-
I could be swayed but I don't like the idea of guilty until proven innocent!
the more reason for us to pay more attention on the road, if it going to cost them money, they'll pay more attention.
doesn't work well when it come to driving with mobile phone, the fine is much too small to stop people from using their phone while driving, hell the fine is about as much as the price of petrol they need to pay for!
-
Where's Gerald....?
-
It work perfectly well with peds here in England, the last thing a motorists want is to run a peds down and end up being prosecuted for it, especially when it could easily put their insurance premium up, points in their license, or worse, banned from driving for a certain period of time.
Bring it on.
YouTube- STRICT LIABILITY - Drive carefully
- The UK is only one of four Western European countries that doesnt have 'strict liability' to protect cyclists and pedestrians.
- Strict liability entitles a crash victim to compensation unless the driver can prove the cyclist or pedestrian was at fault.
- Strict liability encourages more careful driving (and cycling, because a cyclist would be deemed to be at fault for crashing into a pedestrian).
- Strict liability would be a matter of civil rather than criminal law so would not affect criminal prosecutions.
(one of four Western European country, not just the one, whoop).
Yeah right, now back to reality. Have you cycled in London? Through the busy bits with peds crossing the road without looking or even noticing whats going on around you.
- The UK is only one of four Western European countries that doesnt have 'strict liability' to protect cyclists and pedestrians.
-
the more reason for us to pay more attention on the road, if it going to cost them money, they'll pay more attention.
doesn't work well when it come to driving with mobile phone, the fine is much too small to stop people from using their phone while driving, hell the fine is about as much as the price of petrol they need to pay for!
Yawn, finished yet? how cares about mobile phones when many just don't look mobile phones or not. You think that lack of mobiles will cure that?
-
Disagree with you. There is no need for any new law, especially not one dreamt up by some green equality-obsessed think tank :) It will be discriminating against the majority to protect the minority, which isn't right. Drivers insurance premiums will go up if this comes into effect.. meanwhile we don't have to pay for insurance or road tax, or be licensed. Not fair on motorists. I think it's stuff like this that makes drivers hate cyclists more.
The current law just needs to be enforced better and more efficiently.
Driving a car puts more people at risk, it is only fair that drivers take more responsibility. I have asked French drivers what they thought of their law and they all said that it is very fair.
I am not sure why it is such a big deal here. Drivers seem to be so against it that It sounds as if they have regular accidents with cyclists and peds, which is a worry!
-
Yeah right, now back to reality. Have you cycled in London? Through the busy bits with peds crossing the road without looking or even noticing whats going on around you.
I'm always looking and noticing what's going on around me, what on earth are you ravelling about now?
Yawn, finished yet? how cares about mobile phones when many just don't look mobile phones or not. You think that lack of mobiles will cure that?
you actually believe that it's doesn't make any difference when it come to using the phone while driving?
-
Strict Liability rules apply in the Netherlands and Germany where pedestrian and cyclist casualty rates are much lower than in Britain. These rules encourage road users to adopt a dute of care for others. Without them victims are often left with no resources to pay for rehabilitation after a crash.
Change to encourage more walking and cycling
The move is one of a raft of measures being considered to encourage more walking and cycling in the UK. Others include more 20mph residential speed limits, wider schools cycle training and provision for cyclists in major planning applications.LCC communications officer Mike Cavenett said, "The current system isn't fair: if a pedestrian or cyclist is hit by a motor vehicle, they are far more likely to suffer serious injury than the driver or passengers. It seems reasonable that the people who use the most damaging vehicles should pay for most of the injuries caused.
"There is a bias against vulnerable road users which means, sadly, drivers are less likely to worry about collisions because they know they're very unlikely to be held accountable."
Current system biased against the vulnerable
LCC is fighting for the law to be changed so vulnerable road users can claim injury damages from drivers who hit them, unless it can be shown that the cyclist or pedestrian behaved recklessly.Drivers would not be criminalised by the law change, but they would have an added degree of responsibility when driving a fast-moving vehicle in crowded city streets.
It is not yet clear if the government is prepared to adopt advice supporting this change in preparation of the proposed National Cycling Plan.
http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1525
Strict Liability works well for drivers too- accidents decrease along with premiums. The roads become safer, there are fewer accidents, it saves money and encourages cycling- the truism being the more cyclists there are the safer the roads become.
-
I'm always looking and noticing what's going on around me, what on earth are you ravelling about now?
you actually believe that it's doesn't make any difference when it come to using the phone while driving?
Have you ever had a pedestrian run out in front of you without looking and almost have a collision? Similar to the incident that multigroves had london bridge?
If you're driving and not paying attention a telephone makes little difference.
-
I rarely do, because when I ride, I'm always prepare to slow down, because I know that peds are likely to appear unexpectedly, but of course there's no way you can able to 100% avoid all collision, like what happen to muiltgroove.
Driving while talking to a telephone increase the risk, it take away some of your concentration when you drive, so frankly it does make a huge difference.
-
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”: -
Good posts, spindrift.
-
I rarely do, because when I ride, I'm always prepare to slow down, because I know that peds are likely to appear unexpectedly, but of course there's no way you can able to 100% avoid all collision, like what happen to muiltgroove.
Driving while talking to a telephone increase the risk, it take away some of your concentration when you drive, so frankly it does make a huge difference.
You keep mentioning mobile phones as some miracle evil.
So never had an incident with a vehicle be it a uturn or pull out on you without looking and not be on a mobile phone?
-
lynx, why are you insulating that it's okay for you to talk on the phone while driving your van?
I have had some near missed due to driver being careless in general but also seen some vehicle being driven poorly due to the drivers talking on the telephone.
you're increasing the risk of collision if you choose to talk on the phone.
-
You keep mentioning mobile phones as some miracle evil.
So never had an incident with a vehicle be it a uturn or pull out on you without looking and not be on a mobile phone?
This is a very poor argument indeed.
Must Try Harder.I'm going to pick apart the usual stupidity of your posts because I'm bored
1.ed in no way suggests that mobiles are the sole cause.
2.If you're driving and not paying attention a telephone makes little difference.
yup this comment makes perfect sense, because it has been proven that if you don't pay attention whilst you do anything- you do worse at it.
(in case this isn't clear- I'm laughing at the ridiculous tautology in the statement)things that distract you- make you pay less attention, by their very definition.
Mobile phones distract you. The act of carrying a conversation, let alone holding a rectangular object to your skull, has been shown to be able to distract a driver enough to significantly slow down reaction speed.Lynx - you are either the master wind up artist, very bored, or just very poor at making a point. I'm going to allow you to try and make a cogent reply, and await it with baited breath.
Furthermore, of the menaces on the road of London today, mobile phones are high on my list. Not looking is inevitable, but a mobile phone usage means that even with a definite look the driver may not register you are there.I'm sorry lynx, normally I don't like it when people pick on you, but recently I have come to the conclusion that it is fair.
-
lynx, why are you insulating that it's okay for you to talk on the phone while driving your van?
I have had some near missed due to driver being careless in general but also seen some vehicle being driven poorly due to the drivers talking on the telephone.
Well first point is that I can talk on a telephone whilst driving, its not against the law. Have i mentioned or insinuated the van in any post?
-
Well first point is that I can talk on a telephone whilst driving, its not against the law. Have i mentioned or insinuated the van in any post?
even though it's not against the law, it's still a high risk, the handheld one just add further risk while carrying a conversation while driving a motorised vehicle.
-
Just for shits and giggles lynx, go read this:
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety[/ame]especially the table at this point in the article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety#Simulation_studies_versus_alcoholand this conclusion:
After controlling for driving difficulty and time on task, the study concluded that cell phone drivers exhibited greater impairment than intoxicated drivers
and this meta analysis:
Meta-analysis by The Canadian Automobile Association[10] and The University of Illinois[11] found that response time while using both hands-free and hand-held phones was approximately 0.5 standard deviations higher than normal driving (i.e., an average driver, while talking on a cell phone, has response times of a driver in roughly the 40th percentile).
and about my point with the conversation being a distractor:
In contrast, the University of Illinois meta-analysis concluded that passenger conversations were just as costly to driving performance as cell phone ones.[11] AAA ranks passengers as the third most reported cause of distraction-related accidents at 11 percent, compared to 1.5 percent for cellular telephones.[13] A simulation study funded by the American Transportation Research Board concluded that driving events that require urgent responses may be influenced by in-vehicle conversations, and that there is little practical evidence that passengers adjusted their conversations to changes in the traffic. It concluded that drivers' training should address the hazards of both mobile phone and passenger conversations
edscoble
kisu_shimo
lynx
EEI
VeeVee
deleted
spindrift
Oliver Schick-
Post a reply
About
Hypothetical law change? Lorry on bike: lorry's fault. Bike on ped: bike's fault
Posted by
Personally I think the current laws we have are just about right, the problem is that non of us pay attention to them 100% of the time and they often aren't enforcable. This said I no longer filter past long vehicles as I nearly got squished once.