Speed limits: 40mph plan for country roads

[biffvernon]

Any law which adopts a default position of guilt on one of the parties involved in a potential crime prior to the accumulation of any evidence is an indefensible disgrace.

I'm sure it's not as simple as that. I was only reporting what a friend said to me and I know virtually nothing about Dutch law so best not to quote me on it!

[Little John]

Any law which adopts a default position of guilt on one of the parties involved in a potential crime prior to the accumulation of any evidence is an indefensible disgrace. This is the case of irrespective of whether it is a murder, theft, motor vehicle accident or, indeed, any incident of any kind.

I understand your concern Steve but it isn't quite as simple as that. It's the old steam gives way to sail principle applied to traffic. Very similar in fact to the law here about zebra crossings, a crossing is a road until a pedestrian claims it as a crossing by stepping onto it.

On the continent there is a 'pecking order' where the bigger the vehicle the greater the driver's responsibility. As a lorry driver if I hit anything I'm assumed to be in error until proved otherwise. The UK has tended to be fairly lax in investigating accidents properly but is catching up to the continent now. Remember 'knock for knock'? doesn't happen over there. I've been involved in an accident in Germany, treated fairly by the Police, found to be not at fault and released with an apology and a letter for my employer. If I had been found at fault then I'm a big boy so I have to deal with it.

All it does in reality is remind drivers of their responsibilities, no bad thing in my book.

This is apples and oranges SS. If a Zebra crossing is visible to a driver (and it will be due to the orange beacons and clear road markings) then there are clear and predetermined protocols that the driver knows in advance in relation to such a crossing. Thus, the driver knows in advance that they must give way to a pedestrian. If they do not, then they are clearly guilty. Not by presumption, but by the evidence.

Regarding rights of way; if the law clearly states that a bicycle has preferential right of way over a car in all circumstances on a road and this law is known in advance by both drivers and cyclists, then if a car driver, involved in an accident with a cyclist, is found to have breached that preferential right of way, then they are clearly guilty. You don't have to presume guilt. The evidence will (or will not) support it.

I repeat, a presumption of guilt in any circumstances, in the absence of evidence, is indefensible.

[SleeperService]

No, it's not apples and oranges. All the road users do know the 'clear and predetermined' protocols in advance. Certainly in Germany a prospective driver has to attend classes for several weeks regarding traffic law, basic maintenance vehicle performance and so on.

I think we're at cross purposes as I agree about presumption of guilt being wrong, and I think we're on the same wavelength about how things work out on the road so to speak.

[RogueMale]

This is apples and oranges SS. If a Zebra crossing is visible to a driver (and it will be due to the orange beacons and clear road markings) then there are clear and predetermined protocols that the driver knows in advance in relation to such a crossing. Thus, the driver knows in advance that they must give way to a pedestrian. If they do not, then they are clearly guilty. Not by presumption, but by the evidence.

Regarding rights of way; if the law clearly states that a bicycle has preferential right of way over a car in all circumstances on a road and this law is known in advance by both drivers and cyclists, then if a car driver, involved in an accident with a cyclist, is found to have breached that preferential right of way, then they are clearly guilty. You don't have to presume guilt. The evidence will (or will not) support it.

I repeat, a presumption of guilt in any circumstances, in the absence of evidence, is indefensible.

IANAL (let alone a Dutch one) but it's a presumption of liability, not guilt. I.e. they would not necessarily be prosecuted, but their insurance would pay out in the event of a collision. See
http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki/ ... -play-nice.

HTH.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

So you are saying that if cyclists had licences and insurance premiums to worry about then they would be a lot more careful around pedestrians.

Or does this principle not apply to cyclists for some special reason?


A pedestrian does not have the right to step out on to a zebra crossing to stop traffic. Road traffic must stop when a pedestrian is waiting to cross and a pedestrian must wait until the traffic stops. Leaping out in front of moving traffic is called death by misadventure.

As far as I'm concerned the crossing starts at the raised bobbles on the pavement.....

HWC for road users,

195
Zebra crossings. As you approach a zebra crossing
look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross
you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing
allow more time for stopping on wet or icy roads
do not wave or use your horn to invite pedestrians across; this could be dangerous if another vehicle is approaching
be aware of pedestrians approaching from the side of the crossing
A zebra crossing with a central island is two separate crossings (see Rule 20).

HWC for Pedestrans,

Crossings
18
At all crossings. When using any type of crossing you should
always check that the traffic has stopped before you start to cross or push a pram onto a crossing
always cross between the studs or over the zebra markings. Do not cross at the side of the crossing or on the zig-zag lines, as it can be dangerous
You MUST NOT loiter on any type of crossing.
[Laws ZPPPCRGD reg 19 & RTRA sect 25(5)]
19
Zebra crossings. Give traffic plenty of time to see you and to stop before you start to cross. Vehicles will need more time when the road is slippery. Wait until traffic has stopped from both directions or the road is clear before crossing. Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing. Keep looking both ways, and listening, in case a driver or rider has not seen you and attempts to overtake a vehicle that has stopped.

It's all about sharing and looking after each other, not screaming about who has 'right of way' and doesn't have to care about anyone else.

[JohnB]

So how about tax and insurance for pedestrians then? Especially the ones that walk on the cycle lane part of segregated paths.

[Little John]

A presumption of liability is still wrong since this still implies a presumption of guilt. There really are no circumstances where a presumption of guilt/liability should be made in the absence of evidence except and insofar as the choice to act by either party is an entirely free one and even then you are on potentially dodgy philosophical ground.

However, in the case of the public highways, the argument for making a presumption of liability/guilty on one party is entirely unacceptable for two reasons.

Firstly, these highways have been paid for out of the common contributions of every one's taxes (taxes that people are not free to refuse) and so should, at the very least, allow for equal access for everyone who wants to use them without the fear of a de-facto presumption of guilt.

Secondly, in a modern industrial world, the use of the public highways may be legitimately seen as a a necessary use, not an optional one since modern life is pretty much impossible without the use of a motor vehicle for millions of ordinary citizens. You or I may bemoan that fact, but that is the fact on the ground.

Therefore, to have in place a de-facto presumption of guilt of a car user in the case of an RTA between a car and a bicycle is absolutely intolerable and I am frankly, flabbergasted that anyone on here could even consider making such a case. In fact, I would go so far as to say I am disgusted by such a suggestion.

I should say, i have no problem, in principle, with any laws which may be enacted that give bicycles absolute preferential right of way under all circumstances on the highway in relation to the right of way of car. There may well, of course, be objections made by others that this is an infringement of the rights of car users to go about their daily business. However, this is a secondary issue since the law would have made clear what each user's responsibilities were in advance.

What this argument of de-facto guilt/liability basically amounts to is that someone may find themselves in the position of being found guilty/liable for a crime they did not commit under circumstances they could not have predicted whilst engaged in a daily action they could not have reasonably avoided.

Are the people on here making this argument serious?

[JavaScriptDonkey]

JSD, never say never. I know someone who accidentally killed his friend with a sporting shotgun. As for hunting 'accidents' in the USA...

Terrible tragedy.

An elderly neighbour of mine was wounded as a young girl by some idiot who had 'borrowed' his dad's shotgun.

One of the first things I did when I returned to shooting was inculcate safe gun handling in my children. They rarely shoot and are bored to tears when I talk about guns but they can recognise unsafe behaviour at a glance and know the difference between 'gun' and 'toy'.

I would be guilt stricken if any of my children were ever injured or injured anyone else though their own negligence just because I hadn't taken the time to teach them properly.

Hunting accidents in the USA run up to about 1000 every year. Some states allow hunting on land that is just too damn close to people and some hunters lacked the proper training. I'm told that Hunter Training Courses are now mandatory in most States and that is a very good thing.

Some recent accident facts can be found here.

Death by firearm (accidental) 776
Death by fiream (suicide) 16586
Death by fiream (asault) 10801

Death by falling on flat surface 2450
Death from narcotics 6139
Death from medical care 3059
Death by drowning pool & natural 1702

I think that shows that the US needs to worry more about dealing with depression, aggression and teaching people to swim.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

So how about tax and insurance for pedestrians then? Especially the ones that walk on the cycle lane part of segregated paths.

Reducto absurdum?

Pedestrians as people are already taxed to finance the provision of footpaths as we all are.

Shouldn't cyclists give way to pedestrians at all times?

[Little John]

So how about tax and insurance for pedestrians then? Especially the ones that walk on the cycle lane part of segregated paths.

Reducto absurdum?

Pedestrians as people are already taxed to finance the provision of footpaths as we all are.

Shouldn't cyclists give way to pedestrians at all times?

Actually, I cannot argue with the logic here. If cars users are are subject to a specialist tax for using the road and all taxpayers are centrally taxed for using the pavement, there is no logical argument for not subjecting cyclists to a specialist tax for using the roads. However, such a tax should be absolutely minuscule to represent the minuscule wear and tear on the roads that cyclists cause. It's purpose for existence would be, in my view, more of a symbolic and moral one than for any other purpose.

In terms of preferential rights of way, again, the logic would dictate that the more dangerous user should always give way to the less dangerous user. Thus, cars, give way to cyclists and cyclists give way to pedestrians.

In terms of compulsory insurance. I think the current arrangements are correct. This is because between pedestrians/cyclists/car users, car users are the only one's whop represent a significant risk of major injury or death to others.

In terms of compulsory training and the passing of a test to obtain the right to use the highway, again, I think this is currently about right for the same reasons I cited for insurance. Though, I suppose I could just about be persuaded of the need for compulsory training for cyclists without the need for a test in order to obtain the right to use a highway.

But only just.

[JohnB]

Actually, I cannot argue with the logic here. If cars users are are subject to a specialist tax for using the road and all taxpayers are centrally taxed for using the pavement, there is no logical argument for not subjecting cyclists to a specialist tax for using the roads.

But what about where there are no pavements, and pedestrians have to walk on the road? They are less visible than a bike, and possibly more unpredictable. A couple of them stepped off the end of the pavement in front of me yesterday, to walk a few yards along the road to their drive, right where there is an island in the middle of the road. There was no danger, but it was unexpected.

I wasn't seriously suggesting taxing pedestrians! I don't see how it would be practical to tax bikes either.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

I wasn't seriously suggesting taxing pedestrians! I don't see how it would be practical to tax bikes either.

Tax disks. Exactly the same way we tax mopeds.

So were you just trying to end an inconvenient discussion if it wasn't a serious suggestion?

[Little John]

Actually, I cannot argue with the logic here. If cars users are are subject to a specialist tax for using the road and all taxpayers are centrally taxed for using the pavement, there is no logical argument for not subjecting cyclists to a specialist tax for using the roads.

But what about where there are no pavements, and pedestrians have to walk on the road? They are less visible than a bike, and possibly more unpredictable. A couple of them stepped off the end of the pavement in front of me yesterday, to walk a few yards along the road to their drive, right where there is an island in the middle of the road. There was no danger, but it was unexpected.

I wasn't seriously suggesting taxing pedestrians! I don't see how it would be practical to tax bikes either.

In such a case, I would have no particular objection to a law which stated clearly that cars should always give way to pedestrians under all circumstances. However, such a law could be easily qualified such that a driver would not be deemed to be liable for an accident if a pedestrian had been shown to not exercise due care and attention when crossing a road.

The point I am making here is there is absolutely no moral justification for an a-priori presumption of guilt on any party.

Ever.

I find it frankly astonishing that I am having to even point this out to people.

[RenewableCandy]

So you are saying that if cyclists had licences and insurance premiums to worry about then they would be a lot more careful around pedestrians...

All it would mean in practice is that there would be far fewer cyclists. With all the bad health, social exclusion, traffic congestion, etc etc issues that would cause. It's one of those things like compulsory helmets: looks like a good idea until you consider how the Great British Public would inevitably react.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

So you are saying that if cyclists had licences and insurance premiums to worry about then they would be a lot more careful around pedestrians...

All it would mean in practice is that there would be far fewer cyclists. With all the bad health, social exclusion, traffic congestion, etc etc issues that would cause. It's one of those things like compulsory helmets: looks like a good idea until you consider how the Great British Public would inevitably react.

Similar objections were raised when compulsory helmets were introduced for motorcyclists and they turned out to be wrong.

Your point seems to be that cyclists in particular should be exempt from rules designed to protect people other than themselves in case it puts people off cycling.

Do you suppose all these miffed cyclists might suddenly find tax & MoT & licences too onerous and choose to avoid them by driving cars?

I think not. Insurance is running around £10 pa. A CBT style test is around £15. A bike MoT could hardly cost more than £25.

All in less than a tank of diesel for a year.