Funny blog about Strictly Come What.

[spindrift]

Bike Love Not War – Terrors on Two Wheels | Chain Suck

In short, “strict liability” takes the onus off the most vulnerable road user to prove that they weren’t at fault if they’re involved in an accident. For more accurate information about it, check out Road Peace’s web site.

So that’s it.

Nothing too controversial there. Defending the vulnerable is a noble and worthy cause, wouldn’t you say?

Well, somewhat surprisingly for the internet, there’s been an ill-informed shitstorm whipped up by this suggested change, and that’s all it is – a suggestion.

Shockingly, the Daily Mail has been in the eye of the storm and chose to lead their coverage with a sensationalist headline to report the, erm, report:

“Motorists should be made legally responsible for all accidents involving cyclists, even if they are not at fault, say Government advisers.”

As Roy Walker more than likely didn’t say when he probably didn’t read that “It’s close, but it’s not right”.

Not happy with one misleading headline, to really fire up the mob, the Mail also published an ignorant opinion piece by Robert Hardman about what an “undeserving bunch of lawbreaking shits cyclists really are” – I’m paraphrasing there –  which amusingly includes the phrase “Lycra Louts” in its title.

Go on, read it. I dare you.

Despite opening his “strict liability” bashing piece by describing a situation in which he himself would actually have benefited from the change in the system, what really caught my eye was Hardman’s lovely comparison of cyclists and African paramilitaries:

“I prefer to think of them as the Mai-Mai, the Congolese militia who believe that they are endowed with magical qualities making them immune to bullets.”

OK, OK, Robert’s trying to be funny.

I know. I know.

Cyclists think they’re invincible which is why they all ride so recklessly.

Very good. But all the same it’s a little strong to slyly compare people commuting to work (sometimes illegally on the pavement) with terrorists.

I suppose I should be glad that he didn’t go the whole hog and call us “Nazis on Bikes”:

[spen666]

Bike Love Not War – Terrors on Two Wheels | Chain Suck

In short, “strict liability” takes the onus off the most vulnerable road user to prove that they weren’t at fault if they’re involved in an accident. For more accurate information about it, check out Road Peace’s web site.

So that’s it.

Nothing too controversial there. Defending the vulnerable is a noble and worthy cause, wouldn’t you say?

Well, somewhat surprisingly for the internet, there’s been an ill-informed shitstorm whipped up by this suggested change, and that’s all it is – a suggestion.

Shockingly, the Daily Mail has been in the eye of the storm and chose to lead their coverage with a sensationalist headline to report the, erm, report:

“Motorists should be made legally responsible for all accidents involving cyclists, even if they are not at fault, say Government advisers.”

As Roy Walker more than likely didn’t say when he probably didn’t read that “It’s close, but it’s not right”.

Not happy with one misleading headline, to really fire up the mob, the Mail also published an ignorant opinion piece by Robert Hardman about what an “undeserving bunch of lawbreaking shits cyclists really are” – I’m paraphrasing there –  which amusingly includes the phrase “Lycra Louts” in its title.

Go on, read it. I dare you.

Despite opening his “strict liability” bashing piece by describing a situation in which he himself would actually have benefited from the change in the system, what really caught my eye was Hardman’s lovely comparison of cyclists and African paramilitaries:

“I prefer to think of them as the Mai-Mai, the Congolese militia who believe that they are endowed with magical qualities making them immune to bullets.”

OK, OK, Robert’s trying to be funny.

I know. I know.

Cyclists think they’re invincible which is why they all ride so recklessly.

Very good. But all the same it’s a little strong to slyly compare people commuting to work (sometimes illegally on the pavement) with terrorists.

I suppose I should be glad that he didn’t go the whole hog and call us “Nazis on Bikes”:

Except of course that Roadpeace do notappear to know what strict liability is. They confuse a presumption of liability with strict liability


The link to Roadpeace in the article is to a broken link - this may be because Roadpeace have finally realised their previous discussion paper was simply wrong in law.

[spindrift]

Your confusion can only partly be explained by crass media reporting.

Working for change

We have been calling for this change to our civil compensation system for many years. In 1997 we contributed to the Environmental Law Foundation’s report Options for Civilising Traffic. In 2003, we produced our first briefing on this subject when the media misreported that the European Union was trying to hold drivers liable in all collisions with cyclists and pedestrians.

 

Most recently, we argued the case for Stricter Liability in a presentation at the 75th RoSPA National Road Safety Conference in February 2010.

 

This issue was highlighted recently in the media when the head of British Cycling called for driver liability, but unfortunately most of the reporting was incorrect and sensationalised, focusing on ‘lycra clad louts being compensated after running red lights’.

We have responded to several bursts of media interest, clarifying that law breaking by able-bodied adults would not be rewarded, and emphasising that injured pedestrians outnumber injured cyclists.

http://www.stricterliabilityforus.org.uk/Reports/RoadPeace%20Strict%20liability%20discussion%20paper.pdf



   Driver liability - RoadPeace



Strict liability is supported by The Environmental Law  Foundation, Safer Streets Coalition, Play England, Roadpeace, CTC.

Now stop clogging up the thread with your tiresome ignorance.

[Regulator]

Your confusion can only partly be explained by crass media reporting.

Working for change

We have been calling for this change to our civil compensation system for many years. In 1997 we contributed to the Environmental Law Foundation’s report Options for Civilising Traffic. In 2003, we produced our first briefing on this subject when the media misreported that the European Union was trying to hold drivers liable in all collisions with cyclists and pedestrians.

Most recently, we argued the case for Stricter Liability in a presentation at the 75th RoSPA National Road Safety Conference in February 2010.

This issue was highlighted recently in the media when the head of British Cycling called for driver liability, but unfortunately most of the reporting was incorrect and sensationalised, focusing on ‘lycra clad louts being compensated after running red lights’.

We have responded to several bursts of media interest, clarifying that law breaking by able-bodied adults would not be rewarded, and emphasising that injured pedestrians outnumber injured cyclists.



   Driver liability - RoadPeace



Strict liability is supported by The Environmental Law  Foundation, Safer Streets Coalition, Play England, Roadpeace, CTC.

Now stop clogging up the thread with your tiresome ignorance.

Well, as a Councillor and director of CTC I can tell that it is not supporting 'strict liability'.  It is supporting 'presumed liability' which is something completely different.  As far as I am aware, that is what the Environmental Law Foundation, the Safer Streets Coalition, and Play England are supporting.

Roadpeace on its own site says:

Strict, stricter liability or driver liability?

Previously, RoadPeace referred to this as ‘strict liability’ in keeping with the legal references but we believe this term can be misleading. ‘Strict liability’ may imply that in every crash, the motor insurance company will be held liable for civil compensation, regardless of the actions of the pedestrian or cyclist. And we do argue for this for collisions involving pedestrians or cyclists who are particularly vulnerable, such as children, older people (70 years old), or those who are less-abled. But with adults (15-69), who account for two-thirds of all pedestrian and cyclist casualties, claims could be reduced if their actions contributed to or caused the collision. Given this distinction, we prefer to use the term ‘stricter liability’.

What Roadpeace is actually describing isn't 'strict' liability - it's 'presumed liability'.  It doesn't help that they seem to have tried to create a new term ("stricter liability") for something where a legal term ("presumed liability") already exists.  Unfortunately, Roadpeace's rather shrill and confused messages don't go down well with drivers and play into the hands of the likes of the AA, RAC and SafeSpeed.

Presumed liability is what already exist across much of Europe and it would be a positive step forward for all vulnerable road users.

[spen666]

spindrift,

i'm sorry you find the truth tiresome and you want to repeat the inaccurate claims of roadpeace.

i'm more than happy to carry on upsetting you.


There is a world of difference between a presumption of liability and stricty liability.

I think you will stuggle to find many people who understand what strict liability is who would call for its intorduction in road traffic law.


The link you have posted to the road peace document is exactly the document that confuses strict liability with the presumption of liability.

With strict liability, the motorist would be liable no matter what the cause of the accident. Strict liability is what it says - ie strict - there is no chance of rebutting it


You were banned on another forum after throwing your toys out of the pram over this issue.

you have already started with abuse here simply because someone dares to point out that roadpeace are wrong on the law on this topic.

i'm quite sure that the other lawyers on here will confirm that strict liability and a rebuttable presumption of liability are different things.

You are doing cyclistsd and cycling no good at all by repeatedly posting inaccurate documents and then abusing those who dare to point out the inaccuracies.

we all want cycling to be safer. We will not achieve that by posting inaccurate documents and abusing people who dare to point out those inaccuracies.

[mattc]

that blog is dated Oct 16th.

we've discussed this on YACF several times before (possibly around October time, but I'm not sure).

Is there any news here?