"Strict liability" rears its controversial head in Australia

[mjr]

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.

If I could cause someone else to have an accident, there would be a few less nobbers driving 4x4s at cycles around here

Anyway, fine them for the close pass at speed (or collision), not the irrelevant mobile phone. I'm a fan of "Staying Alive at 1.5" extended to the idea that if someone is riding closer than 1.5m past a walker, it should be done at walking speed. However, that would mean bloody government would have to get its act together and stop creating narrower shared-use paths. More would need to be more like the 10m width of NCR1 as it approaches King's Lynn centre:

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

Really? Was it wide enough for two cars to pass?

 

[jonny jeez]

All sounds pretty fair. The only point I disagree with is the liscencing issue....but that's a long story.

 

[Drago]

In slow moving traffic will car drivers be fined for not pulling to the left to allow faster moving bicycles to pass? Why are cyclists being the sole party picked on for such a measure?

Some of these proposals seem fair and equitable, others are just cyclist bashing with little in the way of either logic or science to justify them.

 

[jonny jeez]

In slow moving traffic will car drivers be fined for not pulling to the left to allow faster moving bicycles to pass? Why are cyclists being the sole party picked on for such a measure?

Some of these proposals seem fair and equitable, others are just cyclist bashing with little in the way of either logic or science to justify them.

Is this very, very subtle irony...or have you just misread?

 

[Drago]

Probably misread. You know me, a pint of adrenaline for breakfast and a quick read of the Guardian to go get me really angry and ready for a morning of apoplexy and post I g indignation and rage.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

I'd ride in the middle of the lanes, but that's where all the gravel and grass is. I just try and avoid lanes that narrow.

And I agree on the mobile phone thing, aside from the secondary damage that a cyclist concentrating on a mobile phone could do there's also the issue with pedestrians if you're on shared paths, and just on an image thing, this isn't kowtowing. If we expect bicycles to be treated as serious transport then surely we should try and look like we're attempting to take care riding them. The whine of 'but we won't really hurt anyone like they will' is all just a bit 5 year old in the playground isn't it? Yes to priorities, but if we want to whine it should be 'make sure all the laws are enforced' not 'we're so special we shouldn't have that law put on us'.

Although naturally you should still be allowed to ride and eat cake... :-)

 

[theclaud]

As above why are cyclists better at vehicle control than car drivers if on a phone?

I can't speak for you, of course - you may well be a clueless oaf on two wheels - but I am better than car drivers at just about everything.

I shouldn't have to point this out on what is supposed to be cycling forum, but bicycles are better than cars, and cyclists are better than motorists. More benign, more sociable, more agile. Gentler, quieter, safer. Not to mention sexier. Those who believe that conceding harmless freedoms in order to curry favour with motorists will result in them behaving better towards us are fools. It will do nothing but increase their resentment. Hell, I'd be pretty bad tempered if I were enslaved to a cumbersome, expensive, anti-social and ineffective machine.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

I believe an emoticon involving the eating of popcorn is required at this point.

 

[mjr]

Yes to priorities, but if we want to whine it should be 'make sure all the laws are enforced' not 'we're so special we shouldn't have that law put on us'.

How about "Make sure all the laws are enforced - but biggest danger reductions first"?

 

[w00hoo_kent]

How about "Make sure all the laws are enforced - but biggest danger reductions first"?

I'm cool with that, I just think that 'that law shouldn't apply to us because we aren't as bad a problem as they are' is a poor argument unlikely to gain any favour, or win through.

Looking at mobiles specifically, we know cyclists can hurt pedestrians, we know sometimes a car will swerve to avoid an out of control bicycle, we know people who are using mobile phones aren't concentrating on what they are doing as much as people who aren't using one. So the argument 'that car driver can't use his mobile phone while driving on the road because he is dangerous, while I can when I'm on my bike at potentially similar speeds because you won't notice if I hit you' is poor.

 

[mjr]

So the argument 'that car driver can't use his mobile phone while driving on the road because he is dangerous, while I can when I'm on my bike at potentially similar speeds because you won't notice if I hit you' is poor.

Phew. Just as well I'm using the "hitting people, near-missing, or not being in proper control should be the fineable offences, rather than mobile phone use" arguments then I don't care if you hit someone while on the phone or while staring down at your power meter or satnav: it's still wrong!

 

[Markymark]

Looking at mobiles specifically, we know cyclists can hurt pedestrians, we know sometimes a car will swerve to avoid an out of control bicycle, we know people who are using mobile phones aren't concentrating on what they are doing as much as people who aren't using one.

Difficult to know if this theory is true or not. Why don;t we look at the evidence to see if there is an issue of cyclists on mobiles doing that? Care to show any evidence of it actually being a real problem and not a theoretical one? I will happily in return show you stats re the death, damage and general carnage of car drives on their phone should you have never ready a news article?

 

[w00hoo_kent]

Which theory?
Have you got evidence that a cyclist doesn't hurt a pedestrian if they ride in to them? Only I can show you a few newspaper reports that says they do, they can even kill them sometimes, if everyone gets unlucky.
Have you got evidence that a car will never avoid a bicycle that's weaving around in front of it? I'm pretty sure they do that sometimes. Agreed, sometimes because they came upon it quicker than they should and it scared them, but I'm not saying it's all the bicycles fault. I'm pretty sure a car could attempt to avoid a bike that suddenly swerved.
Have you got evidence that using a mobile phone takes none of your attention away from the other tasks you're doing? I'm pretty sure the mobile phone companies would be happy with that. I'd question it though, maybe have a look at a busy pavement for a bit and see how many people concentrating on their phones nearly walk in to other people. I assure you it happens.

Notice I've not said 'and are contributing to major loss of life and limb'. You do realise that the argument 'we only hurt you a bit when we hit you, not enough to go to hospital or anything' is still facile right?

Feel free to give me evidence (if that's the tired internet/CC debate route we're going down) that the three statements I made don't make any sense in the real world and we'll take it from there maybe?

I am not saying 'let the car drivers off, we're all as bad as each other', I'm saying 'but he's bigger than me, so I can hit him but he can't hit me' is an argument for infant school and we should stop using it.

 

[Dan B]

If cyclists should be banned from using mobile phones in public places, why not pedestrians? If HGV drivers are limited to 56mph, why not motorcyclists? If Hummers aren't allowed in bus lanes, why not taxis?

 

[w00hoo_kent]

If cyclists should be banned from using mobile phones in public places, why not pedestrians? If HGV drivers are limited to 56mph, why not motorcyclists? If Hummers aren't allowed in bus lanes, why not taxis?

Well, I'm lumping bicycles in with motorcars as vehicles (albeit human powered ones) and I would add mobility scooters (while moving) to the list as well. Pedestrians, mainly I'm avoiding that can of worms because it truly would be political suicide for someone to try but I agree the argument could be made. Also, in my head we're talking on the carriageway predominantly where as I presume you picture tootling along on a cycle path.

With vehicle speeds, all of them are limited to something, so like the Hummers argument (which I have to say I don't quite get what group you're lumping Hummers in to, big American SUVs?) I don't think they have the same weight to them. Buses and Taxis make sense in bus lanes, if anything adding bicycles is the anathema (not that I'd like to see that stopped).

If you want to debate for the hell of it then alcohol would probably be the obvious one to question why there's no law against it. It definitely contributes to more injuries than mobile phones in anyone's hands and so if we're arguing civil liberties then that would be the obvious one, but that's SCP territory and there's a reason I try not to get involved in that one.