Cycling UK Forum

As this hasn't yet been picked up on the forum, I'm posting this if only to note that the report reads like a near-verbatim transcript of the Cycling UK submission to the inquiry (and indeed of this forum's consensus on the subject). Remarkable.
Whether it has any effect is, of course, another matter.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/02/police-courts-fail-cyclists-road-safety-cross-party-inquiry

And here's a link to the report https://allpartycycling.files.wordpress ... t-2017.pdf

Those who submitted evidence will likely have received this already.

ChrisButch wrote: ... the report reads remarkably like a near-verbatim transcript of the Cycling UK submission to the inquiry ...

From vorpal's link:-

Report author

Christopher Peck


Would you have expected him to write anything else?

The Highway Code is already ignored with impunity by many motorists because the police don't enforce the existing rules in many cases.

New, stricter rules to protect cyclist won't be any use if they aren't enforced either, or if magistrates and judges continue to treat criminal motorists with great leniency.

Nothing can alter the fact that many people do not regard motoring offences as serious or even criminal, and they have votes.

I have not read all the report in detail yet. It looks a good report to me. They seemed to have missed a trick in their list of recommendations:

Presumed Liability

At a stroke this improves driver behaviour as I have seen myself by driving behaviour of French drivers towards cyclists. This would cost the state *nothing* to introduce. This would speed up and reduce the costs of litigation. The report states that 17% of cyclists submitting evidence raised presumed liability.

So why on earth did the Parliamentary Cycling group not recommend this? They did kind of mention this but only in a very weak manner.

Just because something works in France does not mean it will here.

We've a vast culture of exaggerated, frivolous and downright fraudulent insurance claims in this country, and presumed liability may serve only to allow another sector of users to get a slice of the pie, pushing up costs for everyone else.

And then there's the moral question - why should an innocent motorist be presumed guilty?

I'm not against PL per se, but it is an extreme measure likely to replace one set of problems with another. As a cyclist, cycle trainer, and (retired) police advanced driver, I would want to see the current systems properly enforced (road policing, prosecution, proper sentencing, less opportunity for motoring criminals to keep a licence by pleading hardship etc) before introducing yet another system or convention which itself would then not be properly enforced.

atlas_shrugged wrote:I have not read all the report in detail yet. It looks a good report to me. They seemed to have missed a trick in their list of recommendations:

Presumed Liability

At a stroke this improves driver behaviour as I have seen myself by driving behaviour of French drivers towards cyclists. This would cost the state *nothing* to introduce. This would speed up and reduce the costs of litigation. The report states that 17% of cyclists submitting evidence raised presumed liability.

So why on earth did the Parliamentary Cycling group not recommend this? They did kind of mention this but only in a very weak manner.

There would be screams of outrage from the tabloid press.
It will be represented as "another attack on innocent motorists" .
IMO no political party could have a chance of being elected to government with this provision in it's manifesto.
I agree it works very well in Europe but I'm naturally enough in favour - selling it to the great British public is another matter.
Motor transport is king of the road and I don't see that changing.
At best we will see greater enforcement of existing legislation - until it gets to the usually motorist friendly jury that is.

Lance Dopestrong wrote:Just because something works in France does not mean it will here.

It's not just France though, and the fact that it does work across the majority of Europe is a reasonable indication that it may well work here.

Lance Dopestrong wrote:And then there's the moral question - why should an innocent motorist be presumed guilty?

That's not the question though. You've confused guilt and liability, and they're not the same.

An innocent motorist can reasonably be presumed to be liable because they're the ones bringing the real danger in to the equation. If I drive over a child that literally jumps out right in front of me giving me no chance to brake then I am not guilty as I'm not at fault. But I (by way of my insures) am liable, because had I not been driving a tonne of metal about at child-killing speeds we wouldn't have the problem.

Pete.

pjclinch wrote: But I (by way of my insures) am liable, because had I not been driving a tonne of metal about at child-killing speeds we wouldn't have the problem.

Spot on

We've had this discussion more than once before and one big problem is that nobody ever seems able to give a clear definition of what they mean. eg it's even been stretched to mean "no-fault compensation." Listen to an English lawyer eg Martin Porter the Cycling Silk, and we already have a version of it in that the civil courts place an extra burden of care on drivers involved in collisions with cyclists. A recent example was the 30% contributory negligence thread. This is from the appeal judgment in that case:

28 I consider that whilst the judge had found that both parties were at fault in the respects identified by the judge, it was appropriate for the him to take into account the causative potency of the HGV, given the likelihood of very serious injury to a cyclist in the event of a collision. Although Mr Herbert sought to discount this on the basis of the low speed of the HGV, I consider that the judge was entitled to find that it was potentially a very dangerous machine. Its size and bulk were such that in the event of collision it constituted a very serious danger to a person in the position of the claimant. I therefore see no basis for interfering with the judge's assessment, and, for the reasons given, would dismiss this aspect of the appeal.

viewtopic.php?p=1101861#p1101861

That didn't go far enough for some.

Anyway, you can now wave goodbye to any possibility that our system might edge further towards what the Jonny Foreigners do.

Lance Dopestrong wrote:
And then there's the moral question - why should an innocent motorist be presumed guilty?

Liability and guilt are not the same. Therefore "moral question" does not exist.