CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years 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.
Teh internets is ablaze this morning with the fury of poor set-upon motorists.
@carltonreid - Bile from UK motoring journalists
BikeBiz - Motoring lobby furious about EU plans to protect cyclists
Meanwhile in Oregon:
BikePortland - Would Strict Liability help curb America's distracted driving habit?
And from the Grauniad eight years ago - Driver fury over Euro cycle laws and Two wheels good, four wheels bad: plan to make drivers liable in all accidents
I really do despair when seemingly intelligent people come out with that sort of bile.
"The Daily Telegraph had the most rounded coverage, with views aired on all sides" is the only thing which surprises me there.
I'm all for strict liability but it only helps if the driver bothers to stop which I think we've seen of late is fairly rare.
Personally i think this comes back to the litigation culture we've developed. Personally i don't care who's to blame i'd sooner not go under the wheels of a car than know that it doesn't matter i'll get a new bike out of it...
"
A DRUNK driver who collided with another car left his victim trapped as he fled the scene for fear of "getting into trouble"
"
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Drunk-driver-fled-accident.6620322.jp
So if car insurance will be going up, my Public Liability insurance will be coming down? This is how it works right?
On a related note, in November last year The Cycling Lawyer posted a breakdown of some car-bike traffic incidents and a fairly scathing assessment of the legal process.
I thought this comment was particularly interesting:
"This is a brilliant article, which would make a good argument if a case should be brought in the European COurt of Human Rights against the UK Goverment for its (fairly obvious) failure to protect the right to life of vulnerable road users."
We've debated on here before about dangerous roads vs. dangerous road users. How far might the UK be prepared to go to ensure the safety of the vulnerable? We hear a lot about fuel poverty and the elderly. What about cyclists and their armour poverty?
Only rough figures:
UK population somewhere between 60-65 million, so potentially 60-65 million pedestrians.
Number of cars on the road, about 22 million.
At the most basic level of our political system, surely government policy should favour the majority, not the minority (or those who have the most money to splash on lobbying).
More people than cars means there is still a market to exploit -check out China. Cyclists are the minority on the roads, and tonight's traffic was a disgrace, survived two near misses with vehicles deciding they were in a lane they didn't like [due to the queues] one at longstone and really bad one at Gillespies. Swore twice. HAd another near miss last night as the guy was going straight on but didn't fancy waiting til car ahead turned right and he undertook it in the left lane (left turn only) and then came back into the middle just as I made it to safety on the right. Do not tell my partner.
Arellcat, another unused approach might be to counter the absence of "malice aforethought" in cases where motorists are prosecuted for colliding with cyclists by checking the driver's computer for evidence of anti-cylist vitriol.
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts