I see absolutely no reason for moving away from considering matters on a case by case basis.
Speed cameras gather evidence. Everyone has the opportunity to dispute the evidence prior to conviction.
Yes - just like the suggested changes - with speed cameras, the default assumption, is that the RK is the one what dunnit.
And if that's NOT the case, it's down to the RK to say who it was. When that person is nominated, the default assumption will be that they done it. Say, for an example, a situation in a family, where the dad is the registered keeper, mum is also insured and allowed to drive, as are two "grown-up" kids. If the dad genuinely doesn't know who's driving, and nobody else is admitting it, it would either naturally assumed to be him, or he'd have to make his case as to why it's reasonable that he cannot nominate the driver.
Who said I had given up on cycling?
That was in response to:-
Too late for the cyclist in many cases.
I merely pointed out that the type of drivers who don't give a toss about cyclists now will be the type who continue to drive the way they do regardless of any change in the laws.
But as I've said - given the scenario with speed cameras as an example, over time, it makes people aware. It doesn't necessarily mean it makes them 100% compliant - but it ensures it's on the RADAR (in a way, quite literally).
Perhaps cycle awareness courses would have had an effect on such a driver, but a potential bypass of their right to be considered at equal fault won't make one iota of difference.
I disagree. Perhaps at first it will make precious little difference - but I think over time, recent history shows something different - attitudes can be changed somewhat - as, largely
, they have regarding things like drink driving. Yes, there's still a hardcore that always will, but suddenly, it can be the norm to find it unacceptable, rather than an old fashioned "'ees alright, just wind the window down a bit and take it steady".
People with entrenched views do not do nuance. The only point where they would even take note of the change in law would be once they had hit a cyclist, and that would certainly be too late.
No - you're absolutely right - people with entrenched views do not do nuance - it took a while for things like the drink-driving campaigns and anti-speed stuff to find purchase. But it does, over time. These people can't be finessed, they need beating over the head with a clue-by-four.
Nor do I write off separation as an approach.
It may not be ideal where there are large numbers of junctions, but getting cyclists off fast flowing roads onto dedicated lanes would be a start.
It just gives those "You've got no right to be here, you've not paid car tax..." lot another reason to support their stance. It sends the message that they don't
have to consider cycles as traffic, and that they shouldn't really be on the road at all.
This page intentionally left blank