More lies:
Richard Madeley on cyclists in The Express:
"That’s right: no collision, whether it be with a car, bus, motorbike
or pedestrian, would ever be the bike rider’s responsibility. This, he
calculates, will encourage more people to take up cycling. Let’s consider a few scenarios. Cyclist jumps a red light and crashes
into your car. Whose fault? Yours. Cyclist shoots out of a blind alley
without looking left or right and ends up under the wheels of a
passing bus. Whose fault? The bus driver’s. Drunk cyclist wobbles wrong way up one-way street and even though you
stop your car in time, he still thuds into you. Whose fault? See
above." "Many cyclists, particularly in cities, already see themselves as
either above the law or victims or both." Daily Express | Columnists :: Like we need to give cyclist yet another exuse to be lycra louts Oliver Schick writes:
This gets misreported all the time (often probably intentionally).
It is not proposed to make motorists at fault in all collisions.
Rather, it is proposed to create a legal presumption that a motorist
will bear the burden of proof to show that they were not at fault.
Hence, the cycling bogeyman suddenly jumping a red light would still
be at fault (and in most cases, it would be easy to demonstrate that
they were at fault).
A full briefing is here:
http://www.roadpeace.org/documents/S...on%20paper.pdf Until this sort of quality information becomes available more widely,
rather than being blocked by politically-motivated gutter journalism,
this will continue to be misunderstood and misreported.
