CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News

SNP Propose Motion to Support Road Share Campaign for Stricter Liability

(77 posts)
  • Started 10 years ago by Schemieradge
  • Latest reply from Schemieradge

123

  1. Schemieradge
    Member

    Not sure if this has been mentioned here - suspect it must have but I can't find it if so...

    SNP conference later this month is proposing a motion to support stricter liability.

    If you like the idea of presumed liability (and I do), now would be a great time to email your SNP MSPs about it.

    Link to Road Share's Facebook post about it here, and I'll paste the text also for good measure:
    https://www.facebook.com/campaignforstrictliability/posts/585088294946635

    ---
    This letter has been sent to SNP Ministers, backbenchers and delegates who will be attending the SNP Conference on 13th/14th November 2014.
    "As cycling continues to increase in popularity across Scotland, how to ensure the safety of cyclists has been pushed to the front and centre of the minds of policymakers. Road Share, the campaign for presumed liability, has emerged as a leading group calling for greater protection for Scotland’s vulnerable road users.
    A motion will be put before delegates at the SNP conference on Friday 14 November that:
    “notes the significant rise in cycling as a mass-participation sport and means of travel in recent years, and greatly welcomes the physical and mental health, as well as the environmental benefits, that this brings. Conference recognises the dangers inherent in cycling on busy roads, however, and supports the Road Share campaign for stricter liability as a means of building greater mutual respect between road users.”
    We believe conference should back this motion as a means of addressing Scotland’s disappointing road safety record for vulnerable road users.
    A system of presumed liability would create a hierarchy of responsibility whereby motor vehicle drivers would be presumed liable for any loss, injury and damage caused to a cyclist involved in a collision. A cyclist would also be presumed liable for loss, injury and damage caused to a pedestrian in any collision thus ensuring fairness while protecting the vulnerable.
    We all have responsibility for our safety on the road and respect of all road users for one another is vital. Presumed liability will help promote Scotland as a cycling-friendly nation and will build a culture of mutual respect on our roads.
    Road Share already has the support of public figures like Nick Nairn, Cameron McNeish, Scott and Jenny Hastings, media commentator Lesley Riddoch; athletes such as paracyclist Karen Darke, endurance athlete Dr Andrew Murray, Olympic and Paralympic cyclist Craig MacLean, Scottish track stars Silas Goldsworthy and Martin Williamson; and organisations like Scottish Cycling, Pedal on Parliament, SCID, SPOKES, CTC Scotland, Free Wheel North, Go Bike, Highland Cycling Campaign, Stirling Cycling Campaign the Bike Station, Edinburgh Bicycle Co-operative, driving schools RED and Pro-Scot, Dunfermline CC and a number of MSPs and MP.
    More information about the campaign can be found on our website at http://www.roadshare.co.uk
    There is a very good Q&A section which should answer any questions you may have.
    We urge you to support this motion but please don’t hesitate to get in touch if you would like to discuss Road Share in more detail."
    If any supporter living in Scotland would like to write to their local SNP politician urging them to support the motion, please use http://www.writetothem.com.
    Many thanks.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  2. Instography
    Member

    Where has the motion come from?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  3. chdot
    Admin

    "

    By JIM ORR

    At the forthcoming SNP conference in Perth this month, delegates will debate the presumed (or stricter) liability proposals of the Road Share campaign, a measure which would greatly simplify the compensation process for pedestrians and cyclists injured in collisions with motor vehicles.

    "

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/after-an-accident-the-driver-s-insurers-should-pay-1-3595751

    Posted 10 years ago #

  4. chdot
    Admin

    @I

    "

    Duncan Ross (@dmross63) tweeted at 10:25am - 6 Nov 14:

    A useful and clear guide to presumed liability: I look forward to making the case in Perth. scotsman.com/news/after-an-… (https://twitter.com/dmross63/status/530304961700040704?s=17)

    "

    "

    Academic at University of Glasgow, SNP activist and proud father

    "

    Posted 10 years ago #

  5. chdot
    Admin

    "

    Roger Symonds (@RogSymonds)
    04/11/2014 15:05
    SNP Propose Motion to Support Road Campaign for Stricter Liability https://www.change.org/p/pass-a-member-s-bill-for-strict-liability-between-motorists-cyclists-and-pedestrians/u/8620324 via @Change

    "

    Posted 10 years ago #

  6. chdot
    Admin

    "

    Spokes CycleCampaign (@SpokesLothian)
    06/11/2014 23:51
    .@RogSymonds NB motion is not official SNP but by some delegates. Ministers don't agree. Would be great if their conf says yes! @CyclingEdin

    "

    Posted 10 years ago #

  7. Instography
    Member

    Hmm. I was wondering if this might be a bit of the downside of the Yes surge. If the SNP would start to look like the Labour Party of the 1980s

    Posted 10 years ago #

  8. Schemieradge
    Member

    Sorry, you'll need to explain that. What's this got to do with the Yes surge?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  9. crowriver
    Member

    "Ministers don't agree."

    I think the official line is "We asked Transport Scotland to investigate and they couldn't find any evidence it would have an impact on road safety" or somesuch.

    Whereas of course when there was a similar lack of evidence that the Forh Road Bridge was falling down, there was a rush by ministers (supported by every party except the Greens) to splurge £1.5 billion on the Forth Resilience Crossing.

    That's what you call "evidence based policy".

    Posted 10 years ago #

  10. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Isuspect the connection to the surge is that there are suddenly a lot more members of the SNP, and alot who aren't traditionally party supporters. This translates to more people with different or new ideas. So new delegates promote new ideas that have never formed a core of the party, giving the opportunity for splintering and in-fighting (viz. Labour in the late 70s / early 80s).

    I doubt this particular issue will cause too many ructions, but it's possible a microcosm of things to come. Such sudden growth in most things is generally unsustainable.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  11. crowriver
    Member

    "What's this got to do with the Yes surge?"

    I presume Insto was referring to the Labour conferences of yore (live on BBC TV no less) where "composite motions" ad infinitum would be proposed in order to provoke the leadership. They hadn't a hope in hell of becoming policy, but it made for grand gesture politics.

    Isn't there footage somewhere of a fetching young Cllr Darling addressing conference in that era, sporting whishers to match his broos, and righteously invoking the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse or similar? I think we should be told.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  12. crowriver
    Member

    Ah, here it is:

    [+] Embed the video | Video DownloadGet the Video Widget

    Posted 10 years ago #

  13. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Superb!

    Posted 10 years ago #

  14. chdot
    Admin

    "I think the official line is "We asked Transport Scotland to investigate and they couldn't find any evidence it would have an impact on road safety" or somesuch."

    Don't know if TS was involved, but the 'can't find any evidence' was the work of someone at Victoria Quay whose job included cycling.

    The 'lack of evidence' is due to fact that most countries have had similar laws for so long that there is no before/after 'evidence'.

    I'm fairly sure that it's the same civil servant that Keith Brown referred to when Kezia Dugdale talked - in the Scottish Parliament - about finding Easter Road unpleasant for cycling. 'One of my civil servants cycles there everyday'.

    Which displays the all too common attitude among too many politicians (and some 'experienced' cyclists) that 'people who want to cycle just need to get used to things as they are'.

    Which would be fine (well not really) if it wasn't for the fact that governments (and councils) have targets to increase the amounts of cycling massively by 2020.

    The fact that 'targets' become 'aspirations' and 'all journeys' become 'journeys to work', won't change the fact that there will not be a significant increase in bike use unless there is a change in attitude by people whose JOB it is to make it happen.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  15. Instography
    Member

    And you thought the referendum campaign was scaremongering.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  16. Morningsider
    Member

    I can't see any Scottish political party, with the exception of the Greens,supporting a policy that is so easily portrayed as anti-car. The papers would have a field day with this - no politician ever wants that, particularly with two major elections in the next 18 months.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  17. chdot
    Admin

    Except that -

    There was a man from TRL on Today this morning talking about road safety (particularly drink driving) and saying that attitudes had changed - exampled resistance to smoking ban.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  18. Dave
    Member

    I didn't follow the trend for joining the SNP, as while I was keen to get shot of broken Britain, I don't really like a lot of their policies.

    This is an interesting prospect - strict liability is the only thing I can think of that would actually get me to donate to and spend time canvassing for any party. Except maybe conscription (obviously in reverse).

    Like Morningsider I really can't imagine the SNP going for this - they're populists to the core.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  19. chdot
    Admin

    "Like Morningsider I really can't imagine the SNP going for this - they're populists to the core."

    It is of course unfortunate that it's possible to portray this a 'pro-cycling' measure - and we all know how unpopular 'cyclists' are.

    BUT the Yorkshire TdeF, Sky and Chris Boardman are changing that.

    More importantly this is also about pedestrians and careful, law abiding, drivers.

    I.e. most of the populous.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  20. chdot
    Admin

    Even some SNP MSPs 'get it'.

    "

    Joan McAlpine: Why going Dutch will get Scots on their bike

    Fewer cars mean safer streets for pedestrians too.

    And if more people walk and cycle, then diseases associated with obesity and poor air quality drop, saving the health service money and the rest of us much pain and heartache.

    Dutch towns are more social – you stop and talk to a neighbour if you simply have to cease pedalling.

    More sociable communities mean less loneliness and less mental illness.
    I have been urged to support a number of campaigns to encourage cycling. One of them, Roadsafe, wants to change the law to make car drivers liable for any collision they have with a bike. I could be convinced.

    However, in the Netherlands, if a car hits a cyclist, the chances are he must be liable because the culture is different.

    And cyclists in the Netherlands also have to behave better, with on-the-spot fines for those who don’t use lights.

    To change the culture, we need real, Dutch-style cycle paths alongside all our roads, not just the odd newly-built stretch. That will require investment – and Scotland needs more powers over investment in infrastructure.

    "

    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/opinion/news/joan-mcalpine-going-dutch-scots-4482260

    Posted 10 years ago #

  21. cc
    Member

    @Schemieradge thanks for letting us know. Seems like a great idea. From a quick internet search or two it looks like my MSP and my SNP councillor already support the measure - I'm really pleased.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  22. DdF
    Member

    @chdot Excuse me wandering off the original topic...

    Joan McAlpine's article was certainly excellent, except that the final sentence rather annoyed/amused me, and I felt compelled to refer to it in my recent letter to the Herald.

    NB - the original is here, but you can only read that if you have an online Herald sub.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  23. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    I'm struggling to see a downside to asking our representatives to support this motion. Perhaps a skeptic could take a moment to outline the objections?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  24. chdot
    Admin

    "Excuse me wandering off the original topic..."

    No need - 'we' expect it (not just from you).

    Posted 10 years ago #

  25. chdot
    Admin

    "Perhaps a skeptic could take a moment to outline the objections?"

    That would be useful.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  26. Morningsider
    Member

    IWRATS - I am that sceptic and I accept your challenge!

    What's easiest for a politician to deliver - strict liability (SL), or decent cycle infrastructure?

    Obviously, the answer is SL, as it costs the Government nothing. Things is, politicians generally have little appetite for matters cycling. I would take a reasonable punt that once SL had been delivered most politicians would feel that thy had "done cycling" and happily move off to other matters.

    In my view SL is a "nice to have" - but I've never heard anyone say they are put off cycling by the fact that it might be tricky for their family to get compensation once they have been ran over.

    I think campaigning effort should focus on the big win - cycling infrastructure. SL is a sideshow. However, one that has taken up a considerable amount of cycling's political time in the sun.

    Now, I know you could argue that it isn't a simple either/or situation. However, politicians have a finite amount of time and many issues to deal with. Politicians who support cycling are thin on the ground and they expend lots of personal political capital in supporting what many view as the preserve of greens, wets and wierdos. It would be a great shame if they expend this capital supporting a side issue in the quest to make cycling accessible, safe and popular.

    It's not that I think SL is a bad idea, it isn't. However, it isn't SL that really makes Copenhagen or Amsterdam the cycling havens they are. My view is - focus on campaigning for infrastructure now and SL later.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  27. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @morningsider

    Well put, thanks. I think that would make the basis of a reasonable e-mail to my reps, if I may plagiarise? In summary - please do support this as long as it doesn't distract from infrastructure (and getting the weather sorted out).

    Posted 10 years ago #

  28. chdot
    Admin

    @ M

    I understand your concerns but -

    "What's easiest for a politician to deliver - strict liability (SL), or decent cycle infrastructure?"

    given that SG has (so far) been firmly against it, a change in attitude would be more significant that getting SL itself.

    It should make it politically easier to move on to the important stuff.

    In general people campaigning for SL have been different from those campaigning for more 'mainstream' cycling issues, so I don't see it as diluting or distracting.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  29. slowcoach
    Member

    "... I've never heard anyone say they are put off cycling by the fact that it might be tricky for their family to get compensation once they have been ran over" +1

    And do people who are about to cause an accident (a non-intentional collision) think 'it doesn't matter if someone suffers unless the victim's lawyer would be able to prove I was to blame'? I would guess that most people don't worry about driving/riding badly because they don't expect to crash or have other negative consequences. Increasing those consequences (jail sentences, bigger fines, having to pay compensation) will have some effect, but most drivers will still think it won't 'happen to them'. Increasing the likelihood of being fined/getting points for going too fast/passing too close/failing to give-way may be more likely to have an effect as drivers should see that as more likely than 'being in an accident'.

    Despite my para above I would still support SL and tougher penalties, for the benefit of victims, rather than to reduce risk of future crashes.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  30. neddie
    Member

    The thing is, SL is a one-off that can be got through govt in a short space of time. Whereas infra takes a decade or more. I would say get SL done & dusted now.

    Posted 10 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

123

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin