"Strict liability" rears its controversial head in Australia

[Shut Up Legs]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...sh-with-a-driver/story-fni0fit3-1227413057481

[If you can't read the article, let me know, and I'll copy the text of it here]
It's also here: http://www.news.com.au/national/vic...sh-with-a-driver/story-fnii5sms-1227413057481
This one has some content in common with the above two, but with no mention of strict liability: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/c...croads-report-recommends-20150624-ghw6j8.html


I'm too gutless to read the comments (currently just over 160), because I know even without reading them that the usual anti-cyclist bile and hatred will be in there. I have a few comments on the article, though:

• "on-the-spot fines to cyclists who ride while talking on their mobile phone" - good, because it puts us on a level footing with motorists, so I think this one is a fair proposal.
• "on-the-spot fines to ... riders not in single file on windy and narrow roads" - I have no big problem with this, as some roads, particularly some of our mountain roads, make it very difficult for motorists to overtake cyclists riding 2 abreast, which of course makes the motorists irritable, which helps nobody in the end.
• "allowing cyclists to ride in bus lanes" - good.
• "permitting riders of any age to ride on a footpath if with a child under 12 years old" - good, but I don't know why they mentioned this, because our road rules already allow this.
• "making it easier to stage a cycling event" - no idea what this entails?
• "education campaign start alerting drivers and riders to use horns only when needed" - good. I've always thought education is very important, and there are never enough public education campaigns relating to our road rules, particularly those relating to cyclists rights and responsibilities.
  
• "education ... motorists to be mindful when opening their car door" - good.
• "introduce “strict liability” where drivers are automatically at fault if they collide with a cyclist" - yes, please!
• "riders being allowed to ride through pedestrian crossing without having to dismount" (suggested by councils, but not part of final recommendations) - good (the fact is, most/all cyclists here do this anyway).
• "permitting riders to turn left at red lights" (suggested by councils, but not part of final recommendations) - good. A pity this and the one above aren't part of the final recommdendations.
• "There were 10,450 people and most, especially bike riders, did not view cycling as safe in Victoria, citing drivers’ negative attitudes towards cyclists, lack of riding infrastructure, fears of car doorings and problems with road design." - it's amazing that none of our official organisations in Australia can bring themselves to admit that our mandatory helmet law is largely responsible for the unpopularity of cycling. Talk about sticking your collective head in the sand!
• "when motorists are turning left, they be required to give way to cyclists who had a green bicycle crossing light" - good, although this one is probably already covered by our road rules, which prohibit merging into occupied lanes.
• "strong opposition to introducing licensing and registration for bicycles" - good.

At least the proposal is out there and has some publicity. Whether our government will ever actually do anything is another matter. Given our political system is basically a constant oscillation between 2 major parties, they're both prone to making grandiose promises, particularly if they have doubts about getting elected for another term. In other words, I trust nothing they say.

 

[Shut Up Legs]

I just noticed it's being discussed on one of our morning TV shows (I saw this while getting a coffee and snack from a cafe in my work building). I didn't hang around to watch it, though. So this proposal's also getting TV coverage. Let's hope no annoyed motorist takes his anger out on me during my commute home today (it wouldn't be the first time the media has caused this to occur).

 

[mjr]

The main one I would question on that is "on-the-spot fines to cyclists who ride while talking on their mobile phone" - does that actually show up as dangerous to anyone except themselves?

As for "on-the-spot fines to ... riders not in single file on windy and narrow roads" - surely if the road is windy and narrow, motorists shouldn't be trying to overtake anyway? I sometimes deliberately move INTO double-file through blind bends and summits to discourage motorists from overtaking our group dangerously.

 

[classic33]

I'd say recent elections might have their part to play in this.
Surprise at the support for a cycling party, forcing the hands of the other parties. They've to be seen backing part of it, because of the simple fact that every vote that went to the cyclists, was one less for them.

We're lucky up here, in that we don't have it as bad as you.
Similar campaign has now started in Wexford, Ireland.

 

[Ern1e]

The main one I would question on that is "on-the-spot fines to cyclists who ride while talking on their mobile phone" - does that actually show up as dangerous to anyone except themselves?

As for "on-the-spot fines to ... riders not in single file on windy and narrow roads" - surely if the road is windy and narrow, motorists shouldn't be trying to overtake anyway? I sometimes deliberately move INTO double-file through blind bends and summits to discourage motorists from overtaking our group dangerously.

I only disagree on the mobile phone issue imo if caught doing it then yes impose a fine ! Now your riding two abreast yes I am fully with you on that.

 

[classic33]

The main one I would question on that is "on-the-spot fines to cyclists who ride while talking on their mobile phone" - does that actually show up as dangerous to anyone except themselves?

As for "on-the-spot fines to ... riders not in single file on windy and narrow roads" - surely if the road is windy and narrow, motorists shouldn't be trying to overtake anyway? I sometimes deliberately move INTO double-file through blind bends and summits to discourage motorists from overtaking our group dangerously.

Why move into a two abreast situation when you can't be certain what's coming the other way. I've cycled on narrow and twisty roads(less than 12 feet across), with blind corners and crests, and nearly always I've placed myself over on the left. Riding with someone else I'll forego the few seconds of riding side by side if its safer.

On the use of the mobile phone whilst cycling. Why do we as cyclists feel that we'd be able to control our vehicles any better than a driver, or a be more aware of what is going on round us than a pedestrian using a mobile phone?

 

[mjr]

I don't think we're normally more able to phone and control (but it depends: my back brake is pedal activated, so my left hand hasn't much to do...), but I think we're less of a danger to others than motorists who do it, so the fine should be proportionately lower, so it's probably not worth the expense to set it up or collect. I don't do it but I don't care about it much. Unlike motorists, it doesn't seem to show up in stats yet.

If the road is that narrow, it's still worth being two abreast because it discourages those behind trying to squeeze past, and if oncoming traffic is a nobber who won't stop then it doesn't make much odds if you're diving for the left or right verge

 

[slowmotion]

Try riding on some lanes in Cornwall. Sunken roads with tall hedges on either side, twisting and undulating, and not much wider than a single car. Anybody who attempts to assert their rights to ride two abreast on those lanes will probably save themselves the expense of a trip to Dignitas.

 

[classic33]

I don't think we're normally more able to phone and control (but it depends: my back brake is pedal activated, so my left hand hasn't much to do...), but I think we're less of a danger to others than motorists who do it, so the fine should be proportionately lower, so it's probably not worth the expense to set it up or collect. I don't do it but I don't care about it much. Unlike motorists, it doesn't seem to show up in stats yet.

If the road is that narrow, it's still worth being two abreast because it discourages those behind trying to squeeze past, and if oncoming traffic is a nobber who won't stop then it doesn't make much odds if you're diving for the left or right verge

Maybe you can't cause as much damage directly, nor can a pedestrian, as a a car. But what about any vehicle that has to take avoiding action to miss you, whilst you're on the phone.

I cycle on lanes that are just wide enough for tractors to get down/up, when they take road centre. Would you be willing to ride two abreast on such a road?

 

[mjr]

Maybe you can't cause as much damage directly, nor can a pedestrian, as a a car. But what about any vehicle that has to take avoiding action to miss you, whilst you're on the phone.

What about any vehicle that has to take avoiding action to miss me when I avoid road damage? As the Highway Code says, they should not pass so close.

I cycle on lanes that are just wide enough for tractors to get down/up, when they take road centre. Would you be willing to ride two abreast on such a road?

I cycle on lanes that aren't wide enough for tractors (they drive along with one wheel on the bank) and yes, we often ride two abreast and sort it out when we reach a passing place. At least tractors tend to be loud and big enough that we often know they're coming long before we meet, plus in my experience, most tractor drivers seem to be cyclist-friendly people experienced at driving along such lanes. If only we were fast enough to follow in their wake more!

 

[LonesomeWanderer]

If only we were fast enough to follow in their wake more!

I tried this once, it was great right up until the point I got a face full of silage....grrrrr.

 

[sidevalve]

The main one I would question on that is "on-the-spot fines to cyclists who ride while talking on their mobile phone" - does that actually show up as dangerous to anyone except themselves?

As for "on-the-spot fines to ... riders not in single file on windy and narrow roads" - surely if the road is windy and narrow, motorists shouldn't be trying to overtake anyway? I sometimes deliberately move INTO double-file through blind bends and summits to discourage motorists from overtaking our group dangerously.

As above why are cyclists better at vehicle control than car drivers if on a phone ? Plus again as above you may not be the accident but you may cause someone else to have one and finally on this very forum it was pointed out that many people had close encounters with cyclists as pedestrians and being hit by a numpty on a bicycle can do a lot of damage to a child or elderly person - just because it may be less common doesn't make it ok.
The fines for cyclists riding two abreast can [and I repeat can] be ok - it depends on how it is applied. NOT all roads are just wide enough for one car. Only a few days ago I witnessed a classic piece of 'Ohh look at me I'm going to block the road' riding. Two lads side by side on a country road easily wide enough for a bike AND a car to pass easily and safely BUT NOT with the bikes side by side - result a long queue of traffic and tons of anti cyclist rage. I mean why ? Just so we can have a chat ? Just to prove a point ? Other people have places to go and appointments to keep too and I fail to see why cyclists should be ok to prevent them doing it just because they want to. Bad drivers will always be bad drivers but given a chance and many will try to do their best I've found.

 

[broadway]

Try riding on some lanes in Cornwall. Sunken roads with tall hedges on either side, twisting and undulating, and not much wider than a single car. Anybody who attempts to assert their rights to ride two abreast on those lanes will probably save themselves the expense of a trip to Dignitas.

On such a round the outcome will be pretty much the same 1 or 2 abreast. If the road is that narrow for a safe overtake the cylist(s) has to be seen and the driver have time to slow down. If the driver cannot see 2 cyclists, what chance has a single cyclist got?

 

[Markymark]

As above why are cyclists better at vehicle control than car drivers if on a phone ? Plus again as above you may not be the accident but you may cause someone else to have one and finally on this very forum it was pointed out that many people had close encounters with cyclists as pedestrians and being hit by a numpty on a bicycle can do a lot of damage to a child or elderly person - just because it may be less common doesn't make it ok.

Consequences dear boy. Cyclist on s phone is unlikely to hurt anyone but themselves. And yes, hiw common is s factor. Stopping to tie my shoelace could result in a convoluted injury to someone if you sit down for long enough and imagine sone ridiculous scenario. It is not against the law as it is unlikely to hurt anyone therefor legislation costs and efforts woukd outweigh the risk. Same for a cyckyst on the phone.

 

[mcshroom]

On such a round the outcome will be pretty much the same 1 or 2 abreast. If the road is that narrow for a safe overtake the cylist(s) has to be seen and the driver have time to slow down. If the driver cannot see 2 cyclists, what chance has a single cyclist got?

^^^^ This

I ride in the middle of the narrow Cumbrian lanes most of the time (and even on the right hand side before left hand bends) because they are narrow and twisty (and often have hedges). It is the most visible position on the road, and the point from which you can see the idiots approaching. Staying hidden by the hedge while hiding in secondary is often a far more dangerous position to be.

Once they are there and aware of you then the negotiation of how to get them past can start, and I'm not averse to stepping off onto the verge if I have to and there's no passing place for a while.