http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3451896.ece
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
"Put onus on drivers, says cycling world champion Mark Cavendish"
(10 posts)-
Posted 12 years ago #
-
Cavendish is right. Alas the government doesn't get it:
Last night, the Road Safety Minister, Mike Penning, said that the Government would not change the law. “Making a motorist automatically at fault for an accident with a cyclist, unless he or she can prove otherwise, would be unfair where someone is driving entirely responsibly — or when there is an accident where no one is to blame,” he said.
There is a growing body of opinion that there is no such thing as "an accident where no one is to blame", or at least, these are so rare as to be effectively non-existent. Hence the growing use by emergency services and the media of the word "incident" rather than "accident" to describe collisions and crashes.
Posted 12 years ago # -
“Making an on-road Viking battle reenactor automatically at fault for an accident with a cyclist, unless he or she can prove otherwise, would be unfair where someone is swinging axes entirely responsibly — or when there is an accident where no one is to blame,”
Posted 12 years ago # -
"... unless he or she can prove otherwise... "
"... unfair where someone is driving entirely responsibly... "
Excuse me Mr Muppet Politician, if someone is driving entirely responsibly then they will be able to prove otherwise. I'll bet if the change in the law was couched differently (i.e. what the strict liability rule would mean for cyclist/pedestrian 'accidents' then the response would be the exact opposite).
Posted 12 years ago # -
I like David Hembrow's take on it.
Posted 12 years ago # -
It's an interesting piece that.
Partly because the last time I spoke to a Dutch person here about cycling in general she raised strict liability almost immediately as being something the Dutch have that would help here... So not exactly an obscure law that people don't know about (she's not a lawyer, but rather a research psychologist).
I still think Strict Liability is a 'nice to have'. I actually think (for once) Dave Hembrow is slightly missing the point. I don't think anyone believes that strict liability will stop all incidents overnight (certainly I've never met anyone who thinks that) but correctly implemented, along with infrastructure improvements and so on, it can form one of the building blocks. Not one single thing in isolation will solve the issues we have cycling in this country - not even people cycling to work in miniskirts and low cut tops (I know, I tried, and people just looked at me funny).
Posted 12 years ago # -
I know not everything's for the best in this best of all possible worlds, but I don't honestly think that the majority of drivers who hit cyclists are doing it on the basis that they will get away scot free. In fact, I suspect most of them would rather not hurt another person (and those who couldn't care would probably prefer not to have any scratches on their paintwork). It's largely carelessness that causes these things.
Like Anth says, it's a nice to have, but is strict liability going to change that? There's other things that would have a greater effect. Like more cyclists, more reminders that cyclists are around, more infrastructure, etc...
Strict liability is basically a deterrent, so is it a similar argument to whether the death penalty would reduce the incidence of murder?
Posted 12 years ago # -
I thought strict liability was identified as a factor in better consideration given to cyclists on the continent? Most people do not consider committing murder, the death penalty is targeted at a minority of extreme people who are not deterred by it,that is why it doesn't work. Strict liability might work. The fines most def cleared the bus lanes
Posted 12 years ago # -
I'm not massively clued up Early Day Motions, but this might be of interest. Note that Mike Crockart MP (not MSP) for Edinburgh West is a signatory.
"...to bring UK road traffic personal injury legislation into line with most other European countries by applying the principle of stricter liability to vulnerable road victims; recognise that this means that drivers of motor vehicles that hit cyclists or pedestrians are assumed liable unless they can prove their innocence; note that countries like Belgium, Netherlands and Sweden that apply the principle of stricter liability have much better cyclist and pedestrian safety records than in the UK; agree with Mr Cavendish that this change should be made, not to penalise drivers, but to encourage them to be more aware of the vulnerability of cyclists and pedestrians; and urge the Government to adopt the principle of stricter liability in UK road traffic personal injury legislation."
See EDM 275.
Time to get writing?
Posted 12 years ago # -
Wilmington's Cow- "...not even people cycling to work in miniskirts and low cut tops (I know, I tried, and people just looked at me funny). "
I think we need to see the photographic evidence from this experiment to fully assess its validity..
;-))
Posted 12 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
