Blame / Claim strawman

Just a new thought for me, probs been discussed to death already (not seen tho)

Would there be any mileage in org's such as LCC / CTC lobbying for Cyclists only to be able to claim damages in the event of an accident, if they could prove they'd completed L3 training?

So basic premise would be, no training = cycle at own risk, training to L3 = cycle with some level of recompense based on competence.

Prompted by discussion on another forum - Male Triathlete reports car door collision whilst left filtering in traffic - passenger got out without looking (fully at fault therefore), a helpful lawyer has chipped into say blame = claim, following my posts suggesting some training to improve awareness & safety in traffic... I'd bet one of my hats that they pursue the claim route rather than seek training. I'd prefer they got training due to having no right to claim if not trained.

Strawman, tear it apart....

theres a great deal implied in the case you raise.
Its too late for me to contirbute in any meaningful way,
but first off, why would the cycling orgs you mention want to go down the road of promoting that culture? they promote cycling for all the good reasons, and whilst they would accept that riders have responsibility for their actions (ask them too)
classifying individuals as either trained or not trained?, it dosent add up Andy.

Just considering that perhaps it does cyclists no favour to have lawyers advising them take someone to court in the event of a straightforward accident, which could have been avoided had the cyclist in question made an educated decision to, for example, avoid filtering on the inside.

I don't think we should go down the road of licensing (or taxing) bikes, but perhaps putting the onus on cyclists to seek training, whilst not enforcing it, will make for fewer avoidable incidents?

There's every chance it might just put folks off cycling in the first place, in which case consider the straw to be well torn.

Don't think any cycling advocacy orgaisation would think of supporting this as it clearly would put people off as suggested by rhb and as said elsehwere the more cyclists there are the less risky it is for cyclists

This is a much better idea
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6841326.ece

I've not had cycle training.. yet I've been riding for 25+ years. No compensation when someone else fucks up? Fail.

I've not had cycle training.. yet I've been riding for 25+ years. No compensation when someone else fucks up? Fail.

I've never had pedestrian training... yet i've been walking for almost 50 years and still haven't got the hang of it.

I see what you are saying, but what about those people who are doing everything right and still get hit? You are then penalising people for not having cycle training when it wouldn't have helped in the first place.

Also you imply that if someone has had cycle training they are more entitled to protection than those who have not.

I don't disagree with getting more people trained, but this doesn't seem the right way to go about it.

not a fan of this idea at all

the legal obligation needs to be shifted to car drivers

unless the cyclist has done something deliberate the blame ought to lie with the driver, such as holland

not a fan of this idea at all

the legal obligation needs to be shifted to car drivers

unless the cyclist has done something deliberate the blame ought to lie with the driver, such as holland

and such a blame shift may even put some people off driving.

shame, shame

fucking terrible idea

ban the cunt who might bully people out of driving

*We campaign for better designed and constructed provision for cyclists such as cycle lanes, better cycle parking, improved access to cycling for people of all abilities, and improved cycling access to London’s parks and canal towpaths. *
We work to consolidate and develop cycling’s role within transport policy and implementation, increasing driver awareness of cycling safety, and ensuring regulations covering cycle facilities are fair.

If they start lobbying to restrict your rights as a cyclists they have failed in their vision statement

and this is not a strawman.

I've not had cycle training.. yet I've been riding for 25+ years. No compensation when someone else fucks up? Fail.

Giving up 2hrs of your life so that your case would at least be heard? Hardly a massive chunk out of those 25yrs?

Regardless, having mulled on it today, and then reading back the replies, it's not a good idea though. I'm not a fan of Driver to be blamed in all cases either - this will just bring about more resentment towards cyclists from Drivers. More a fan of "person most at fault to be blamed".

Ta.

Where is the straw man (two words) ?

It looks like you are just making a simple proposal.

OH MY HORROR!, Dictionary fail! Where I used to work a Strawman was an idea put forward for folks to pull to pieces in dull continuous Improvements meetings.

10,000 apologies, and an actor pretending to be a Straw Man of sorts...

Maybe I have?

"changes in the civil law that will make the most powerful vehicle involved in a collision automatically liable for insurance and compensation purposes"

This = blame on driver.

Anyway, I was at a talk by Phillip Darnton about a week after this article, and we were told that he didn't come out directly saying those things as reccomendations (as reported), he'd infact been asked what sort of measures might be considered in the future... a completely different conversation.

If they start lobbying to restrict your rights as a cyclists they have failed in their vision statement

Intersesting there's no mention of rider awareness of cycling safety? Or is this covered by the possible catch all "improved access to cycling for people of all abilities"?

Quote:

  Originally Posted by **LCC**  

*[I]We campaign for better designed and constructed provision for cyclists such as cycle lanes, better cycle parking, improved access to cycling for people of all abilities, and improved cycling access to London’s parks and canal towpaths. *
We work to consolidate and develop cycling’s role within transport policy and implementation, increasing driver awareness of cycling safety, and ensuring regulations covering cycle facilities are fair.[/I]

I think what youre getting at is the push for 'strict liability' as per Europe.
All for it.

Seeing as you mentioned it what do people think of the way cycling promotion is going.? From where Im sitting Cycling England are going a little offtrack.
Big spends on shows, and marketing dosent lead to more cycling imo,
can you even market cycling to people?
Feel strongly that the comparative peanuts it costs to actually train people, work directly with them to demonstrate benefits to be had from biking is better.
For the same reason much prefer to get kids at schools actually doing some riding of some sort, not just sitting passively watching stunt riders or whatever for a grand a pop. Any contributors?

Giving up 2hrs of your life so that your case would at least be heard? Hardly a massive chunk out of those 25yrs?

The point is I don't need to give up 2 hours, I've DONE IT successfully for 25 years.

If I walk down the street and beat the living shit out of someone should they be denied a hearing/compensation because they had failed to learn some basic self-defence?

The point is I don't need to give up 2 hours, I've DONE IT successfully for 25 years.

If I walk down the street and beat the living shit out of someone should they be denied a hearing/compensation because they had failed to learn some basic self-defence?

What about 25yrs ago?

How would you beat the living shit out of someone by accident / unintentionally?

I think what youre getting at is the push for 'strict liability' as per Europe.
All for it.

Seeing as you mentioned it what do people think of the way cycling promotion is going.? From where Im sitting Cycling England are going a little offtrack.
Big spends on shows, and marketing dosent lead to more cycling imo,
can you even market cycling to people?
Feel strongly that the comparative peanuts it costs to actually train people, work directly with them to demonstrate benefits to be had from biking is better.
For the same reason much prefer to get kids at schools actually doing some riding of some sort, not just sitting passively watching stunt riders or whatever for a grand a pop. Any contributors?

From what i hear, the shows - such as inertia - are smartening up their routine for schools so that it includes riding practice for kids too. I think that's good if so, as the show inspires then the practice helps motivate to try more.
Edit - still better to do a family ride after school for £0 though, when looking at bigger picture.

As for promotion, think CE are in effectively in Limbo until the big cuts are announced. Can they realistically start up or pledge to continue funding long term initiatives now? Unlikely. Can they blow what's left in the piggy bank on quick marketing activities? Easily!

Hippy is a very able and competent cyclist, the description of how he ride (like riding near the middle of the lane) and seeing him on the street is perfectly spot on on how to work with the traffic.

He definitely doesn't need cycle training, even thought he might learn some new thing from it.

why are you so keen to quickly put the blame on cyclists for not being competent enough?

get back to Coventry,
oh, sorry you just want an argument for the sake of it, carry on

From what i hear, the shows - such as inertia - are smartening up their routine for schools so that it includes riding practice for kids too. I think that's good if so, as the show inspires then the practice helps motivate to try more.

As for promotion, think CE are in Limbo until the big cuts are announced. Can they realistically start up or pledge to continue funding long term initiatives now? Unlikely. Can they blow what's left in the piggy bank on quick marketing activities? Easily!

I still dont buy it, literally, give me Rolla where every kid gets to do a high energy race any day.

CE- youre damn right.

why are you so keen to quickly put the blame on cyclists for not being competent enough?[/QUOTE]

I'm not. Read my earlier posts, was just bouncing a thought around.