenny's constituents might like to ask him some direct questions...
Posted 10 years ago # -
"
MOVES for a radical change in the law which would force motorists to prove their innocence when faced with accident compensation claims from cyclists or pedestrians is gaining political support."
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/support-shifts-gear-on-road-liability-law-1-3162819
Posted 10 years ago # -
It's not all that radical. If you crash your car into the back of another car you'll find presumed liability at play (whether legislated or not).
It's only if you crash it into the back of a cyclist that you can get away with barely an awkward question asked.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@Dave - good point.
If the onus lies with drivers to show that they weren't at fault, then perhaps that is some motivation to learn how cyclists are taught to cycle. They might discover such vernacular as primary position and door zone, and maybe perhaps the gap between how you should cycle and what non-cyclist drivers think good cycling is will be closed somewhat. It still astounds me that so many drivers who don't cycle seem to have an opinion about what cyclists should do. I can't dance, so I tend not to advise people on how to do it.
Posted 10 years ago # -
It's also amazing that it seems to be only cyclists who understand the concept of strict liability after all the publicity it has received. Motorists and pedestrians don't seem to have a grasp of it, at least not in the comments section of media websites.
Then again maybe that's where part of the problem lies - whereas cycling websites explain it how it is, the chances are that motoring sites in particular will be pedalling (pun intended) the line that it's an anti-motorist/pro-cyclist "hate campaign".
Posted 10 years ago # -
@Dave if you open the article in an incognito window (Ctrl+Shift+N) in chrome it won't ask you to register.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Good skills!
Posted 10 years ago # -
Morningsider has it spot on, I think - the snp will be wanting to avoid media headwinds just now. But after the vote the core strategy might be to aim for more "political continental drift" in the coming decade - looking for policies that make us feel more Scandic, less SE England - so it's SL and proper bike lanes galore by 2016, hopefully.
Posted 10 years ago # -
post-vote scandinavian drift?
it's just wishful thinking
ain't no nordic horizon on these here shores
Posted 10 years ago # -
I would say that Scottish policy appears to borrow quite a lot from north America (Anglophone affinities and cultural ties), but also looks to Europe far more than (the south east of) England seems to. For example the role of the public sector is much more valued here. The Newsnight Scotland debate last night on higher and further education was quite instructive in this regard.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@o_0
Wishful thinking maybe, I'm not sure, but there's no need to discuss that separate topic here - my point isn't whether or not it's a winning strategy for the snp to adopt post-2014, but rather that it's a likely strategy for them and that if they go with that approach, we may see SL legislation.Posted 10 years ago # -
Maybe a green party coalition deal might swing it for us.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"Supported by: John Lamont, Jim Eadie, Richard Lyle, Patrick Harvie, Jean Urquhart, Tavish Scott, Nigel Don, Malcolm Chisholm, Rob Gibson, Claudia Beamish, Graeme Pearson, Richard Baker, David Torrance, Kezia Dugdale"
Worth noting those names. I'm pleased to see my local constituency MSP on the list of supporters.
Posted 10 years ago # -
but rather that it's a likely strategy for them and that if they go with that approach, we may see SL legislation.
This is the same rampantly populist and pro-motoring SNP that's running my Scotland, right? :-)
Posted 10 years ago # -
Ha, yes, I hear you Dave. But no, the (wildly?) optimistic view is that the administration post 2014 will not be the same at all, or not have same strategies and priorities, as they'll have a decade to reshape the country for next referendum, rather than just months to avoid upsetting people.
Posted 10 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
