CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 16years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
"..support SL and tougher penalties.."
The Labour government of 1997 to 2010 had a mania for criminalising things and the prison population increased sharply, but we didn't all become angels. As I understand it the main effective deterent is the perceived probability of being apprehended, not the eventual punishment.
@slowcoach
No one intends* to have a collision, therefore by your definition everything is an 'accident'.
Except that it's not. All collisions have causes. Usually that cause is the failure of the driver to take sufficient care or to anticipate conditions ahead (no matter how unlikely)
*Except the once-in-a-blue-moon psychopath who want to commit murder.
chdot - I can see what you mean. However, I think it would have been for the best if SL had been approached as a general road safety measure. I think approaching it a cycling issue could hinder cycle campaigning, as set out above. Also, linking SL to cycling probably makes it less likely to happen, given many people's dislike of cyclists/cycling.
Always best if your vulnerable road users are small, cute children, pregnant women, loveable old grannies etc. (yes, I know they can be cyclists - but most aren't).
Personally I think SL could make a significant difference to cycling uptake.
Since few collisions are intentional it's easy to suggest that SL is neither here nor there, but I'm picturing an extensive series of TV ads where a driver makes a dodgy overtake etc. and ends up looking glum, putting a huge wad of notes into an envelope while the hollywood apocalypse voiceover guy says things like "if you don't give cyclists plenty of space, you're certain to lose your no claims bonus".
Definitely not a votewinner, definitely something that would make an impact on driving attitudes IMO.
Yeah I don't think the perceived benefit is really access to compensation. It's the hope there's a change of attitude driving in the vicinity of road users that, if you hit them, it's ALWAYS your fault (as would be the case for under 14 year olds where strict liability is proposed).
So, if you support it, I can't really see a downside to emailing your MSP about it before the debate - and infrastructure issues if you want also.
I'm all for decoupling this issue from cycling since is affects pedestrians just as much - we'd (cyclists) get the benefit anyway (and I DO believe there would be benefits from a very clear hierarchy of responsibility) And there's a much bigger potential lobby group as a general road safety measure.
Anyone got any suggestions on how to promote this issue as such? Is this a job for Mumsnet?
Linking it to kids and alerting mumsnet sounds excellent.
That way, we plough on with PoP and infrastructure and SL is decoupled from cycling, answering Morningsider's points.
"I think it would have been for the best if SL had been approached as a general road safety measure"
Agreed
"I think approaching it a cycling issue could hinder cycle campaigning"
Potentially perhaps, but I'm not convinced in practice. Also I believe people behind current campaign are also interested in motorbikes - which it could be argued are even more unpopular!
Anyway we are where we are,with a fairly high profile PR campaign having made quite a lot of ground in quite a short time. It has, to some extent, been alongside the aftermath of a notable cycling death.
It is also endorsed by a lot of cycling groups.
"Also, linking SL to cycling probably makes it less likely to happen, given many people's dislike of cyclists/cycling."
Well... I know what you're saying, but I'm arguing that (once again) 'the public' are ahead of 'the politicians' on this.
Perhaps it will be easier if/when Keith Brown moves.
"Linking it to kids and alerting mumsnet sounds excellent."
Yes.
The objection to SL is that it blames drivers when everyone knows that the real lawbreakers are cyclists jumping red lights in the dark with no lights while also riding on the pavement. To institute strict liability is to make drivers responsible for accidents caused by cyclists. It uses drivers' insurance to compensate cyclists who have none. Yadda, yadda.
I've reproduced some of that Joan McAlpine piece. I don't think she gets it.
"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."
The bold is all mine. Essentially she seems to be saying that it's cyclists when need to behave themselves and can only avoid accidents with infrastructure. But SL can only come after infrastructure and that needs "more powers" (and since the Scottish Government already has power over investment in transport under devolution, I read that as independence). She "gets it" by kicking it into the longest grass she can find - infrastructure that will come with independence.
I see Joan McAlpine is still Parliamentary Liaison for the First Minister (for now). So perhaps her view is a good indication of how this issue (and probably every other issue) will be "supported" as part of the case for "more powers". Nothing can be done without more powers.
She is certainly 'misguided' about need for more powers.
I don't think she actually meant this -
"
infrastructure that will come with independence
"
But she did try cycling in a 'cycling country' and write about it in the Daily Record - the paper that monstered Sarah Boyack for 'daring' to cycle in Edinburgh (and being Transport Minister - obviously only a job for a man).
So things have changed.
Probably best to give JMcA some benefits of doubts and encourage her to be more bold.
Might not be an MSP after 2016 election.
"All collisions have causes. Usually that cause is "...
Driver failed to look properly. According to the police, road collision statistics, etc. That is the officially recorded reason why most collisions happen.
So terming them "accidents" is definitely a misnomer. Negligent use of a potentially lethal conveyance is not accidental, though it may be unintentional, i.e.. the driver did not mean to collide with anyone nor anything. Had they been looking where they were going, they might not have.
"the paper that monstered Sarah Boyack for 'daring' to cycle in Edinburgh (and being Transport Minister - obviously only a job for a driver)."
FTFY. (My bold).
Radio Scotland
'The Jim Clark Rally won't take place next May as the investigation into the accident which claimed three lives won't be finished'
Sounds like 'accident waiting to happen'.
Doesn't really matter if it was 'driver error' or 'spectators in the wrong place', would seem such events can't realistically pass 'risk assessment'.
"
Last week I participated in a Member’s Debate on potential measures to protect vulnerable road users.
So called strict liability would change the onus of proof by creating a hierarchy for road users.
For example where an accident involves a driver and a cyclist, it would be presumed that the driver was at fault unless they can show that this is not the case.
Similarly, in cases involving cyclists and pedestrians, the cyclist would be presumed liable.
"
http://www.sarahboyack.com/?p=2675
"
@edd1e_h
"No one intends* to have a collision, therefore by your definition everything is an 'accident'."
When my bike was rammed from behind by a van approaching a red light, at first I thought it was an accident caused by the driver's mistake. When he did a second time from stationary, I decided both were intentional. (the police later said they couldn't find the driver even though I'd given them the number plate, (not just the number, the actual plate, which I pulled off the van after it was damaged hitting my bike.)
@slowcoach, perchance could the police lack of enthusiasm in pursuing the offending driver be related to the coincidence that you are a cyclist and thus a member of "what is widely perceived as an out-group who only have themselves to blame for their own problems."
(quoted from parallel discussion on PoP Fb page).
I should have said that police lack of enthusiasm was some decades ago. Some of them are probably better now.
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?
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.
"Makes me suspect they're not really that fussed about the good ideas that don't actually require independence."
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.
I assume they don't need WM permission for SL - they are not using that as an excuse for not doing it.
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...
"I assume they don't need WM permission for SL - they are not using that as an excuse for not doing it."
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.
Christ knows what those powers are but it's Westminster's fault.
@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.
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?
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.
Both scottish labour led coalition and SNp governments had tax varying powers that they were too scared to use.
Votes lost from being pro cycling need to be outweighed by votes gained for being pro cycling.
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.
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.
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.
"that's the trouble with dealing with everyday idiocy - it appears to punish the otherwise law-abiding motorist"
Does "otherwise" mean they obey laws when they are not driving?
How is that *society* has decided that measures against speeding, drink driving, double parking, going into ASL boxes are not proper laws - and the police largely agree??
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".
"I was being sarcastic."
Yes, but articulating a 'truth'.
I'm wondering how much 'everyone breaks motoring laws' - so they are (regarded as) 'redundant'(?)
If so why?
The most absurd thing is how it's (apparently) a binary motorists v cyclists choice/conflict.
Why not motorist v other motorists.
Work on the 'you wouldn't do anything bad, but we are going to crack down on all the others' psychology.
End result - a lot fewer people driving...
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.
"
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.
"
http://www.citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13889#post-171475
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts