Richard Madeley is not a very good journalist.

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."

http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/130100

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 he

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.

On Sep 29, 5:49*pm, spindrift wrote:
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."

http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/130100

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 he

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.

Whoops, sorry Simon.

"spindrift" wrote in message
...

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.

Whoops, sorry Simon.

Not at all, my friend. You can fend off the pro-Madeley crowd while I go for
an 8 mile walk ;-)


--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

spindrift wrote:

A full briefing is he

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.

To quote from it:
"In the case of children and the elderly, or those with physical or
mental impairments, motorists would be liable irrespective of the
victim’s actions."

So the bus driver/owner in this clip would "be liable irrespective of
the victim’s actions": http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7598674.stm

Unbelievable, but they seem to be serious about this!

A draft report[1] which came to light recently in urc suggests that it
may make the roads more dangerous in those places. It concludes:
"...research in countries that have adopted some form of no-fault
insurance suggests that it may lead to adverse effects regarding traffic
safety."

[1]http://eale2002.phs.uoa.gr/papers/Visscher%20&%20Kerkmeester.doc

--
Matt B

Guy Chapman thinks drivers should be prosecuted for making way for
emergency vehicles at red lights. He has admitted this. Therefore he
is anti-motorist.

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:49:49 -0700 (PDT), spindrift
wrote:

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.

WHY should that be the case? That's yet another question that is
never answered properly, because as ever the real answer is "To make
things harder for motorists" (it's entirely obvious anyway, but the
fact that Spindrift is in support of such legislation makes it even
more so).

Road safety measures should be decided on the basis of what makes road
users safer, not on the basis of what makes things harder for
motorists (and no-one ever has the guts to admit to disagreeing with
that). Those who prefer the latter method have blood on their hands,
and the amount of blood increases every day that they continue to do
so. I don't care how much you want cars to be vanquished from the
roads, abusing road SAFETY legislation is not the way to do it. Please
find another way to get cars off the road which doesn't involve
killing people (and preferably doesn't involve blatant dishonesty
either).

Why can't car-haters just try to persuade drivers in a civilised
manner not to drive, instead of constantly trying to use road "safety"
legislation and enforcement to get what they want by underhand means?
What is it about a hatred of motorists which encourages such constant
dishonesty and disregard for people's lives?

Matt B wrote:

So the bus driver/owner in this clip would "be liable irrespective of
the victim’s actions":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7598674.stm
Unbelievable, but they seem to be serious about this!

Too right!

At the time the bus hit the child in the above clip, there were 5, possibly
6 children on the carraigway which the bus driver totally ignored. Any one
of those children could have moved or fallen in front of the bus whach was
travelling at excessive speed whilst going through a pedestrian crossing. I
regularly drive though a similar crossing near a school. I never drive
through it at more than 15 mph and I would be able to anticipate a child
entering the road in such a manner.

The driver in question (IMO) is entirely to blame.

"mileburner" wrote in message
...
Matt B wrote:

So the bus driver/owner in this clip would "be liable irrespective of
the victim's actions":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7598674.stm
Unbelievable, but they seem to be serious about this!

Too right!

At the time the bus hit the child in the above clip, there were 5,
possibly 6 children on the carraigway which the bus driver totally
ignored. Any one of those children could have moved or fallen in front of
the bus whach was travelling at excessive speed whilst going through a
pedestrian crossing. I regularly drive though a similar crossing near a
school. I never drive through it at more than 15 mph and I would be able
to anticipate a child entering the road in such a manner.

The driver in question (IMO) is entirely to blame.


What makes you so sure you could stop in time if a child ran out in a
similar manner to the idiot in the clip?

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:01:32 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:

At the time the bus hit the child in the above clip, there were 5, possibly
6 children on the carraigway which the bus driver totally ignored. Any one
of those children could have moved or fallen in front of the bus whach was
travelling at excessive speed whilst going through a pedestrian crossing. I
regularly drive though a similar crossing near a school. I never drive
through it at more than 15 mph and I would be able to anticipate a child
entering the road in such a manner.
The driver in question (IMO) is entirely to blame.

Not entirely, but there are certainly some questions about his
driving. It looks as if he was rushing to get the traffic light on
green, and he was encroaching onto the cycle lane despite there having
been people walking in it right up to the moment of collision. I
think he should have been driving slower and more carefully.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc

Brimstone wrote:
"mileburner" wrote in message
...
Matt B wrote:

So the bus driver/owner in this clip would "be liable irrespective
of the victim's actions":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7598674.stm
Unbelievable, but they seem to be serious about this!

Too right!

At the time the bus hit the child in the above clip, there were 5,
possibly 6 children on the carraigway which the bus driver totally
ignored. Any one of those children could have moved or fallen in
front of the bus whach was travelling at excessive speed whilst
going through a pedestrian crossing. I regularly drive though a
similar crossing near a school. I never drive through it at more
than 15 mph and I would be able to anticipate a child entering the
road in such a manner. The driver in question (IMO) is entirely to blame.


What makes you so sure you could stop in time if a child ran out in a
similar manner to the idiot in the clip?

The thing is that I am not *that sure*, that is why it is important to drive
cautiosly. I reckon though that I would have a considerably better chance of
seeing him at 15mph than at 30mph and a better chance of stopping or causing
less harm if I did not stop.

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:01:32 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:

At the time the bus hit the child in the above clip, there were 5,
possibly 6 children on the carraigway which the bus driver totally
ignored. Any one of those children could have moved or fallen in
front of the bus whach was travelling at excessive speed whilst
going through a pedestrian crossing. I regularly drive though a
similar crossing near a school. I never drive through it at more
than 15 mph and I would be able to anticipate a child entering the
road in such a manner.
The driver in question (IMO) is entirely to blame.

Not entirely, but there are certainly some questions about his
driving. It looks as if he was rushing to get the traffic light on
green, and he was encroaching onto the cycle lane despite there having
been people walking in it right up to the moment of collision. I
think he should have been driving slower and more carefully.

The last sentence is an understatement...