-
Well, the idea is to have fewer crashes in the first place. The hit-and-run rate in London is already pretty high, anyway. With the old prevention effect, there is every chance that such instances will actually decrease.
Most people don't plan crashes. Sane drivers don't look for easy targets on the road.
As a cyclist you don't run over pedestrians, because there's no law which puts you automatically at guilt, do you?
The harsh consequences - even if it's** not their fault** and the guilt is implied by default - can make them panic and leave the site of the accident.
-
Most people don't plan crashes. Sane drivers don't look for easy targets on the road.
As a cyclist you don't run over pedestrians, because there's no law which puts you automatically at guilt, do you?
The harsh consequences - even if it's** not their fault** and the guilt is implied by default - can make them panic and leave the site of the accident.
I'm afraid I can't follow your logic as to why the factors you adduce should lead to more hit-and-runs. Pray elaborate.
-
I'm afraid I can't follow your logic as to why the factors you adduce should lead to more hit-and-runs. Pray elaborate.
Do I have to?
There will be always a group of drivers, who knowing that they are at blame by default - even if the collision is cyclist's fault - will try to escape the consequences. Especially with the "Daily Mail" mentality, that cyclists are lesser beings.
Obviously it's just a thought we should take under consideration.. -
Do I have to?
No, of course not.
There will be always a group of drivers, who knowing that they are at blame by default - even if the collision is cyclist's fault - will try to escape the consequences. Especially with the "Daily Mail" mentality, that cyclists are lesser beings.
Yes, of course, but why should this proposal create more of them?
I said myself that the rate of hit-and-run crashes is already quite high.
The key will be to reduce crashes in the first place--people do respond to it if they realise that vulnerable road users are more protected by law.
-
Like I said, Oliver, it's just a thought. I don't say I'm right.
You see, I'm driving a lot recently and there's no law which will make me perceive cyclists/pedestrians in a different way.
I'm just afraid, that the idea of drivers having to prove their innocence can further antagonise some of them (until they get used to the new laws, that is). Also, it could lead to car lobbyists to force some kind of cycling proficiency tests before you are allowed on road to make it fair (when the both sides accpet their responsibilities as road users). But they are just thoughts...And what lynx said, it's actually a good idea for starters.
-
The key will be to reduce crashes in the first place--people do respond to it if they realise that vulnerable road users are more protected by law.
The good thing would be if it affects those who crash into bicycles on purpose or in retaliation. They'd think twice before trying to force James of the road with their car, if you know what I mean. Right now they have an excuse, that there's a blind spot etc. and they can get away even if the crash was malicious.
Most decent motorists don't care if it's a car, motorbike, bicycle or pedestrian - they simply look around and try to avoid collisions. Nobody really wants to live with the consequences.
-
Do I have to?
There will be always a group of drivers, who knowing that they are at blame by default - even if the collision is cyclist's fault - will try to escape the consequences. Especially with the "Daily Mail" mentality, that cyclists are lesser beings.
Obviously it's just a thought we should take under consideration..I understand your sentiment.
-
Like I said, Oliver, it's just a thought. I don't say I'm right.
Ah, didn't see your edit.
-
This is a good article, but strangely enough it seems to fail to reference the RDRF:
I didn't think the Guardian blog did much in terms of offering any kind of solutions to the problems being thrown up, and the fact that they didn't link to RDRF, RoadPeace etc. seemed to illustrate this wooly awareness of organisations that are trying to do something about it.
I mean, they didn't even link to this thread.
Oh and East End Images +1 for devils advocate.
-
Read this sentence again, and check that it doesn't make you sound like a cunt.
...
That's assuming that both modes of transport are equally socially desirable, equally at risk from other road users and equally dangerous to other road users.
Firstly, who are you to decide what mode of transport is 'socially desirable'. You, nor I, are in any position to dictate how people choose to travel. That's a personal choice. Now, the fact that cars are physically more dangerous is mitigated by the fact that we bike riders are unregulated, unlicensed, and uninsured road users. If bicycles were subject to the same laws and regulations are private vehicles, or commercial vehicles, then you may have case. If bikes were forced to do some kind of test, or CBT, to prove their competence on the road, or if they all had 3rd party insurance, and maybe if they had to do a yearly MOT to prove the bikes are roadworthy, and if bikes were equipped with license plates, like all motor vehicles are, then I might start to see where you're coming from.
My road tax point was just to highlight how much more motorists contribute to the economy than we as cyclists do, overall, and how in the whole of the UK they outnumber us by 100 to 1. Try and look at this case through neutral eyes, not the eyes of a cyclist or car driver. Any dickhead can jump on a bike and mix it up with lorries. We have it quite good as cyclists.
-
Speaking of road taxes;
-
yeah thanks for that mate. VED, road tax same difference. cyclists don't need to pay for either.
Ren, there is a world of difference between hypthecating taxation for road and street maintenance and taxing motor vehicles. We only tax motor vehicle ownership in this country. This is an important distinction and was lacking from your earlier post. But it seems impossible to get people to not use the term 'Road Tax', as it is very idiomatic.
Firstly, who are you to decide what mode of transport is 'socially desirable'. You, nor I, are in any position to dictate how people choose to travel. That's a personal choice.
There is a wealth of research which I'd recommend you immerse yourself in on the social cost of physical inactivity, to which one of the main contributing factors is excessive car use. There are about ten other significant policy areas other than health in which quite clearly and objectively excessive use of motor vehicles has been shown to be variants of 'not socially desirable', counterproductive, etc.
That's the analysis. What you then do with that analysis is a separate issue. You could follow the early example of tobacco companies who apparently suppressed early indications that smoking contributes to causing cancer, or you could inform people of the benefits of the sustainable modes and the fact that the problems with car use are all too often swept under the carpet (no pun intended).
As far as I know, no-one's dictating anything to anyone, but it is certainly a very important role for Government to, for instance, enable people to unlock the benefits of cycling for themselves.
The hidden costs of motoring are estimated to be £20bn pa higher than income from VED, I think.
Now, the fact that cars are physically more dangerous is mitigated by the fact that we bike riders are unregulated, unlicensed, and uninsured road users.
Mitigated in what way?
Why would regulation or licensing for cyclists be desirable or necessary?
Most cyclists have insurance of some kind. All cyclists who are also drivers and all members of cycling organisations have third party insurance.
There are also many uninsured drivers.
If bicycles were subject to the same laws and regulations are private vehicles, or commercial vehicles, then you may have case. If bikes were forced to do some kind of test, or CBT, to prove their competence on the road, or if they all had 3rd party insurance, and maybe if they had to do a yearly MOT to prove the bikes are roadworthy, and if bikes were equipped with license plates, like all motor vehicles are, then I might start to see where you're coming from.
I don't see how this has anything to do with the issue of strict liability--pray elaborate? Why should 'bicycles [be] subject to the same laws and regulations are private vehicles, or commercial vehicles'? Why would you require cyclists to take an MOT as opposed to them ensuring, in their own interest, that their bike is in good nick? Surely subjecting people who want to ride bikes to all sorts of regulation would make it more difficult for them to ride and would therefore be dictating to them? If you're really interested in avoiding dictating to people, you'd have to argue in favour of lifting rules and regulations on car use, not seek to have them imposed on bike use.
Just out of interest--do you agree that encouraging people to cycle more is a good thing? (Subject to all the usual stuff I bang on about, e.g. cycle training, etc.)
My road tax point was just to highlight how much more motorists contribute to the economy than we as cyclists do overall, and how in the whole of the UK they outnumber us by 100 to 1.
Just because there are more motorists it means they contribute more to the economy? Surely you have to assess people's average contribution to the economy instead? For instance, cycling in London is still very much a middle-class mode. I can assure you that people who commute to work in London contribute a very great deal to the economy. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if on average they contributed more than the average motorist currently does.
Honestly, some of the thinking about cycling in this country is such a bizarre legacy of cycling not being considered 'normal'. It is considered normal in many other places, much to the benefit of those being able to cycle.
Try and look at this case through neutral eyes, not the eyes of a cyclist or car driver.
This, of course, is an important point--the silo mentality isn't helpful. 'Cyclist' is as sectarian as 'motorist'. In practice, most people mix their modes. Plenty of people on the forum drive, and why not, for trips when they have to drive? The key is for each person to take a look at each of one's journeys and ideally do as many of them by the sustainable modes as possible--this would never work through people being forced to do it, by the way. Cycling has so much to offer that force isn't even needed. One thing I also always have to dispel as a cycle campaigner is that it's highly virtuous to cycle. It's not. It's so much more unproblematic in London than every other mode that it's really perfect if you want to be lazy and not cause yourself unnecessary trouble.
EEI
Oliver Schick
lynx
ocdc
lpg
edscoble
alien8-
Post a reply
About
Hypothetical law change? Lorry on bike: lorry's fault. Bike on ped: bike's fault
Posted by
This is a good article, but strangely enough it seems to fail to reference the RDRF:
http://www.rdrf.org/index.htm