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.
Article about a petition for strict liability in Scotland in the EEN.
http://www.scotsman.com/edinburgh-evening-news/transport/cyclists-want-drivers-accountable-for-accidents-1-2895389
The 'anti' voice they brought in produced a rather unfocussed argument, I thought.
Don't, whatever you do, read the comments. You know it's not a good idea.
I ended up reading the comments. The froth, the sheer unabated rabidity against cyclists.
Of course, the ones people see jumping red lights are actually all the cyclists...
@Arellcat I don't read anonymous comments but I think some are mischief making by cyclists themselves if this is anything to go by; some are by people paid to undermine pressure groups and some might just be saying what they actually believe, though I don't know how someone would get out the house in the morning with that level of hate, venom and spite coursing through their minds. The family pets must take a heck of a kicking.
A petition was launched today with the aim of having a member’s bill put before the Scottish Parliament
if it makes it that far, i'm keen to see how it gets slapped down.
i suppose they might just turn it into a nonsensical but we're not starting in the same place as the dutch, so lets not do anything hasty to the detriment of the benign motoring culture that drives our economic powerhouse kinda vibe.
When the term strict liability is (wrongly) used no wonder sparks fly. The call should be to deliver the same presumed liability described below - an automatic detail in civil law, and applicable to almost all other situations where people are operating dangerous equipment that can cause harm or damage property.
Of course the ignorant are is jumping about assuming this is about automatic liability for a criminal (driving) offence.
If for example a person is using a shotgun, or a chainsaw, and someone even deliberately walks in to the line of fire, or felling the person using the dangerous equipment will still be presumed liable for the injuries/damage caused BECAUSE THEY ARE USING DANGEROUS EQUIPMENT, and have a duty of care to use it safely.
The whole concept is already delivered in a way, by the 1903 Motor Car Act, and translated in to section 170 (RTA) which requires the driver of a motor vehicle to provide 'details' if anyone is injured, or damage caused by the PRESENCE of a motor vehicle - note no impact is required, and the first case actually involved a company car driver who spooked 2 horses, by driving past noisily.
So please sell this as Presumed Liability, in exactly the same way the Health & Safety Law puts that Duty of Care on any other user of dangerous equipment. It is just another way that we might bring the use of the road in line with any other workplace, with safe operating practice for all activities.
Is this a petition for the public to sign ? Where is it ?
An e-Petition should be set up shortly to enable you to formally demonstrate your support for the campaign
http://www.cycling-accident-compensation.co.uk/strict-liability.aspx
p!ss poor organisation -- they got the publicity out, but neglected to sort out the actual petition
There was an earlier thread where olivercw announced the petition. I said I liked it and predicted some negative comments would ensue. It was on this forum before it was in the scotsman
is it the very same petition?
that's even worse then! you wouldn't rely on johnston press to link to it... but you'd at least expect that their own website would.
Scotland Tonight on STV had David Brennan (aka Magnatom) and Alan Douglas sparring again, this time over the liability proposals. Viewable on STV Player, specifically from the 23:06 mark.
In alternate take on Dave's patented prejudice filter, how about instead of "Cyclists want drivers accountable for accidents" we go with People want people accountable for accidents?
People want people accountable for accidents
its the A word again tho, innit
how can you presume otherwise law abiding people to be liable for "accidents"
makes no sense to motor joe public
It's a nice idea but above all it's cheap and the MP's can say they are doing something rather than actually doing something by ensuring that there are proper cycle lanes. The car gang are never going to agree with the cycle gang, drivers see cyclists as all the same and think we just want to rule the roads and the pavements. At its heart this proposal is actually trying to put the safety of more vulnerable road users to the front of the motorists mind. Doubt it'll happen though
rather than actually doing something by ensuring that there are proper cycle lanes
Not every cyclist wants cycle lanes.
The car gang are never going to agree with the cycle gang
The car gang and the cycle gang aren't always different people.
Well at least it's out there to be debated. I hope it will get sufficient political support in Holyrrod. Worth signing the petition and writing to MSP, I'd have thought.
Not every cyclist wants cycle lanes.
The car gang and the cycle gang aren't always different people
No they aren't but when I wrote that I was referring to the rabid ones on both sides, for a clue to what I mean have a look at the comments made under the article by 95% of the drivers. Those people are never going to be convinced
Strict liability is something of a red herring as far as encouraging cycling goes. It isn't the thought of having trouble securing compensation after an accident that puts people off cycling, its the possibility of the accident that does it.
Make the roads safer for cyclists first and then worry about the legal niceties (obviously good to do both at the same time, but it's simply entering the realms of fantasy to expect that to happen).
My brother lives in Germany where there is a strict liability law. We were driving through his hometown and I said I was surprised to see so many roads had cycle-lanes. He replied that drivers in Germany are extra careful around cyclists because they know that if they knock over a cyclist the driver will be assumed to be at fault. So cycling is, in his opinion, much safer than in the UK and lots more people cycle. He doesn't have a bike as far as I know.
@Cyclingmollie. exactly. We can't possibly have cycle lanes on every road in Scotland (though many more ought to have facilities) and strict liability might make drivers behave a bit better. Goodness knows better driving is needed!
I actually had someone telling me that pedestrians had a duty of care to motorist, when then cross the road and that "the responsibility is shared among all road users, not heaped exclusively on whoever can inflict most damage". Obviously this is because so many drivers are killed by pedestrians crossing the roads.
Never mind the fact that, on average, 80 pedestrians a year are killed by motor vehicles being driven on the footway.
In a discussion on facebook earlier on about a friend of mine being called a tosser for turning right on his bike on a road when it was clear by some turbohead in a rover, someone posted this amongst the more bikey replies:
"A cyclist crashed into my Dad whilst parked and almost wrote off his new company car! They reckon he was 35mph downhill! Now that poor cyclist was a tosser. His mobile phone broke a load of ribs from the pocket of his coat"
Even at 35mph I seriously doubt that this unfortunate accident (while undoubtably the cyclists fault) "almost wrote off the car" Shows just how odd some peoples thought processes are.
Even at 35mph I seriously doubt that this unfortunate accident "almost wrote off the car"
It doesn't take 35mph for a pedestrian or a cyclist to write off a car. I believe Tulyar here has seen evidence of this.
without also killing the cyclist.....?
A dent in a door can write off a car - it doesn't require a chassis-twisting mega-impact. Years ago my neighbour's car was judged not worth repairing after it was T-boned by a granny chariot, whose occupant was unhurt.
I've a friend who claimed to have written off a car that pulled a u-turn in front of him while he was going downhill. He hit various bits of the side, it was an old car and the insurance wouldn't repair it - hence write-off. Friend was bruised but OK IIRC.
I withdraw my comment. Perhaps those cars are vulnerable road users after all!
We need to be careful about pushing for on-road cycle lanes (aka a wee bit of paint). In many case they are worse than useless. Rather than assessing a safe passing distance themselves, drivers take the view that if they are outside the line they don't need to worry about the cyclist.
Given that many of the lanes are extremely narrow, and the shoulder of the road is often the area with the most grids and potholes, this is more dangerous for the cyclist than no lane at all.
Here's an example - urban dual-carriageway road. On this type of road without the cycle lane, you often see larger vehicles indicating and moving partly into the outside lane to pass cyclists. On this road your responsible trucker sees that the cyclist is in a separate lane, and therefore just carries straight on through, inches from the right elbow of said cyclist. Completely worthless infrastructure that is just put in place by councils so they can say "we gave you x miles of cycle lanes, now stop complaining".
They do at least help for filtering, at least when there's no parked vehicles, cones, skips etc abandoned on them.
I've summarized the issues I think there are with the on-road painted-on (advisory) cycle lanes as follows:
The only advantage of the red lanes is that they promote/market cycling and make drivers realise that cyclists can be 'expected'
Back on topic, I agree with Cyclingmollie & crowriver:
Strict liability benefits cyclists by modifying driver behaviour (making them more careful around vulnerable users). Of course if a collision does happen, the damage is already done - strict liability cannot undo it.
I'm confused here. Are they going to set up an e-petition, or has one already been set up?
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts