Prev: actually felt sorry for a cop yesterday
Next: May The Best Mode Win
From: Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS on 21 Sep 2009 13:22


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6841326.ece

September 20, 2009
Cycling plan to blame drivers for all crashes


MINISTERS are considering making motorists legally responsible for
accidents involving cyclists or pedestrians, even if they are not at fault.

Government advisers are pushing for changes in the civil law that will make
the most powerful vehicle involved in a collision automatically liable for
insurance and compensation purposes.

The move, intended to encourage greater take-up of environmentally friendly
modes of transport, is likely to anger some drivers, many of whom already
perceive themselves to be the victims of moneyspinning speed cameras and
overzealous traffic wardens.

Many will argue that it is the risky behaviour of some cyclists �
particularly those who jump red lights and ride the wrong way along one-way
streets � that is to blame for a significant number of crashes.
Related Links

Last week James Martin, the television celebrity chef, described in a
newspaper his joy at running a group of cyclists off the road and into a
hedge while test-driving a sports car. Martin was forced to apologise after
thousands of angry cyclists protested.

Matthew Parris, a columnist for The Times, was similarly forced to
backtrack last year after suggesting that piano wire should be strung
across roads to decapitate cyclists. Parris said he was joking, but
statistics show that cyclists are actually among the most vulnerable road
users, with 115 deaths last year alone.

Last week lobbyists for cycling and walking groups met Jessica Matthew, the
DfT official in charge of sustainable transport who is drafting the
National Cycling Plan. Placing the onus of responsibility on motorists is
perhaps the most controversial move under consideration.

Such scheme would place the presumption of blame against whoever was
driving the most powerful vehicle involved in an accident, so they or their
insurers would be liable for costs or damages.

Similar policies � which would not extend to criminal law � have already
been adopted by Germany and Holland, where transport campaigners say they
have had a significant influence in changing attitudes towards cycling.

Matthew, who has been briefing Lord Adonis, the transport secretary, also
confirmed that ministers want to slash speed limits in urban areas.

Her report is expected to recommend that councils should introduce 20mph
zones in all residential streets and on other roads with high numbers of
cyclists or pedestrians. This would include roads around schools, markets
and shopping areas, as long as they are not major through routes.

(snip)

-------------------------------------

Article says this policy would not extend to criminal law and that's a big
failing. Reckless drivers need to be treated like the deadly criminals they
are. I don't believe in coddling killers.

From: Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS on 21 Sep 2009 15:21
necromancer <a_septic_yank(a)worldofnecromancer_no_spam_no_way.org> wrote
in news:u0kfb5tvhu072su6gbet1rkd2pjbkcgu9o(a)4ax.com:

> SFB spewed:
>
>>
>>Article says this policy would not extend to criminal law and that's a
>>big failing. Reckless drivers need to be treated like the deadly
>>criminals they are. I don't believe in coddling killers.
>
> Good. I say we start by hanging an admitted highway killer named,
> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERES," from the tallest tree we can
> find.
>


So sad. How can you go thru life so full of hate?
From: Nate Nagel on 21 Sep 2009 18:05
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6841326.ece
>
> September 20, 2009
> Cycling plan to blame drivers for all crashes
>
>
> MINISTERS are considering making motorists legally responsible for
> accidents involving cyclists or pedestrians, even if they are not at fault.
>
> Government advisers are pushing for changes in the civil law that will make
> the most powerful vehicle involved in a collision automatically liable for
> insurance and compensation purposes.
>
> The move, intended to encourage greater take-up of environmentally friendly
> modes of transport, is likely to anger some drivers, many of whom already
> perceive themselves to be the victims of moneyspinning speed cameras and
> overzealous traffic wardens.
>
> Many will argue that it is the risky behaviour of some cyclists �
> particularly those who jump red lights and ride the wrong way along one-way
> streets � that is to blame for a significant number of crashes.
> Related Links
>
> Last week James Martin, the television celebrity chef, described in a
> newspaper his joy at running a group of cyclists off the road and into a
> hedge while test-driving a sports car. Martin was forced to apologise after
> thousands of angry cyclists protested.
>
> Matthew Parris, a columnist for The Times, was similarly forced to
> backtrack last year after suggesting that piano wire should be strung
> across roads to decapitate cyclists. Parris said he was joking, but
> statistics show that cyclists are actually among the most vulnerable road
> users, with 115 deaths last year alone.
>
> Last week lobbyists for cycling and walking groups met Jessica Matthew, the
> DfT official in charge of sustainable transport who is drafting the
> National Cycling Plan. Placing the onus of responsibility on motorists is
> perhaps the most controversial move under consideration.
>
> Such scheme would place the presumption of blame against whoever was
> driving the most powerful vehicle involved in an accident, so they or their
> insurers would be liable for costs or damages.
>
> Similar policies � which would not extend to criminal law � have already
> been adopted by Germany and Holland, where transport campaigners say they
> have had a significant influence in changing attitudes towards cycling.
>
> Matthew, who has been briefing Lord Adonis, the transport secretary, also
> confirmed that ministers want to slash speed limits in urban areas.
>
> Her report is expected to recommend that councils should introduce 20mph
> zones in all residential streets and on other roads with high numbers of
> cyclists or pedestrians. This would include roads around schools, markets
> and shopping areas, as long as they are not major through routes.
>
> (snip)
>
> -------------------------------------
>
> Article says this policy would not extend to criminal law and that's a big
> failing. Reckless drivers need to be treated like the deadly criminals they
> are. I don't believe in coddling killers.
>

What about reckless cyclists? My admittedly unscientific observations
show a far greater percentage of road-riding (or worse, sidewalk-riding
but road-crossing) cyclists to be reckless than the percentage of
drivers that appear to be reckless.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
From: Brent on 21 Sep 2009 20:00
On 2009-09-21, Nate Nagel <njnagel(a)roosters.net> wrote:
> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6841326.ece
>>
>> September 20, 2009
>> Cycling plan to blame drivers for all crashes
>>
>>
>> MINISTERS are considering making motorists legally responsible for
>> accidents involving cyclists or pedestrians, even if they are not at fault.
>>
>> Government advisers are pushing for changes in the civil law that will make
>> the most powerful vehicle involved in a collision automatically liable for
>> insurance and compensation purposes.
>>
>> The move, intended to encourage greater take-up of environmentally friendly
>> modes of transport, is likely to anger some drivers, many of whom already
>> perceive themselves to be the victims of moneyspinning speed cameras and
>> overzealous traffic wardens.
>>
>> Many will argue that it is the risky behaviour of some cyclists �
>> particularly those who jump red lights and ride the wrong way along one-way
>> streets � that is to blame for a significant number of crashes.
>> Related Links
>>
>> Last week James Martin, the television celebrity chef, described in a
>> newspaper his joy at running a group of cyclists off the road and into a
>> hedge while test-driving a sports car. Martin was forced to apologise after
>> thousands of angry cyclists protested.
>>
>> Matthew Parris, a columnist for The Times, was similarly forced to
>> backtrack last year after suggesting that piano wire should be strung
>> across roads to decapitate cyclists. Parris said he was joking, but
>> statistics show that cyclists are actually among the most vulnerable road
>> users, with 115 deaths last year alone.
>>
>> Last week lobbyists for cycling and walking groups met Jessica Matthew, the
>> DfT official in charge of sustainable transport who is drafting the
>> National Cycling Plan. Placing the onus of responsibility on motorists is
>> perhaps the most controversial move under consideration.
>>
>> Such scheme would place the presumption of blame against whoever was
>> driving the most powerful vehicle involved in an accident, so they or their
>> insurers would be liable for costs or damages.
>>
>> Similar policies � which would not extend to criminal law � have already
>> been adopted by Germany and Holland, where transport campaigners say they
>> have had a significant influence in changing attitudes towards cycling.
>>
>> Matthew, who has been briefing Lord Adonis, the transport secretary, also
>> confirmed that ministers want to slash speed limits in urban areas.
>>
>> Her report is expected to recommend that councils should introduce 20mph
>> zones in all residential streets and on other roads with high numbers of
>> cyclists or pedestrians. This would include roads around schools, markets
>> and shopping areas, as long as they are not major through routes.
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>> -------------------------------------
>>
>> Article says this policy would not extend to criminal law and that's a big
>> failing. Reckless drivers need to be treated like the deadly criminals they
>> are. I don't believe in coddling killers.
>>
>
> What about reckless cyclists? My admittedly unscientific observations
> show a far greater percentage of road-riding (or worse, sidewalk-riding
> but road-crossing) cyclists to be reckless than the percentage of
> drivers that appear to be reckless.

The point is to stop people from driving. By saying it's always the
driver's fault the number of collisions will go way up. This will
greatly increase insurance rates for drivers. Less people will be able
to afford to drive. It's social engineering.




From: Nate Nagel on 21 Sep 2009 20:34
Brent wrote:
> On 2009-09-21, Nate Nagel <njnagel(a)roosters.net> wrote:
>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6841326.ece
>>>
>>> September 20, 2009
>>> Cycling plan to blame drivers for all crashes
>>>
>>>
>>> MINISTERS are considering making motorists legally responsible for
>>> accidents involving cyclists or pedestrians, even if they are not at fault.
>>>
>>> Government advisers are pushing for changes in the civil law that will make
>>> the most powerful vehicle involved in a collision automatically liable for
>>> insurance and compensation purposes.
>>>
>>> The move, intended to encourage greater take-up of environmentally friendly
>>> modes of transport, is likely to anger some drivers, many of whom already
>>> perceive themselves to be the victims of moneyspinning speed cameras and
>>> overzealous traffic wardens.
>>>
>>> Many will argue that it is the risky behaviour of some cyclists �
>>> particularly those who jump red lights and ride the wrong way along one-way
>>> streets � that is to blame for a significant number of crashes.
>>> Related Links
>>>
>>> Last week James Martin, the television celebrity chef, described in a
>>> newspaper his joy at running a group of cyclists off the road and into a
>>> hedge while test-driving a sports car. Martin was forced to apologise after
>>> thousands of angry cyclists protested.
>>>
>>> Matthew Parris, a columnist for The Times, was similarly forced to
>>> backtrack last year after suggesting that piano wire should be strung
>>> across roads to decapitate cyclists. Parris said he was joking, but
>>> statistics show that cyclists are actually among the most vulnerable road
>>> users, with 115 deaths last year alone.
>>>
>>> Last week lobbyists for cycling and walking groups met Jessica Matthew, the
>>> DfT official in charge of sustainable transport who is drafting the
>>> National Cycling Plan. Placing the onus of responsibility on motorists is
>>> perhaps the most controversial move under consideration.
>>>
>>> Such scheme would place the presumption of blame against whoever was
>>> driving the most powerful vehicle involved in an accident, so they or their
>>> insurers would be liable for costs or damages.
>>>
>>> Similar policies � which would not extend to criminal law � have already
>>> been adopted by Germany and Holland, where transport campaigners say they
>>> have had a significant influence in changing attitudes towards cycling.
>>>
>>> Matthew, who has been briefing Lord Adonis, the transport secretary, also
>>> confirmed that ministers want to slash speed limits in urban areas.
>>>
>>> Her report is expected to recommend that councils should introduce 20mph
>>> zones in all residential streets and on other roads with high numbers of
>>> cyclists or pedestrians. This would include roads around schools, markets
>>> and shopping areas, as long as they are not major through routes.
>>>
>>> (snip)
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Article says this policy would not extend to criminal law and that's a big
>>> failing. Reckless drivers need to be treated like the deadly criminals they
>>> are. I don't believe in coddling killers.
>>>
>> What about reckless cyclists? My admittedly unscientific observations
>> show a far greater percentage of road-riding (or worse, sidewalk-riding
>> but road-crossing) cyclists to be reckless than the percentage of
>> drivers that appear to be reckless.
>
> The point is to stop people from driving. By saying it's always the
> driver's fault the number of collisions will go way up. This will
> greatly increase insurance rates for drivers. Less people will be able
> to afford to drive. It's social engineering.

Wouldn't it be better to raise fuel taxes or registration fees or
something? I mean, it may sound old-fashioned, but to me it only seems
fair to assess things on a case by case basis and assign blame to the
party that was actually negligent, reckless, careless, whatever.

I know, quaint and amusing, but still.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: actually felt sorry for a cop yesterday
Next: May The Best Mode Win