I thought the write up it was a bit, well, rubbish.
The whole point is that motorists have a duty of care toward more vulnerable road users, just as cyclists have a duty of car toward pedestrians.
If a motorist is involved in an accident with a cyclist, even if the cyclist was in the wrong, the question is whether the motorist was driving up to the required standard and taking the necessary care. In my thinking, this was what the legislation is about.
Instead what we have these days works something like:
1. Motorist collides with cyclist
2. Cyclist writes to the motorist with a bill for loss of earnings, damaged bike etc.
3. Motorist passes the letter on to their insurer
4. Motorist's insurer writes to the cyclist stating they are not entitled to any compensation unless they can prove they were wearing a helmet, not wearing hi viz, cycling in a safe and courteous manner, yada yada and please cough up for Mr. Motorist's new front bumper + respray.
5. Step 5. depends on whether or not the cyclist has insurance.
A certain Mr. Leg put this more eloquently then myself on CycleChat. Any how, when drivers are to blame for the vast majority of accidents, it's absurd that the legal system leaves cyclist on such a sticky wicket.
I think the comments on that article, if they were from a reasonable cross section of drivers, would give a strong indication that driver training is not up to scratch. However, I will concede that it is probably the usual group of speedophiles and that the general public must have a little more empathy.
