improving roads for cyclists?

[mjr]

Guilt of a criminal offence, e.g., dangerous driving and squaring a cyclist, is criminal law.

And presumed liability is about civil cases only. It's not presumed guilt in any criminal proceedings, so what's your point?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Ride on the roads like other vehicles.

Don't wish for cyclist ghettos.

Exactly, I mean who would want the ridiculous cycling participation levels of Amsterdam or Copenhagen?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Presumed liability is counter to all law in the UK as it stands - if parties can not decide on a question of civil law only a court can adjudicate on liability. There is no mechanism or convention that exists in UK law criminal or civil legislation that automatically apportions liability for loss - only a cort can do so.

I thought we already had presumed liability in certain cases, specifically rear-end shunts.

 

[Sixmile]

What do you think? Any other suggestions that would help cyclists keep safe?

Just do anything the dutch have done.*

*Only talking cycling related decisions.

 

[mjr]

Just do anything the dutch have done.*

*Only talking cycling related decisions.

I'm not so sure. Probably some of the road-ragers would benefit from a coffee shop pot or jumping a different sort of red light... and it would give the Daily Mail something else to rant about instead of cyclists.

 

[mjr]

I see the original reply has been edited and expanded since my earlier reply, so I reply to the new points:

[...] Presumed liability is counter to all law in the UK as it stands - if parties can not decide on a question of civil law only a court can adjudicate on liability. There is no mechanism or convention that exists in UK law criminal or civil legislation that automatically apportions liability for loss - only a cort can do so. Without massive changes to all sorts of legislation it can never be introduced here, and never will. I souldnt have to be explaining that to a civilian now, should I?

Well of course it would be a change to civil legislation.

Article 7 makes no distinction in the nature of legislation.

Article 7 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms seems pretty clearly only about guilt and crime:
"Article 7 – No punishment without law
1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.
2. This article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations."

Did I misread it or is there nothing in it constraining civil liability at all?