to be honest, most cases don't get that far do they?
at the end of the day, if a driver hits you out of negligence, then no argument that it "would have been ok if you weren't on the road" would stand up, the problem ,however, would exist in establishing responsibility in disputes over accidents where the driver refuses to accept liability..
the proposed changes were a misguided attempt to encourage "safer" cycling, when in fact they would have served to further obstruct the cyclist's right to be treated as vehicular traffic.
to be honest, most cases don't get that far do they?
at the end of the day, if a driver hits you out of negligence, then no argument that it "would have been ok if you weren't on the road" would stand up, the problem ,however, would exist in establishing responsibility in disputes over accidents where the driver refuses to accept liability..
the proposed changes were a misguided attempt to encourage "safer" cycling, when in fact they would have served to further obstruct the cyclist's right to be treated as vehicular traffic.