• Strictly Come What?

    In The Netherlands drivers know a collision with a cyclist will cost them. Cycling round Amsterdam after being used to East London drivers was jolly interesting, the courtesy and care taken by drivers was a revelation.

    Sadly, because the reporting of this proposal was so poor in the media ( A cyclist could be ripped to the tits on meow meow, smash into your car, AND YOU'D HAVE TO PAY!!!!!1111) the law is unlikely to be introduced here.

    Shockingly, the Daily Mail has been in the eye of the storm and chose to lead their coverage with a sensationalist headline to report the, erm, report:
    [INDENT]“Motorists should be made legally responsible for all accidents involving cyclists, even if they are not at fault, say Government advisers.”
    [/INDENT]

    Not happy with one misleading headline, to really fire up the mob, the Mail also published an ignorant opinion piece by Robert Hardman about what an “undeserving bunch of lawbreaking shits cyclists really are” – I’m paraphrasing there – which amusingly includes the phrase “Lycra Louts” in its title.

    Go on, read it. I dare you.

    Despite opening his “strict liability” bashing piece by describing a situation in which he himself would actually have benefited from the change in the system, what really caught my eye was Hardman’s lovely comparison of cyclists and African paramilitaries:
    [INDENT]“I prefer to think of them as the Mai-Mai, the Congolese militia who believe that they are endowed with magical qualities making them immune to bullets.”
    [/INDENT]OK, OK, Robert’s trying to be funny. I know. I know. Cyclists think they’re invincible which is why they all ride so recklessly. Very good. But all the same it’s a little strong to slyly compare people commuting to work (sometimes illegally on the pavement) with terrorists. I suppose I should be glad that he didn’t go the whole hog and call us “Nazis on Bikes”:

    http://chainsuck.co.uk/tag/strict-liability/

About

Avatar for spindrift @spindrift started