Stricter liability for drivers

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

I agree that CM has its issues.
I am talking about the forum agreeing to support a campaign for a change in liability law that would bring the UK in line with most of Europe and nudge drivers to be more careful. That isn't anarchy nor is it anti-car flaming. I am not anti car!

I agree with you 100% on the liability issue- why conflate it with the 20 mph thing though?

Why not stick to one good cause, rather than muddying the water?

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?

Taking it sypathetically or not does not matter. We all know the only way to get people to give a toss is via the wallet.

Agreed dammit. Perhaps i could have blabbered less in the original post

that and the threat of the law

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.

Haha! True. The reports I read might well have been compiled by councils determined to vindicate whatever weird scheme they've invented, rather than any useful facts.

It pisses me off no end that I have to put up with all the sodding speed bumps, as my 40 year leaf-sprung car is not the most comfortable over such things, just because a tiny minority of drivers can't be trusted. As you say, better education and much sterner penalties are needed.

exactly multi grooves nothing else has ever worked

Many thanks for this thread Skydancer... In my opinion the law is the only way forward. My local area is designated 20mph. Due to the redesign of the roads with build-outs and parking bays, the result is that the view of the road to a driver is one of a race track and speeds have gone up to 40mph. Please could you let me know where you run your cycle training sessions because after 180,000 miles on the road, including accidents at Vauxhall Cross and Holland Park roundabout, I feel increasingly fearful to venture out on weekdays.

A lot of these problems could be fixed just by the *perception *of law.
How many of you have been riding along, found driver's hastiness has left you nervous yet as soon as there's a police car in the vicinity everyone magically fixes up and looks sharp?

If anything a lot of the police's actions have added to the ire on our roads:

[ame="http://www.rac.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=12143"]Motorist fined for warning others of speed trap. - RAC Motoring Forum[/ame]

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/01/police-officer-thompson-speed

Until people see why they should not drive at a certain speed any enforcement to make them do so will be perceived as victimisation.

Bentham's panopticon seems to be the model by which we have tried to treat the symptom, it's not working.

Oh my God Dammit, I'm used to hearing the musings of my son who is doing aerospace engineering but I don't know what you're talking about.. Are you a genius?

How many times are we going to have the same dismal, defeatist argument? It took stricter enforcement, harsher penalties and education, at the same time, to get a lot of people to stop drink driving. There is no horse and cart. The same will be true of using a mobile phone while driving and the same will be true of reducing speed limits - or indeed of getting people to see speed limits as a maximum rather than a recommendation.

Also I am not keen on 'the forum' signing anything or supporting anything because there is no way of knowing if even a majority of its members (most of who seldom post much) agree to what we are backing. The majority of members will possibly never even read this thread. The forum is lots of different forums really. I think we are setting ourselves up for a fall if we endorse anything and are then shown to be speaking on behalf of a great many people who are ignorant of that endorsement.

Will, more people would read the thread if it was captioned:

"Baby Blue 56 inch Harry Quinn For Sale - going cheap due to urgent need for funds"

More but not everyone. Not me or you for example.

Fair point but then we probably don't need persuading.

Changing the tort regime is something that will not be done lightly. The Supreme Court will certainly not do it. The get Parliament to change the position against car drivers would take a miracle of courage. Insurance premiums would rise.

Wiganwill, I am doing all I can. I report people to Roadsafe very often, including this morning. Also wrote to Ofcom on Friday reporting anti cyclist propoganda on the radio two days before the latest death. RIP Richard Haigh.. My firm belief is that there is no 'safety in numbers'. Years ago a cyclist could be out of sight before they had registered on a motorist's dull brain. Things have changed now and I am worried. What's the next move in your opinion?

My point was not aimed at you , Titivulus.
Your next move should be to read the whole of this forum.

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.

^down with peds.

Will, more people would read the thread if it was captioned:

"Baby Blue 56 inch Harry Quinn For Sale - going cheap due to urgent need for funds"

More but not everyone. Not me or you for example.

I'm afraid I would.

Even though I fit a 54-55.

I do think Strict Liability is a necessary step towards road users (including cyclists) taking responsibility for the safety of others as well as themselves.

I think there should be stricter penalties for drivers that kill.

(Not the only part of the judicial system that is in need of reform though)

Having been through the whole court system it seemed to be very flawed, the C.P.S were useless and the driver got off with careless driving (he did have the fucking wal-mart barrister though, who coincidentally was a QC).

I didn't think your point was aimed at me Wiganwill.. I don't think I can read the whole forum right now though, even though I love reading. I do think this is a very important debate and I thank you for it. I am all for changing the drivers' mindset - it is the only way forward. I don't want to die.

No worries, I didn't really think you should read the Training forum in one go. But if you are interested in cycle training all the info you need is there; lists of councils and organisations that provide it, what is involved and what people who have had it thought of it.

What about motorbikes and mopeds? Nobody mentioned them?
I personally found them the biggest nuisance in London when the traffic is slow or stationary and there are always few "L" plated idiots who filter at such speeds, that no cyclist or pedestrian is safe.

I'm also a driver, because I can't move my whole family on bikes. I'm all for increased liability for motorists, even I'm often myself faced by wankers cyclist (mainly the angry, "I don't give a damn" type with hands in their pockets, listening to their mobiles). One of those "gangsta" twats crashed into me today on my way from nursery - with my daughter on the back of my bike. He had hands in his pockets. Couldn't react in time and t-boned me.

I think police should chase twats like those off the pavements (yes, my 2 yo daughter was hit in the forehead by a bmx's handlebar while holding my hand in the middle of the pavement in Leyton) and stop harassing commuters in Central London.

Also, all the drivers involved in a collision or incident (like a verbal abuse) with a cyclist, should be sent for a cycle training, apart from being hit by a fine/points. Would be nice, if all professional drivers were sent for a short spell of cycle training, just to change their attitude.
Only cycling in London's traffic opened my eyes as a driver.