I have to admit that I am one of those annoyingly cocky cyclists. I gamble on gaps between taxis, pay scant attention to red lights and often ‘forget’ to wear safety equipment in order to avoid ‘helmet hair’ at work. I’ve cycled since I was young, I tell myself, getting into accidents is for other people. The process is as much entertainment and fashion as it is a means to getting from A to B. For example, I wouldn’t be seen dead in one of those humptious yellow vests.
The ugly truth of course is that I’m more likely to soon be dead when cycling without one of those vests.
I wonder if the Edinburgh cyclist who died in Edinburgh this week thought similarly to how I do, or the other 15 cyclists who have died on the Capital’s streets since 2000. Not that complacency is the main reason for cyclists getting into accidents, it is cars, but there is precious little being done to make the roads safer for those on two wheels when up against numerous, too many, people on four wheels. The Greens, of course, are leading the arguments and are quite rightly calling for a cycle safety summit.
Perhaps Scotland should take a lead on this issue within the UK by taking a leaf out of The Netherlands’ book by implementing the following:
“Cyclists in the Netherlands are well protected as the law assumes the stronger participant (i.e. the car driver) is guilty until proved innocent (i.e. is the guilty party in all accidents involving weaker traffic unless evidence of the opposite is provided). Furthermore, drivers know to expect a high volume of cyclist traffic. Due to these issues the number of car-bike collisions with serious consequences is not alarmingly high in the Netherlandsâ€
For a Government that is often so keen to get a jump on Westminster in bringing in legislation and making Scotland a noticeably better place to live than down south, I would have thought that this was right up their cycle path.
I don’t know why lycra-clad cyclists are a target for so many drivers, metaphorically and physically. This was recently taken to extremes in Bristol when a bus driver used his vehicle as a weapon to purposefully take a cyclist out on the road (the incredible BBC video is here). That is an extreme example but if cyclists were less of a target and more of a risk to ending up in prison or having to pay a large fine if you hit one of them with your, regardless whose fault you believed it was, we would most likely see less people dying on our streets and more people dusting off their mountain bikes and enjoying the satisfaction and occasional thrill that is cycling through your home town or city.
Cyclists need to do their bit too of course, paying attention to red lights, knowing their Highway Code and having a second look at that garishly yellow high visibility jacket, but the Scottish Government can, and should, take a lead. It once considered taxing cyclists but they should go the other way and protect them by placing an assumption of guilt on the driver in any car-on-bike accident on Scotland’s roads.
After all, if it saves one life…
#1 by Chris on March 6, 2012 - 12:11 pm
I’m not sure that ‘if it saves one life’ is ever a great reason to go for a policy. It’s a fairly trenchant rationale that gets wheeled out a lot (no pun intended.)
BUT: there’s a lot to be said for this. I’m the same sort of cyclist, and it’s interesting in London the difference between professional drivers (bus drivers, taxis, most branded van drivers) and non-professionals; the latter are far more dangerous. I suspect that’s because a ‘professional’ driver (and we shouldn’t look too closely at the definition of professional, here) will be grossly inconvenienced and might lose their job if they splat a cyclist. It makes sense for them not to.
I suspect the main answer is in better design, though. Legislative approaches only do so much, and there’s already a fairly adversarial relationship between car users (we pay road tax, ergo we own the roads) and cyclists (I’m making things easier for you by reducing congestion, so I’m allowed to skip through reds/for my own safety) If roads were designed for co-ownership between vehicles and cyclists, things would be much better all round – again, the Netherlands is leading the way in that, with good design where cyclists share roads, and great design in the separation of cycleways a lot of the time, without slowing it down (as has happened in London). I think I’d feel a lot safer knowing that the road design’s on my side to prevent an accident, rather than trusting that people will be aware of, and remember they’ll be liable in case they do splat me.
#2 by Shave on March 6, 2012 - 12:16 pm
The assumption of guilt of the larger party seems to be effective on the continent but for it to work here the police etc. have to hold bad motorists to account for their mistakes.
Of course, policing can only be done with the public’s consent, and to get that cyclists also need to be held to account for their mistakes, red light jumping etc. (-Jeff!).
Btw if a car knocks a cyclist over it may be appropriate to send the driver on a training course but at present the courses have no specific element of cyclist safety (afaik) which is a missed opportunity.
Most of all I would like to see cyclists educated to take primary position on the road when needed, and NEVER undertake lorries with blind spots.
#3 by Commenter on March 6, 2012 - 12:27 pm
I’d stick with “innocent until proven guilty” personally, but that’s just me.
#4 by Stephan Matthiesen on March 6, 2012 - 12:50 pm
It is a very sensible and important suggestion to change the traffic regulations to give more rights to weaker participants (pedestrians and cyclists). It is very obvious that car drivers in the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark (the countries where I have first-hand experience) are much more careful and look out for cyclists and pedestrians, and this is not just due to larger numbers of cyclists, but definitely due to the different regulations (car drivers are also much more respectful in regions where there are few cyclists/pedestrians!).
Changing the law also makes cycling immediately more attractive. For example, when a car torns off the main road and crosses the path of cycles or pedestrians, here they expect the cyclist and pedestrian to stop. On the continent, the car has to stop. This makes cycling immediately easier, because stopping and starting is one of the most energy-intensive aspects of cycling, so if you don’t have to stop all the time for the cars, cycling becomes much more pleasant and also more attractive to people who are not very fit (elderly people, for example).
Of course infrastructure is very important too, but the change in legislation would have immediate direct effects and also send a strong signal (also to town planners, who would have to take cycles seriously!).
#5 by Jeff on March 6, 2012 - 1:11 pm
Fully agree!
Speaking of Denmark, cycling in Copenhagen city centre is a dream (and the bikes are free to hire).
#6 by Aldos Rendos on March 6, 2012 - 12:51 pm
I used to have a lot of sympathy for cyclists but this has waned somewhat since moving to London. Regularly I jump off the bus almost to be knocked over by a cyclist who thinks undertaking a bus and ringing a poxy bell gives him the right of way. Then there are those who routinely ignore red lights at pelican crossings or fly round blind corners at 30MPH shouting ‘it’s a f****** road you know’ as tourists and pram pushers look bemusedly on.
Perhaps the best idea is to invest more in public transport to make it more affordable, more practical and quicker, that way we can cut down on the number of cars and bicycles on the road and make commuting a safer, more pleasurable experience for all of us.
#7 by Jeff on March 6, 2012 - 1:09 pm
I can certainly appreciate that view, and am sharing in it more and more. It’s the pelican crossings that annoy me most. Pedestrians often say thank you when you stop for them as if I’m doing them a favour. I do occasionally, accidentally fly through them but I do shout out a ‘sorry!’.
More and/or better public transport is of course a good thing but cycling is cheaper, healthier, greener and often quicker so I still think it should be the preferred commuting method, where possible.
#8 by Paul Cairney on March 6, 2012 - 1:29 pm
If the Netherlands is the aim, then this might take a generation to achieve. There is more of a culture of cycling AND driving which perhaps contrasts with the UK’s cycling OR driving – and the latter perhaps exacerbates a ‘them-and-us’ mentality that pervades a lot of these debates (although I was still surprised to see a cycle courier in London with F*** Taxis tattooed to his calves). This attitude in the Netherlands is, of course, helped by their terrific cycle infrastructure which seems impossible to replicate in the UK (although in places like Hokkaido and Japan they get past that obstacle by encouraging cyclists to share pedestrian paths).
#9 by Aidan on March 6, 2012 - 1:45 pm
Glasgow’s been doing some good work on this, there’s a dedicated cycle way along Berkely st which is physically separated from the road. There’s also a growing number of non-seperated cycle routes and boxes at junctions and the clydeside cycleway is pretty handy as it goes from basically outside my flat into the city centre.
However there’s a lot more that could be done, particularly around byres road and in the city centre.
#10 by Richard Lucas on March 6, 2012 - 5:44 pm
Netherlands the model to aim for. No-one would dream of wearing a helmet (are cycling helmets possibly the most pointless device ever marketed?) Lots of seperate cycling tracks with a high level of usage. Any car/bike accident automatically the fault of the driver.
#11 by Barbarian on March 6, 2012 - 5:50 pm
I cycle, but on a rather cheap mountain bike at the weekends. EK has loads of cycle paths but I wear a helmet and avoid the dreaded spandex (and steep hills).
I disagree that the guilt should be placed on drivers. Accident investigators (I know a specialist in these matters) are very good at finding out the facts.
In Glasgow city centre, cyclists are notorious for going through red lights when people are crossing. I’ve almost been hit by one idiot who swore at me and my companion – needless to say they got as good back! Some cyclists are as bad as the car drivers.
#12 by Donald MacDonald on March 6, 2012 - 7:40 pm
But considerably less likely to kill their victims.
#13 by Don McC on March 6, 2012 - 6:58 pm
This is a complex question, Jeff, with no straight forward solution. In my (much) younger days, I cycled every where and thought, as do many youths, that I was untouchable and cars would simply bounce off me. My only accident that led to me coming off my bike was when a taxi driver forced me off the road and into a lamp post because I was in his way and he was in a hurry. I still believe he would not have stopped to check on me if his passenger hadn’t forced him to. It didn’t dent my confidence however, I got straight back on the saddle (buckled wheel and all) and cycled for years after that.
Last year, though, I treated myself to a new bike after a long lay off. I hadn’t cycled for about a decade (perhaps more) and, remembering how fit I felt and how much fun I had had when I had cycled regularly, thought this was ideal. I’m not afraid to admit I was genuinely scared on our roads, for the first time in my life. Drivers drove far too close, forcing me into the gutter in their hurry to get past. One driver almost drove straight through me because he could not overtake and I was holding him up. Nudging my back wheel with his bumper did more than just get my attention, I can tell you.
Drivers, these days, are too wrapped up in their own little worlds and to hell with any other road user. I can see why cyclists take an aggressive attitude in town, it’s a survival mechanism.
Perhaps a presumption of guilt is a step too far but imposing some hefty manslaughter penalties if a driver is found guilty of causing the death of a cyclist (say, minimum of 10 years) could go a long way towards reminding them that other road users need consideration too.
#14 by Doug Daniel on March 6, 2012 - 8:31 pm
I’ll never understand you people that cycle to work. Do you not spend the whole day covered in a horrible film of sweat? Or do you all work in places that have showers?
I’d love to cycle more, but it’s just not practical for me, especially in Aberdeen where some (fairly popular) roads barely have enough room for cars to be going past each other in opposite directions, never mind trying to fit cycle lanes in.
#15 by theshooglypeg on March 6, 2012 - 9:37 pm
Speaking as both a cyclist and a driver, I’m not convinced by the argument here. You start by acknowledging that you’re not a very responsible cyclist, and then suggest that drivers ought to be automatically held responsible if they knock you over? That’s having your cake, eating it, then demanding that somebody buys you another one immediately!
I do absolutely agree that we need better cycle paths, a proper cycling infrastructure and a more developed culture of cycling in this country, and it sounds like we could learn loads from the Netherlands.
But if we want drivers to accept this shift, we as cyclists also need to take responsibility for our own safety as well as expecting others to respect us. I get furious when I see cyclists whooshing through red lights and snaking through lanes, both because it makes non-cyclists tar everybody with the same brush and because I know that one day, one of those cyclists is going to get hit in front of me and I’m going to have to watch it happen.
#16 by Jeff on March 6, 2012 - 9:41 pm
I fully acknowledge that cyclists should do more. Either way, if this law change would save lives then it’s at least worth considering.
You say you’re not convinced by my arguments but I think we’re absolutely on the same page, so I’m not sure how that works…! 😉
#17 by theshooglypeg on March 6, 2012 - 10:55 pm
…because your argument is only persuasive if you and other cyclists stop running red lights! Until that happens, you might be right about the need to change the law, but you won’t persuade drivers that they should automatically be responsible for hurting you when you’re clearly not taking care to prevent yourself from being hurt.
#18 by Saoirse on March 7, 2012 - 8:52 am
Firstly, the law should be blind and seen to be blind, if we started giving a greater assumption of innocence to one group of people how long would it be before other groups started demanding this, many of them with more justification than cyclists.
Secondly, I ride a proper bike (with an engine) & know how blind car drivers can be, nearly every biker can recount tales of smidsy’s (sorry mate I didn’t see you) where cager’s have nearly killed them but I know as a group we do take some chances when riding & not every crash is entirely the car drivers fault, having said that I’ve seen cyclists take chances on the road that no biker wearing full protection would be crazy enough to try & it would only encourage cyclists to take even greater risks if they knew the law was almost always going to take their side unless the other driver had enough independent witnesses to counter the legal assumption that they must be the innocent party.
#19 by Anth on March 7, 2012 - 9:58 am
Just a quick point. Strict liability is a ‘civil’ concept, not a ‘criminal’ one. So it does not mean that a driver is ‘guilty until proven innocent’ (something protected by the EU Human Rights Laws), and does not mean more drivers going to prison or getting heavier fines. What it means is if the cyclist sues the driver then it is for the driver to prove that he wasn’t to blame (currently the claimant has to prove the driver ‘was’ to blame). It’s a subtle shift, but an important one (and one which should happen in my opinion) – it’s also not unknown in our legal system.
#20 by Craig on March 7, 2012 - 5:04 pm
This is how you make bad policy.
Most commenters are focused on the cycling aspect of the proposal and ignoring the implications of the legal aspect.
In the Netherlands, it is not just cycling example where the presumption of innnocence doesn’t apply – it doesn’t apply in any criminal case. Defendents are at the mercy of the prosecutor-dominated courts. All in contravention of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. http://www.nljo.org/NLJO_Media/Media_Commentary_5.htm
As flawed as Scots Law may be, this is a road we most certainly do not want to go down. Hopefully the courts would strike it down (although judging by their performance in Cadder and Fraser, we might have to rely on the Supreme Court). For this law is the kind that always leads to unintended applications.
Far from usurping the right to a fair trial, perhaps irresponsible cyclists should try obeying the Highway Code first.
#21 by Calum on March 8, 2012 - 2:51 pm
Firstly, as a London based cyclist, I very strongly feel that cyclists need to have their house in order before they can credibly demand significant changes inrules and road design. Crowing about the need to be tougher on drivers when vast numbers of us sail through red lights, over pavements, and pretty much wherever we please just annoys people. Self-policing to a point, but I would also like to see the cops actually pulling people off the road and giving them a swift reminder that the Road Traffic Act also applies to them.
Secondly, the majority of cyclist deaths are what the motorcycle community call SMIDSYs – “Sorry, mate, I didn’t see you”. Follow the highway code religiously, be assertive about taking your lane, and always, always, always be aware of blind spots and you’ll be much safer.
Thirdly, the position regarding safety gear is not so clear cut. The evidence is mixed that it has a positive overall effect. Yes, it’s true that in an accident, you’re better off with a helmet than without. However, drivers are much more wary of “unprofessional” looking cyclists, give you a wider berth, and are less likely to hit you. Overall, the effect is broadly neutral or in favour of riding without.
#22 by Davy Johnstone on March 8, 2012 - 5:10 pm
When cyclists follow the Highway Code and are forced to carry 3rd party insurance then we might start to look at some presumption of guilt. Until then…
Only yesterday I witnessed a cyclist steaming through a red light causing a driver to lock up his brakes in effort to avoid killing the idiot. Had he skidded into me instead of keeping it straight, whose insurance would have taken the hit?
Not a penny more to be spent on cycleways until cyclists assume responsibility both for sticking to the rules and for carrying insurance. Why should I suffer if a spandex clad idiot scrapes my paintwork as he zips through a gap?
#23 by Jeff on March 8, 2012 - 5:26 pm
Fair argument.
On balance, I believe there is more to be gained than lost from a law change though, maybe I’ve just been lucky enough to not see cyclists cause any (and I do mean any) accidents or near-accidents in my time on the roads either driving or cycling.
Pingback: Five things you need to know today : The Edinburgh Reporter
#24 by Matthew Young on March 26, 2012 - 5:47 pm
For those of you interested, this is about as close as you’ll get to a definitive article on the subject http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/search/label/strict%20liability