Morning:
8°c
As my four-year-old daughter was pedalling home from nursery along the pavement last week she crashed into a car as it suddenly emerged from a car park.
Fortunately she was merely shaken. If she'd been hurt, though, under measures now being considered, the driver would have been automatically liable. But while I don't think the brainless woman who pulled out so fast should be on the road at all, I also don't believe that such a change in the law would be right.
Ministers' thinking is reportedly that if drivers were automatically made legally responsible for any collision with a cyclist or pedestrian, then they would be more careful, which would in turn make cycling safer and persuade more people to get on their bikes. Such a measure is said to have been successful in Germany and the Netherlands.
There's already predictable driver anger over the idea. A typical comment on a website this week was Yet more evidence that those who govern (lord it over) us are a raving bunch of loonies. Some are less measured.
One day maybe I'll figure out why these drivers get so angry on the web: do they just go around in a permanent state of rage, self-righteously railing at spouses and workmates? That might explain why some of them drive so badly. I'm a car driver myself, and virtually all the selfish and reckless behaviour I see on the roads, whether I'm at the wheel or in the saddle, is by other car and van drivers using mobiles, not bothering to signal, jumping lights. It has become simply routine behaviour.
I know, cyclists jump red lights too something that drivers frothing over the web invariably complain about. The point they miss is that while cyclists jumping lights may occasionally cause accidents, they rarely hurt anyone except themselves. When someone driving a tonne of metal ignores the rules of the road, the results can be tragically worse as my daughter so nearly discovered last week.
Still, that's something for the law to decide on a case-by-case basis. Likewise for pedestrians who get hurt because if the law were changed, cyclists would be liable for anyone on foot that they hit.
There are cases where that would be entirely fair. Cycling to work one day last week, I saw an aggressive cyclist run into a group of people crossing the road on a green-lit pedestrian crossing; a middle-aged woman remonstrated with him. It was hard to imagine why he'd failed to stop other than through pure recklessness.
Yet on almost every cycling trip I make I see pedestrians simply stepping into the road with blithe indifference to traffic, whether two- or four-wheeled. You just have to swerve ringing a bell only confuses them. If I end up hitting one of them under such conditions, why should I be held responsible?
If you're careless as a driver, cyclist or pedestrian you should take the consequences. I know because I did it myself in Covent Garden a few years back, stepping into the road without looking; I woke up in an oxygen mask on the way to St Thomas's. I didn't sue.
The real problem is that we now have a culture of the road where people assume usually correctly that they can get away with anything. That is unlikely to change before we reverse the replacement of traffic police by cameras.
Tougher traffic policing wouldn't catch every incident but it would force drivers to take others' safety more seriously. If the crackdown sweeps up a few of us cyclists, fair enough. Just don't put me in a cell with some ranting car bore.
Reader views (7)
It would be nice if all motorists were all insured! According to the BBC: The Motor Insurers' Bureau (MIB), estimates over 1.7m people drove without cover in 2008.
TOP FIVE UNINSURED HOTSPOTS
Greater London 13% [more than 1 in 8]
Merseyside 12% [nearly 1 in 8]
Greater Manchester 10% [1 in 10]
West Yorkshire 7% [1 in 14]
West Midlands 7% [1 in 14]
If they aren't insured, then it's unlikely that the vehicle will be properly maintained, and it's a fair bet that a proportion of uninsured drivers will be unlicensed / banned.
HGVs and Motorists pose by far the greatest threat on our roads. If you don't believe me, answer these questions:
a) How many HGV or car drivers drivers have been injured or killed by cyclists or pedestrians?
b) How many cyclists and pedestrians have been injured or killed by HGV or car drivers?
As a cyclist, I don't like people who ride on the pavement, jump red lights, stealth cycling, riding without lights after dark & etc.
There can be no doubt that we live in a society where a person's behaviour is not constrained by correctness, it's more the case 'can I get away with it?'.
A change away from the 'chav' culture is terribly overdue.
- Cyclist, London, 24/09/2009 07:08
Report abuse
The golden age of motoring is long gone.
The other day,in the Kings'Road,I witnessed a rage up,between a scooter rider and a cyclist,it's a war zone out there.Modern life is so pressurised.
I have given up my car,motor bike and cycle(in that order).
Bus,train,walking.That is what I am left with.
- Jimfred, London UK, 23/09/2009 09:54
Report abuse
Cyclists need to get a standard form of liability insurance and then the proposed law change will work.
At the moment, children do whatever they like on their bikes, so what do you think will happen if they are permanently assumed to be in the right ?
- Madmax, London, UK, 22/09/2009 17:09
Report abuse
So will making cyclists responsible for pedestrians be the death knell for the "shared" cycle / pedestrian pavements so favoured by the councils when they can't be bothered to provide dedicated cycle lanes?
- Paul, Feltham, 22/09/2009 16:53
Report abuse
Well said, Andrew. There has been far too much lip service paid to speed enforcement, which has been a nice little earner for the authorities.
Having more police patrols would be a start, but I think that unless something is done soon to eliminate the problem of potholes (and I mean proper repair not a superficial fix), we will just get a better-policed mess.
Some utilities and local authority representatives seem to have scant regard to the safety of all road users. They should be personally liable to corporate manslaughter/similar charges if they don't factor in the need to maintain road safety.
This is perhaps what Melvyn meant? 'Murder' is the wrong word as only a psychopath would intentionally try to kill someone...
- Jools, London, 22/09/2009 13:51
Report abuse
I don't know the details of the proposed new rules but it sounds like they are in the right direction.
I believe that in New York and Tokyo, both cities in which I have lived, have a stronger general presumption of liability by the driver than in the UK. Accordingly driving tends to be a bit safer in New York and much much safer in Tokyo. Whilst the pedestrian is the most direct beneficiary it is surely safer for all road users.
Over-reliance on speed cameras is another problem. Over-reliance on speed camera signs on stretches of road where everybody knows there is no speed camera is an even greater problem.
- Andrew, Hampton, 22/09/2009 13:12
Report abuse
The sooner motorists and CYCLISTS are charged with attempted murder for their actions the sooner they will realise that a car is as deadly as a gun!!
We have allowed small groups of self interested groups dominate the headlines with charges that motorist are the victims well its time to even the score.
We also need more tests for drivers instead of just one test at the beginning it should be at intervals that would decrease with age so a 20 would have a test at 40 then 50, 60 then 65 (with medical reports after the 50 tests.)
These tests would also act to see if motorists have kept pace with changing rules and if they fail they will revert to learner driver status and have to pass a full test to regain their licence.
People with conditions like epilepsy already have driving restrictions these need to be expanded to cover more conditions be it physical like heart attacks or mental health issues.
- Melvyn Windebank, Canvey Island, Essex, 22/09/2009 11:49
Report abuse
