CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Anecdotes and evidence

(24 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. chdot
    Admin

    I have just read the transcript of yesterday's strict(er) liability debate -

    http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/28862.aspx?r=8582&mode=html#iob_77676

    Keith Brown wants evidence -

    "
    I cannot support it in its current form, given the lack of robust evidence that stricter liability could have positive benefits for vulnerable road users. However, there will continue to be debate on the issue, in which we will continue to participate.

    "

    When Kezia Dugdale expresses her fear about cycling on Easter Road, rather than responding by acknowledging that there are real issues of (perceptions of) danger putting people off cycling and saying 'we need to do more', he merely says that one of his civil servants finds it OK -

    "
    There is no way I would cycle to work, because that would involve cycling up Easter Road in the morning at peak times; it is just too dangerous. Until I can be persuaded that cycling is safe, or we invest in the infrastructure such that cycling becomes obviously safe for everyone, I do not think that we will meet that challenge.

    "

    "
    We are delivering better infrastructure. Kezia Dugdale, who has left the chamber, mentioned Easter Road. One of the officials from Transport Scotland who is sitting at the back of the chamber regularly cycles up and down Easter Road and feels that it is a safe road to cycle. Such things are subjective and depend on people’s experiences and perceptions of the environment around them, but other people feel that the road is safe in the circumstances. One of the main infrastructure initiatives that we are delivering, not far from Easter Road, is the Leith Walk initiative. We recently announced support for the City of Edinburgh Council’s initiative to have infrastructure put in there to improve active travel.

    "

    There is actually some evidence that it is not particularly 'safe'.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  2. Instography
    Member

    I'm with Hembrow - safety is in the eye of the beholder. One man's safety is everyone else's no way I'm cycling there. When 1% cycle, 79% don't and the other 20%'s parents wouldn't let them, then you haven't achieved subjective safety.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  3. gembo
    Member

    are cycle injuries and fatalities not less on the continent then? Is this data not collected? I wonder what evidence would convince the minister?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  4. Claggy Cog
    Member

    What struck me was how packed the chamber is. Where is everybody, are they not employed and paid for attending on our behalf? They are probably doing their day job!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/scotland-24729466

    Posted 11 years ago #

  5. Morningsider
    Member

    Claggy Cog - it was a members business debte, which happens after the main business of the day. Almost no-one every goes to these, apart from people with a real interest in the subject or those who have been dragooned into it by party managers.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  6. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    "Such things are subjective and depend on people’s experiences and perceptions of the environment around them, but other people feel that the road is safe in the circumstances"

    Broon really is capable of tying himself in knots superbly within sentences. So he admits that whether a road is perceived as safe or not can be down to experience and so on. The natural conclusion for which for many people would be to make it 'seem' safer, which can be done easily with slight layout changes or infrastructure. Instead, he then brings in the mandarin who works for him who tells him what he wants to hear (that it's safe) and therefore that means that it is safe.

    Only hears what he wants to hear.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  7. chdot
    Admin

    "Only hears what he wants to hear."

    I think that's only too true.

    Yesterday at the demo, Tom Ballantine (Chair of Stop Climate Chaos Scotland) said they had just come out of a meeting with Paul Wheelhouse.

    He's the one with the hapless appearance at PoP this year reading his master's (civil servant's) words.

    I believe he does listen.

    But - does he have the ear of John Swinney?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  8. cycletrain
    Member

    Would Strict Liability make things safer? I'd doubt it.

    Would road users be more aware of more vulnerable users as a result of it? I'd doubt it.

    I'd expect it to be lost in the other hundreds of Statutes that govern how we should use the road and we have all witnessed many of these laws are adhered to.

    What it might do is make compensation easier for the lesser blameworthy casualty therefore making Mssrs Digby Brown richer.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  9. gembo
    Member

    Yes compensation will be paid out more to the vulnerable, or more easily with strict liability. From my perspective as a student of human behaviour I think this will lead to a shift in behaviour and then attitude. what I like about strict liability is that it is my fault if I hit an errant ped unless I can show otherwise. Similarly it is a driver's fault if they hit a cyclist unless they can prove otherwise. In both instances proving otherwise is quite difficult, thus it will be my fault if I hit a ped, the driver's fault if he hits a cyclist. This will change behaviour. at the moment people take risks gauging that it is a fifty fifty. With strict liability it is 100/0 your fault (or in some instances a sliding scale if you can show blame).

    My only shoulder check on the above is that I recall as an annoying young man when all my friends wanted to drink lots of tartan special and tap aff with women, I wanted to drink wine, discuss philosophy, drink coffee and tap aff with women. I am irredeemably continental

    Posted 11 years ago #

  10. Arellcat
    Moderator

    Such things are subjective and depend on people’s experiences and perceptions of the environment around them, but other people feel that the road is safe in the circumstances.

    What about the A9? Some motorists feel that the A9 is safe in the circumstances. Other motorists get killed on it. And so KB commits to pouring billions of the nation's money into making it safer for people already protected by steel plate and inflatable cushions. Conspicuous by its absence is the addressing of a more fundamental problem: impatience of motorists.

    And from the Jim & Keith in Shangri-La thread, a reminder of why strict liability isn't may not be the be-all-and-end-all of protecting cyclists and walkers, and why sustainable safety is more important.

    http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10406&page=2#post-114533

    Posted 11 years ago #

  11. MeepMeep
    Member

    Yes, not only is perception of safety subjective, but it is also dependent upon familiarity: with cycling; with your bike's handling; with your route; and with typical conditions (e.g. rush hour at Jock's Lodge).

    I have been pondering this today. What came through strongly for me is that I have a far greater tolerance for roads and situations that would very well have put me off cycling (if not for my stubborn streak) if I had have encountered them in my first year back cycling.

    I can understand why Keith Brown supposedly needs concrete proof but it's a little chicken and egg - until he defines his requirements for evidence, he can't be considered committed. Why can't more politicians 'be brave'?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  12. gembo
    Member

    KB is only saying he needs concrete proof, he will never, ever become pro cyclist clarice bean.

    David Hembrow is a very balanced and astute person but he is subject to the same biases and interpretations that the rest of us have.

    I am in favour of ha paving strict liability and better infrastructure. I see that as win win

    Posted 11 years ago #

  13. MeepMeep
    Member

    Agree, Gembo. My point was that until he lays out what he considers to constitute concrete evidence, he cannot be held to account for the strict liability debate's non-progression.

    Judging from his response to Kezia Dugdale's very valid concern, I am under no illusions that he will ever get to the point of leaving himself open to seriously entertaining the debate. Too much of a Salmond lemming for that.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  14. gembo
    Member

    Yes meep meep you are spot on, my view is that what he constitutes as concrete evidence is any data which is impossible to provide. That is, data that is possible to provide will never be concrete for him.

    I also agree that his response to Kezia also highlighted his extremely concrete thinking

    Posted 11 years ago #

  15. chdot
    Admin

    "

    Cycling Edinburgh (@CyclingEdin)
    31/10/2013 21:53
    @scott_eff Perhaps @KeithBrownMSP +@kdugdalemsp can try Easter Rd & Leith W with @AndrewDBurns + @CllrJimOrr

    "

    "

    Cllr. Andrew D Burns (@AndrewDBurns)
    01/11/2013 07:55
    @CyclingEdin @CllrJimOrr Thanks for tweets/link ... haven't cycled Easter Road for a while: will try and get down there one rush-hour soon!

    "

    Posted 11 years ago #

  16. chdot
    Admin

    "
    thebonnieloon (@thebonnieloon)
    01/11/2013 08:02
    @AndrewDBurns @CyclingEdin @CllrJimOrr I cycle Easter Road every day. It's only a matter of time before a cyclist is killed/ injured on it.

    "

    Posted 11 years ago #

  17. chdot
    Admin

    "
    Peter Matthews (@urbaneprofessor)
    01/11/2013 08:09
    @AndrewDBurns @CyclingEdin @CllrJimOrr it's getting worse as you're narrowing the road at Abbeyhill now as well

    "

    Anyone want to start an Easter Road thread?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  18. Morningsider
    Member

    I think it's a very clever idea to call for evidence proving the effectiveness of strict liability in reducing collisions - if you never want to introduce it.

    How do you prove effectiveness. The obvious answer is to look at countries that have introduced it and try and work out the impact. However, this is effectively impossible - as so many factors influence country-wide accident statistics that I doubt you could effectively calculate the impact of something as nebulous as strict liability.

    The Scottish Government has cleverly framed this debate - the argument for introducing strict liability has been reduced to whether we can prove it works. I think it would be useful if the debate could be re-framed, with a focus on protection of the vulnerable and civillising the streets - rather than a numbers game that we can never win.

    I agree with gembo, that strict liability would slowly influence driver behaviour and would be a useful way of helping to create a cycling culture - along with lots of high quality cycling infrastructure. On its own, strict liability can achieve almost nothing - people are put off by the fear of being hit by a car, not by the thought that it might prove a bit tricky to get compensation after being hit.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  19. Claggy Cog
    Member

    @Morningsider, thanks for the info regarding the reason for the chambers to be so empty. Does the subject or indeed subjects brought up like this ever get further attention at a later stage or is that it?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  20. Claggy Cog
    Member

    The uphill bit of Easter Road up to Regent Road is awful, the surface is utterly diabolical, and motorists harrass you because you are going uphill slowly and in their view getting in their way, and as for Abbeymount, again horrendous road surface, drivers tending to pick up speed. Also very busy.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  21. Morningsider
    Member

    Claggy Cog - the purpose of members debates is to raise awareness of an issue (or the member raising the issue). There is no set follow-up and, unless the Government actually commits itself to something during the debate, that is usually that.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  22. sallyhinch
    Member

    I look forward to the 'evidence' that the NWC has worked through reduced numbers of casualties then... or will it just be the usual thing of recording how many people remember the adverts and claim to the nice researcher lady that they'll definitely give cyclists more room next time they see them?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  23. Instography
    Member

    The best evidence would be a comparison of various variables in the years before and after the implementation of a strict liability law.

    Decide your variables now - things like cyclists and drivers' attitudes, reported incidents, the levels and severity of incidents, arrests, charges and sentencing, civil cases and outcomes - and monitor them during the legislative process and for five years afterwards. If it doesn't work, scrap it.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  24. gembo
    Member

    @instography

    That would be what someone who had an interest in evidence would do. Indeed every time the minister says I do not see any concrete evidence to say strict liability makes things better it is imperative that we say Well that means there is no concrete evidence that it doesn't work. Thus, if it is evidence you are after Implement the Instography Initiative

    Posted 11 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin