Stricter liability for drivers

OP, no. Don't sign.

I realize the consequences of an accident are in favour of a car driver if involved with a bike or pedestrian. That's a given. The notion that a greater injury potential means you are less responsible is a bit rubbish.

Somethings have changed in our attitudes over the last fifteen years. Some for the better, some not. The pedestrian has become king, the motorist the epitome of evil. Both cobblers. And the cyclist somewhere in between. It means that, as we all know, peds step out, sometimes Ipodded up, sometimes with their prams akimbo, sometimes just with a fuck you attitude, straight into the paths of other people going about their lives. This has been 'encouraged' by council road improvements that give, by the levelling of road surfaces and the merging of materials, give the impression that the road is the pavement. It confuses, deliberately, the right of way. And so the ped doesn't look. I have no idea why it is now acceptable to cross a road without looking, but it seems to be. And it is very bad.

In order, I ride bicycles, motorbikes, and drive cars. 95/4/1% in terms of journeys done, not miles covered. It depends on distance and load. I very rarely walk anywhere, or take public transport. If I step into the path of a car/van/lorry, I will be hurt. Road sense and risk assessment has so far stopped that happening. My duty to the rest of the world is to let it do it's thing, and to exercise my rights where I have them to do my thing, without hindrance or threat. The idea that I, as a bloke doing his thing, could be held 'more' responsible for someone else's stupidity or pig-headedness is a threat I don't want, thanks. And I vote against the motion.

Old git rant.