Stricter liability for drivers

Fear puts some people off cycling. When asked what would need to happen before they would ride people suggest that more cycle lanes are needed and refer to the infrastructure in some European countries.

Here in London many experts agree that there is no road space for more cycle lanes and those that exist often put people in a less visible position therefore in a more risky place (If you get cycle training http://www.lfgss.com/forum49.html you will learn to assess cycle lanes and in most instances conclude that you're safer riding in the traffic stream)

There are a couple of things that would make it easier to share the roads and integrate into the traffic stream:

One is to reduce speed limits across the board, which is currently happening in many borough where speeds are set at 20mph, so the differential between cycling speed and driving speed is reduced so drivers may perhaps feel less bothered about waiting behind a cyclist.

The other thing that may well completely change the mindset of drivers is a change in the liability laws, to foist a duty of care on drivers to look out for less vulnerable road users by assuming that they are at fault in any crash. (Similarly cyclists would be assumed liable in any crash with a pedestrian). This shift in liability is one of the reasons why cycling in northern European countries seems so much more civilized.

The website http://www.stricterliabilityforus.org.uk/ is putting the argument for a change in the law bringing the UK in line with most of Europe. I think it would be a good idea for LFGSS to add its name to the list of supporters.

Agree?

Agree.

Hmmm...

What about shit cyclists who are at fault in road incidents / shit peds who are at fault for collisions with bikes and so on? Am I the only one not looking forward to spring brining a mass increase of dodgy cyclists winding up our fellow road users and creating odd, noddy packs which dive sheeplike into vulnerable / selfish places on the road? I'd say that all road users have a responsibility. I'm not excusing dangerous or aggressive driving, but it simply cannot be a case of pre-ordained hierarchy can it?

I'm always for the stricter liability, it already work for the peds here, I see no reason it can't work for cyclists.

What about shit cyclists who are at fault in road incidents / shit peds who are at fault for collisions with bikes and so on?

It's simple - the law simply give them (cyclist/peds) the benefit of doubt*, until they can prove that it's the peds/cyclists who is at fault.

Even if it's the peds fault for being on the road, the driver should have enough time/room to prevent a collision (unless proven that there's no way the driver could avoided the collision).

Strict liability already exist for peds.

Hmmm...

What about shit cyclists who are at fault in road incidents / shit peds who are at fault for collisions with bikes and so on? Am I the only one not looking forward to spring brining a mass increase of dodgy cyclists winding up our fellow road users and creating odd, noddy packs which dive sheeplike into vulnerable / selfish places on the road? I'd say that all road users have a responsibility. I'm not excusing dangerous or aggressive driving, but it simply cannot be a case of pre-ordained hierarchy can it?

Then you should be pushing compulsory advanced road riding (cycle training), maybe?

Maybe.. I'd rather that not be the solution, but a general atmosphere of education is needed... car and truck drivers as a priority of course. I agree with the base of the OP in that too often a driver is behind the wheel of a 2 ton danger box without acknowledging the responsibility they have to be patient around riders... Remember those cheapo ads in the 80s telling people how to behave around horses on the roads or the more recent "Think Bike" motorcycle campaign? Time for some stuff like that I reckon.

Wrongcog, this proposal may mean that fewer shit peds and crap cyclist die. In fact the concept of a shit pedestrian/cyclist exists because they are shit at conforming to rules that prioritise car drivers.

There is a case for an enlightened society to tolerate people who haven't had pedestrian/cycle training and look after them by making the people who use more dangerous ways of moving around responsible for their safety.

Added to which I would still maintain that a bobby or two pulling up crappy noddy cyclists and suggesting improvements or training wouldn't hurt. (I bet that will go down like a ton of shit on here though!)

I suppose I'm wondering broadly whether a (worthwhile) change in legislation would be more sympathetically received if it were accompanied by a campaign encouraging everyone to remember to calm the fuck down and try not to crash into each other?

stricter laws for everyone!!!!

Good that we're in accord wrongcog.
Education of cyclists is vital in the current climate (and that's my day job). Something does need to be done beyond education to force drivers to care more and take less risks with people's lives in their eagerness to reach the next red light.

This proposal would help and I do think that this is something that the LFGSS forum could support (i suppose by 'this forum' i mean we could convince our benign dictator velocio, to email that site on behalf of all of us supporting it)

Honest question- what would/does lowering the speed limit to 20 mph achieve?

Just spotted this article from bike radar:
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/call-for-courts-to-do-more-to-protect-cyclists-28853

The proposed change to stricter liability may well completely eliminate SMIDSY which currently lets drivers off the hook on too many occasions

Honest question- what would/does lowering the speed limit to 20 mph achieve?

fewer deaths
fewer serious injuries
an environment that is not blighted by cars
easier for drivers and cyclists to share the same space

That's four assertions- you have evidence to back each one up?

I'll back up just the first two for the moment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8406569.stm

I am all for less cyclists. They are blooming menace. And stricter liability.
I don't think any new cyclists should be encouraged until the current lot have learned how to ride courteously and safely.

That's an opinion peace, not evidence:

"After adjusting for a general reduction in road injuries in recent years"

No mention of car makers focusing on making the car itself deform in a crash etc etc.

Meaningless without the base figures, and the specific assumptions that it has made.

To me this just smacks of a very specific "cars are bad, punish cars" ethos that sadly pervades cycling.

Hint= it's not helping cyclists image with the general public to be perceived this way.

Cars are inanimate objects, they're neither good nor bad damn it, Dammit.

They can help many people: my mum had MS and would not have been able to have had a good life without a car.

What could improve is the way people use them (which is what this thread is about)

And of course I broadly agree with you- however the point I am trying to make is that a blanket hatred of cars (even if merely perceived rather than real) works against cyclists with the majority of the public.

I think a blanket 20 mph limit would be ignored- just as it is in Lewisham right now.

If the figures/report you referenced include Lewisham then their findings are meaningless, as they are based on a reduction in accidents on a road (taking the road that the Sainsbury is on as an example) that people do 40 mph down day in day out.

Have a look at some of the wildy unhinged statements that members of this forum have made about critical mass and it's merits.

Honest question- what would/does lowering the speed limit to 20 mph achieve?

I asked the same thing on another thread a while back, and got gently flamed, which made me think.
When I asked it, I was thinking of the roads that I tend to drive which are the main ones from Stockwell to where-ever. The replies were obviously focussing on the many miles of back roads with lots of parking, residential properties, cats, poor visibilty on corners due to parked up transit vans etc. I was still dubious, decidedly to look for some proof I was right, and sadly found the opposite.

The problem is, I think, too many drivers are idiots, but behave slightly better when told too.

What could improve is the way people use them (which is what this thread is about)

precisely.

too many people using cars for trip less than 5 miles (which can easily be achieve on a bicycle.

The best thing is that it helped motorists to maintain their cars easily and economically says, used it for long trip every now and then, less mileage (5,000 instead of the usual 15,000), less part need replacing after a service, cheaper insurance etc.

When talking to motorists, I tend to mentioned the benefit of not using your cars in the sense of money, rather than the benefit of cycling, once you sold them at the idea of using your car less = less money and worried, they're already liking the idea of a bicycle.

I asked the same thing on another thread a while back, and got gently flamed, which made me think.
When I asked it, I was thinking of the roads that I tend to drive which are the main ones from Stockwell to where-ever. The replies were obviously focussing on the many miles of back roads with lots of parking, residential properties, cats, poor visibilty on corners due to parked up transit vans etc. I was still dubious, decidedly to look for some proof I was right, and sadly found the opposite.

The problem is, I think, too many drivers are idiots, but behave slightly better when told too.

An idiot is going to drive like an idiot irrespective of the limit- what is needed is for everyone to drive to the conditions, which means better education and much sterner penalties- which would be political suicide so will take longer than the petrol engined car has left to introduce.