[Closed] The House Of Commons debate on cycle safety #cyclesafe

just read austins speech, sounds promising, see what happens.

Listening to it all. A surprising amount of good sense being talked. Only the odd bit of nonesense.

It's on live here (although they've suspended for 20 mins)
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=10088

Makes a change from MPs fighting in the bars, I suppose...!

Good to see that this has made it to the House.

D0NK - Member

just read austins speech, sounds promising, see what happens.

Nothing

The two critical things - assumed liability and 20 mph limits will simply be shouted down by the motoring lobby as has happened any time they have been mentioned before.

Speed limits are only arbitrary, though, aren't they, TJ? More of a voluntary thing, wouldn't you say?

assumed liability and 20 mph limits will simply be shouted down by the motoring lobby

TandemJeremy - Member
The two critical things - assumed liability and 20 mph limits will simply be shouted down by the motoring lobby as has happened any time they have been mentioned before.

Always frickin naysayin... 😀

Good

think teej might be right tho graham

Even if those two things don't happen, there still could be a lot of good to come out of this.
The Times printed a good list of cycling myths today to hopefully put a lot of nonsense to bed.

Nothing

So what have you done recently to promote cyclist road safety, TJ?

Why do you not like assumed liability or 20 mph limits Druidh - they are the two things that would do the most for cycle safety IMO.

Aracer - I am simply sceptical about the outcome of this given previous experience.

Why do you not like [s]assumed liability or 20 mph[/s] speed limits [s]Druidh[/s] TJ - they are the [s]two[/s] things that would do the most for [s]cycle[/s] road safety IMO.

WTF are you on about CFH? making things up again? 🙄

Makes a change from MPs fighting in the bars,

I am simply sceptical about the outcome of this given previous experience.

Though this campaign does seem to have got more happening quicker than anything else I can remember. What previous initiative has a PM put his backing so firmly behind? Also all sorts of good stuff at http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3306950.ece

Is your MP on the list (mine isn't 🙁 )?
Ian Austin, Maria Eagle, Tessa Jowell, Kerry McCarthy, Andrew Smith, Lilian Greenwood, Susan Jones, Kate Hoey, Alison Seabeck, John Leech, Mark Lazarowicz, Ben Bradshaw, Zac Goldsmith, Sir Gerald Kaufman, Nia Griffith, Sadiq Khan, Jeremy Corbyn, Heidi Alexander, Stella Creasy, Tony Cunningham, Jim Cunningham, Karen Buck, Martin Horwood, Andrew Slaughter, Meg Hillier, Jason McCartney, Andrew George, Tom Brake, Fabien Hamilton, Guy Opperman, Julian Sturdy, Rehman Chishti, John Howell, Richard Harrington, Rob Wilson, Jack Lopresti, Mark Hunter, Sir Alan Beith, Simon Kirby, Andrew Bingham, Michael Ellis, Mike Weatherley, Sarah Woolaston, Jane Ellison, Gavin Barwell, Mark Menzies, Graham Evans, Paul Maynard, Nigel Mills, Fiona Bruce, Angie Bray, Tessa Munt, Jonathan Lord, Bob Stewart, Neil Carmichael, Andrew Selovs, Stephen Lloyd, Oliver Colville, Shailesh Vara, Sir George Young, Richard Graham, Norman Baker, Andrew Jones, Julian Huppert, Steve Brine, Robin Walker, Sir Bob Russell, Diane Abbott, Jo Swinson, Seema Malhotra, Rushinara Ali, Stephen Pound and Sheila Gimor.

Oooh mine is, bloody hell he's doing something instead of moaning in the paper about something his party implemented.

TJ, you choose to disregard speed limits when it suits you, and yet advocate more stringent speed limits. Seem a little odd to you?

Junky, none of my mates were involved. 🙂 Does sound like a proper kicking off though doesn't it? I gather the headbutt was actually [i]after[/i] the police had initially restrained him!

Teh thing is Aracer the thngs that will make a real difference - assumed liability as in most of Europe and 20 mph urban limits have a huge lobby dead set against them. Assumed liability was recommended recently in parliament and the outcry was huge from all the usual suspects. Same for 20 mph limits.

Of course this is good and its only going to have a positive effect but given all previous experience then I think not getting your hopes up means not being disappointed.

Look how anti "pro bike" measures people are on this site.

TJ, you choose to disregard speed limits when it suits you, and yet advocate more stringent speed limits. Seem a little odd to you?

<shrugs> I'll join him on that. Happy to admit to paying little attention to the motorway speed limit of itself (though I'll slow down for conditions), but I do try hard to stick to 30, and can see how useful 20 limits can be in some circumstances (though I don't agree with TJ on how widely they should be implemented - I suspect anything which does happen is likely to be far closer to my ideal than his 🙂 ). That doesn't make me a hypocrite - I just think some speed limits are inappropriate.

I gather the headbutt was actually after the police had initially restrained him!

is it on Youtube yet?

TJ - assumed liability is giving carte blanche to the tossers who cycle through red lights. Liability should be determined by the relevant authorities, [i]never[/i] assumed.

20mph limits might have some impact in a few locations. Local authorities already have the power to impose these where they deem necessary/useful. I fail to see what change in the law is required.

TandemJeremy - Member
Look how anti "pro bike" measures people are on this site.

the thngs that will make a real difference - assumed liability as in most of Europe and 20 mph urban limits have a huge lobby dead set against them.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree that they're the only important things - I'd suggest better driver training is more important than either (though possibly even less likely to happen!) Only good can come out of this - it may just be the start of a changing of the culture.

20 mph urban limits will not slow traffic flow in most instances and even incree it in some, will mean far less traffic lights are needed, will reduce casualties significantly. Will reduce pollution and noise

There is no downside to it at all

no down side????

Best thing is better driver training and awareness and enforcement of the law
I realise that expecting mutual respect and polite drivers is like expecting STW BH to not argue.

druidh - assumed liability would not do that. Thats the myth raised by the drivers lobby. Go thru a red light you then you are liable. Waht you have said is exactly the arguemnt raised by the anti bike folk - and iits simply not true

Assumed liability works across most of the rest of Europe

As for 20MPH limits - its much harder for loacal authorities to do this. It needs to be a co ordinated national policy.

Again proven to have a significant reduction in casualties without any significant reduction in traffic flow.

they are talking about introducing a council wide 20mph limit in Islington (a large part of it already is). I think it's a good thing - traffic tends to pootle at 25mph anyway.
BUT. Have you ever tried driving at 20mph? It's really quite hard to do below 25mph, you spend more time looking at the speedo than you do at the road.

Junkyard - Member

no down side???

Yes - no down side.

Traffic flows remain the same, pollution and casualties decrease. Cycling becomes much more pleasant.

Idiots guide to how assumed liability works, anyone? (in a cycling context)

Damnit - why didn't I start a company selling trixie mirrors

Traffic flows remain the same, pollution and casualties decrease.

In some parts of the country. Round here I can easily average close to 30mph over several miles in town at most times of day. You're also wrong about decreasing pollution with a 20 limit on a road where traffic can otherwise flow freely.

Not that I disagree with wider use of 20 limits where appropriate - I'm just rather less of a fan.

It's really quite hard to do below 25mph, you spend more time looking at the speedo than you do at the road.

It shouldn't be. Most SatNavs (certainly the latest Garmins) can be set to give a tone when you exceed the speed limit - a £100 after market upgrade that gives any driver a warning they're going too fast without looking away from the road. I've always found cruise control to be more useful in town than it is on British motorways - set it at 30 on the roads in and out of London and no need to worry about your speed creeping up. A rental Renault I had a few years back had a two way cruise control - you could set both a speed to be maintained or a maximum speed (ie cruise not on but can't exceed 40kmh until it's disabled).

And if 20mph limits become more common then manufacturers will start responding and deliver tools to drivers that help them as OEM.

Minister for transport just saying that he's recently made it much easier for local authorities to expand 20mph speed limits. Reduced loads of paperwork and reduced the need for 20mph repeater signs as long as road roundels are in place.

edited for correct minister!

assumed liability - as I understand it. the more vulnerable road user is assumed not to have been at fault in any collision unless there is evidence to show otherwise.

http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2010-12/1393

so - car crashes into cyclist - car driver assumed at fault unless they can show otherwise - something like cyclist not using signals or lights, cyclist not having right of way, cyclist went thru red light.

if the car driver is driving within the law they have nothing to worry about.

So in case of complete accident on both sides, would the motorist be liable?

No such thing teamhurtmore. Someone has always made a mistake

I am not seeking an argument here but surely accidents happen eg on icy roads/sun blinding both parties where no one is actually at fault. What happens then? Is the motorist always presumed to be liable?

driver slides on ice bike slides on ice both hit..neither speeding both driving appropriately - if they were cars it would be knock fo knock
now with bikes what happens?
FWIW I think 20 mph is a good idea as is the liability as it will make drivers attend to us more. I certainly dont expect the later to become law nor do i think it is always universally true [ and therefore it is an unfair law] nor do I think there are no disdvantages to a 20 mph limit even though I would support it.

surely accidents happen eg on icy roads/sun blinding both parties where no one is actually at fault. What happens then? Is the motorist always presumed to be liable?

Yep - not unreasonable if the excuse used is icy roads or getting blinded by the sun IMHO.

driver slides on ice bike slides on ice both hit..neither speeding both driving appropriately

oxymoron

No - whoever is at fault is liable.

car driver dazzled buy low sun? slow down, clean screen, etc etc

Icy road - whoever loses control of their vehicle.

Seriously - all collisions someone has made a mistake otherwise there would be no collisions. this is why they are RTCs now not RTAs

If both are fault then liability is shared - apportioned as it is now.

all that it means is a reversed burden of proof when a vulnerable road user it hit by one less vulnerable.

it also works for perdestrians and bikes - and cars and trucks, and motorcycles and cars

driver slides on ice bike slides on ice both hit..neither speeding both driving appropriately - if they were cars it would be knock fo knock
now with bikes what happens?

Both are going too fast if they lost control. Both liable - blame would be apportioned as it is now.

Forget fault for a moment. Say these hypothetical incidents happen in the absence of witnesses. Who is deemed culpable if the driver cannot prove, say, that the cyclist went through a red light and hit him?

The driver (or their insurer) would have to argue their case that they were not liable in court and it would be down to the court to decide.

this is not for criminal liability ie for dangerous driving or the like - just for civil liability