Forum Topic

"Be a bit more Keith"

Great and moving piece from Chris Boardman in today's Standard on the fallacious, misguided and destructive moral panic about killer cyclists as propagated by the Chiswick W4 pigeons.Basically he says what Francis Sheehan has said on the other thread that got covered in pigeon droppings and made impenetrable and unwieldy: "it's drivers who kill people".https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/killer-cyclists-regents-park-london-car-deaths-b1160094.html

Paul Campbell ● 272d111 Comments

https://youtu.be/Qv4-m-cIZf4?si=lcGm0yPmeTi2CRFj

Steve Taylor ● 240d

No , silly little gnome. We are aware as drivers in Ealing for the reasons that I stated (learn to read or find someone to read it to you). Anyway enough of you velovile rantings. Do tell the world when you atop being such a nasty little hypocrite and surrender your car licence. Until then, do us all a favour.

N V Brooks ● 255d

Sounds like you meant to say that when people are driving through Ealing they are more aware and forgiving of vulnerable road users than when they are driving through Chiswick and we both know that if you had actually stopped to think before pressing submit you’d have saved yourself making yet another embarrassing and foolish claim that you cannot substantiate on account of it being so obviously dumb.

Paul Campbell ● 255d

Perhaps the children in Ealing are more aware as they avoid accidents without the need for interfering busybodies. All motorists know that kids on bikes minds may be eslewhere, especially at the end of the school day and they drive accordingly.

N V Brooks ● 255d

And a lot more of them cycle to the school in the South Chiswick LTN now that we have made the streets so much safer for them. Bloody marvellous it is to see the numbers growing and watch them sailing through the barrier on Staveley Road.One day we might see almost as many doing it as we see in the countries that have got with the programme.

Paul Campbell ● 255d

11 year olds cycle safely to the high school opposite my home. Only one 'incident' since it opened over twenty years ago where a young boy rode into the side of an aggregate truck. Injured to the extent of bad bruising. The children manage this without the interference of self-opinionated veloviles who assume that all motorists are mass murderers. Perhaps these village idiots should get out more

N V Brooks ● 255d

"How terrible the world will be when 11 year olds can cycle safety to school on their own.."I did that every day when I was aged 11, and if anything the world seemed less terrible then.

Richard Greenhough ● 255d

And I sure am fascinating to fragile drivers who can't cope with the facts about the harms that car dominance causes and who are terrified by the remedies because it means giving up some of the space they have expropriated from the public over the past 50 years ....How terrible the world will be when 11 year olds can cycle safety to school on their own, when octogenarians can cycle to the shops and when the victims of driving are swiftly compensated or receive justice.

Paul Campbell ● 255d

The viallage idiot was often a harmless imbecile.  The Grove Park gnome isn't harmeless.

N V Brooks ● 255d

What else would you expect from the village idiot!

Steve Taylor ● 255d

Bore off Mark

Paul Campbell ● 255d

Well I'm sorry you have chosen to flounce out. I thought this was an interesting and useful discussion when you refrained from juvenile mischaracterisations and name calling.As I have the floor to myself, the problem with your approach is that your obsession with segregation is leading you to exaggerate the dangers of cycling which can only serve to discourage people from taking it up. In a previous discussion you refused to accept my well evidenced assertion that cycling in a straight line on a straight road regardless of other vehicles is a very safe activity.Segregation is a good thing but its main benefit is that it boosts the feeling of safety for inexperienced cyclists. As we have seen with Cycleway 9 it remains questionable whether it has actually reduced collisions but it has definitely increased the number of cyclists on the High Road. By constantly stressing the risks of cycling and pretending there are easy solutions to eradicating them, you are undermining that win.

Mark Evans ● 255d

He’s just given one of the most splendid examples of Danth's Law I’ve seen in a long time. Bravo. So funny.

Russell Pearson ● 256d

The fundamentals are exactly the same in both the definition of the problems and the formulation of the solutions. If an 11 year old cannot cycle a few km to school with their friends because they might be hit by somebody driving a car then we have a problem that will be solved by separating the child from the cars, making the children more important and more numerous than the drivers and ensuring that the drivers will suffer severe consequences if they hit the children with their machines. A problem that has been solved already not only by the Dutch but others too. I’m afraid Mark that all your posturing and reaching is familiar and you just repeat the tired old fallacies and failed attempts from the motor lobby to obscure the simplicity of the solutions to the problems caused by all the short-sighted and self-defeating Marks of the world designing our lives around the needs of drivers instead of the needs of children and society in general. You think you are clever by claiming to support cycling and by raising rather silly concerns about how making roads safer will backfire on cyclists but your are far more transparent than you seem to realise. And you have lost this argument. Again. And even I am bored with you now. Bye.

Paul Campbell ● 256d

As I keep saying, we can learn much from the Dutch. However, if we don't recognise that we have a different set of challenges in this country, copying what they do will be counterproductive.

Mark Evans ● 256d

You seem quite keen to forget that presumed liability is the norm in European countries, not a quirk of the Dutch and that its primary beneficiaries are the pedestrians and their families who are the main victims of drivers.Amusing to see the the same cycle fallacies still being trotted out after all these years though. Cities in the Netherlands that have created extensive networks of protected cycle lanes and radically restricted motor traffic movements not being based on medieval street plans is one of my new favourites. Thank you.  We know exactly what encourages more cycling and we need to just get on with it. Towns and cities that enable children and octogenarians to cycle to school or the shops with minimal conflict with motor vehicles are very successful in creating major modal shift in the last fifty years and they are not confined to the Netherlands. The formula is very simple and even the car supremacists who think they are the losers from its implementation end up being beneficiaries of safer streets, better driving standards, equity for victims of road violence and fewer people driving journeys that are easily substitutable by alternative and more sustainable modes.Presumed liability is of secondary importance for realising the goal of material modal shift to cycling after infrastructure for cycling but its benefits for society are extensive and go far beyond cycling. This is why you have no argument against it other than your unconvincing reaching around for an angle to argue that it will reduce cycling. Be careful you don't pull a muscle.

Paul Campbell ● 256d

If you want to look at a 'model' cith go to Utrecht where cycles dominate personal transportation. There are however key differentiators which enable this.A largely grid based road network.A city centre that was rebuilt to be pedestrian friendly from the outset.Cheap parking for commuter in peripheral park and ride areas.Cheap public transportation (€6.20 a day fro unlimited travel)A relatively small city centre area with only a few dedicated cycle 'feeder' routes.Normally mandated use of cycle lanes where providedIt was a pleasure the work and travel there when I worked there. Drive to a secure park and ride and catch a cheap bus (under €1.50) to the office.Chances of any of the above happening in London in the short-medium term - NIL.

N V Brooks ● 256d

While we have to take lessons from the Dutch, just copying them will not deliver what you want. Their success is based on a whole load of factors many of which we don't benefit from such as a lack of hills, cities not based on a medieval street plan and better and cheaper public transport. On safety, the more draconian system may help but it is likely that the main reason Dutch cyclists are safer than British cyclists is that they are more of them. That means Dutch drivers are conditioned to look out for them and are more aware of the rules of the road. There are lots of reasons to be sceptical that Dutch style legislation would boost safety sufficiently to encourage more people to cycle. The risk is that there are more people discouraged by greater insurance costs, the legal requirement for bells and lights and the extra responsibilities with regards to pedestrians. Over emphasising risk in cycling is counterproductive. It is a relatively safe way to get around. You can't eliminate risk entirely, even in the Netherlands there were 291 cyclist fatalities in 2022. In the UK we need to carefully balance safety considerations with the need to encourage more people to cycle and at this stage putting up the cost of cycling, even if it is only to the extent that you consider negligible, would be counterprodicutive.

Mark Evans ● 256d

We should absolutely copy everything the Dutch are doing to encourage cycling and make it safe.  A vast network of protected cycle lanes and LTNs will encourage enough cycling for society to invest more energy and resources in managing the risks of cycling. It will be nice to have this problem to solve.

Paul Campbell ● 257d

Ansprakelijkheidsverzekering in the Netherlands costs around 50 euros per annum which you may regard as negligible but some wouldn't. On top of that there is a legal requirement to have a bell and working lights and reflectors as opposed to just a recommendation in the Highway Code in this country. I'd guess around half of the bikes I see have bells and the number of people cycling without lights at night is shocking. These laws are enforced in Holland, unlike here.Obviously, it would be better if we were as safety conscious as the Dutch but our more casual attitude to risk is probably a function of cycling not being as embedded in our culture. A good proportion of people who cycle in this country do so only every now and again and would be discouraged if they had to shell out extra for insurance or stood a good chance of arrest if they were missing a bit of equipment. If you enforced Dutch standards here the danger is that many occasional cyclists would give up entirely and it would become even more of a middle class niche pursuit.While Dutch cyclists are undoubtedly much less likely to be injured than British cyclists, it remains unclear how much that has to do with presumed liability (which remember isn't relevant in cases of what you call road violence as that is a criminal matter). There are a whole host of other factors that make Dutch cyclists safer including there being lots of them - therefore it may be that reducing the number of British cyclists, by trying to copy the Dutch, ends up making it a less safe form of transport.

Mark Evans ● 257d

Laughable,as usual.

Keith Iddon ● 257d

Good for you and for everybody else too. I wish more people with anger management issues were as sensible

Paul Campbell ● 257d

Paul,I don't drive.

Keith Iddon ● 257d

It is unseasonably cold and overcast and many of us need a 'lift' Reading Paul's posts where he continually strives, but fails dismally, to take a position of intellectual or moral superiority is always good for the required laugh. Thank you Mr. Campbell.

N V Brooks ● 257d

Driver fragility is a very real condition Keith. If you find yourself experiencing feelings of anger or frustration when you see somebody challenging the status quo dominance of drivers then it is highly probably that you are suffering from it. It is akin and often related to white fragility, which you can google if you are unfamiliar with it.

Paul Campbell ● 257d

I think your fears, if genuine which is highly doubtful, are grossly misplaced. Third party insurance is covered in most cycling memberships at negligible cost due to the frequency and severity of damages caused by cyclists being so minimal. Once again and for the hard of understanding the benefits of presumed liability for cyclists massively outweigh the costs. One Lime bike trip would cost more than annual third party insurance cover for a cyclist. The only real reason I can think of for anybody opposing presumed liability is because they are uncomfortable with the balance of equity shifting further, more rapidly and quite definitively from the people who cause almost all the road violence to their victims and the families of those victims.

Paul Campbell ● 257d

I have certain words that I think of on the odd occassion that I read his posts,but their meaning is as clear as a bell.

Keith Iddon ● 257d

The reason I am more cautious than you on a switch to presumed liability is that it would have to come with a major change in cycling culture. Nearly all Dutch people have personal liability insurance (aansprakelijkheidsverzekering) which covers them if they are involved in a collision on a bike. I agree that relying on the slow pace of legal precendent to boost safety for vulnerable road users isn't ideal but the offset of your solution is that the cost of cycling would increase and that would tend to reduce numbers.

Mark Evans ● 257d

“When I use a word,” Humpty Campbell said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”

Richard Greenhough ● 257d

Presumed liability means precisely that drivers are assumed to be at fault in incidents involving cyclists and pedestrians. That is not the same as being presumed guilty. Because, as you say, guilt is a criminal concept. And it is also not the same as being always at fault:drivers and their insurers need to prove that they are not at fault in order to avoid the consequences. If they can prove it then they are not at fault. A presumed liability system provides for drivers and their insurers to demonstrate that they are not at fault or guilty.I'm not sure why anybody who genuinely advocates for safety would prefer a gradual and imperfect organic change to the system via case law so that the burden of proof on victims is prolonged for many years to an instant and clear declaration of presumed liability that puts the burden of proof on the less vulnerable road user in an incident. It has become even more clear that what is very straightforward to me is too nuanced for people who have spent years campaigning against safer streets to understand. Which is really not at all surprising given how much else they struggle to understand.

Paul Campbell ● 257d

The forum software does not allow two users with the same name simultaneously.

N V Brooks ● 257d

Paul Campbell posted, “No you've got it into your head that I think presumed liability equates to presumed guilt. As I said I am capable of understanding how presumed liability is accommodated in legal systems that are based on innocent until proven guilty.”Earlier in this thread someone also with the name Paul Campbell said the following, “Oh I think most cyclists will value drivers being automatically assumed to be at fault for hitting cyclists and pedestrians and the dramatic change this will make to driver behaviour far more than they will be concerned about proving they are not at fault if they hit a pedestrian.”It’s quite a common name and, if these are different people I apologise for the mix up, I get this myself all the time. However, what is clear is that at least one Paul Campbell does believe  presumed liability equates to presumed guilt.Another Paul Campbell seems less convinced about this later in the thread but remains a bit confused about the difference between legal and criminal proceedings. Innocent until proven guilty is primarily a criminal concept whereas civil courts generally operate on a balance of probability.I don’t think there is actually too much disagreement here if you discount some of the earlier off the wall statements. We both agree that clarifying the hierarchy of road users to make it more evident that the less vulnerable have a duty of care to the more vulnerable is a good thing and, as more case law gets established, it will become more powerful in both civil and criminal cases. This may not precisely the same as presumed liability but it will have a similar effect.

Mark Evans ● 257d

Don’t need to. I do it all the time. Have NEVER had a motorist express any anger or disdain. Mostly get an apologetic wave or embarrassed smile to which I return a friendly smile and wave. Motorists seem so know when they are in the wrong unlike cyclists who think they are entitled and always think they are either right, or to arrogant to care!! Now you can do the exercise 10 times and report back here. I can almost guarantee you will receive no animosity from any motorist. Do it and be amazed!!  Look forward to your experiences.

Steve Taylor ● 260d

Please repeat the same exercise but this time in front of cars you think will be turning into the road you are about to cross.Please report back after you've done it a minimum of ten times and tell us how competent each motorist was in stopping and also if there was any reaction from them e.g. a friendly wave from the car driver, perhaps a little toot of a horn, or any friendly banter exchanged.Please. I'm sure we'd all be interested in how you get on.

Andrew Jones ● 260d

“ you deliberately played chicken with him”No, Nora, I didn’t play chicken with him. Just testing his competency in getting behind the handlebars of a potential killing machine.

Steve Taylor ● 261d

Nora, this site gives people like you and me an insight into the thinking of people we are fortunate enough to never have to meet or experience in real life.

Paul Campbell ● 261d

All caused by irresponsible speeding cyclists!  Ruining London for everyone, rich and poor alike.

Steve Taylor ● 261d

And you deliberately played chicken with him Steve.  The highway code recommends waiting,  and says ALL road users are responsible for safety.  I doubt that rule was put in place for people who think it's funny to play games.  Imagine if he'd fallen off,  would you still find it as funny?This site has given people a really skewed perspective on life,  and apparently being mean to others is fine.

Nora Watkins ● 262d

It's just an excuse to keep us, the plebs, out.

Adrian Irving ● 262d

“ Speeding cyclists have forced Britain’s most expensive street — dubbed Billionaires’ Row — to close to the public, the Evening Standard has learned.Kensington Palace Gardens was shut to pedestrians and bikes this week after several “near misses”. It is understood officials fear cyclists using the tree-lined avenue alongside Kensington Palace are putting walkers, as well as diplomats and residents, at risk.The exclusive half-mile road that links Notting Hill Gate and Kensington High Street is blocked to cars but pedestrians and cyclists have always been free to use it. The Crown Estate owns and runs the avenue, where private homes cost an average of more than £35 million.”

Steve Taylor ● 262d

So, I was out cycling in Richmond the other day and a pedestrian leaps into the road with, what appeared to be a dead pigeon protruding from his jacket.He starts quoting the Highway code and, quite frankly it all got a bit surreal.The things you see eh.

Mark Frost ● 262d

I stepped into road with the full knowledge that a bike was approaching and I assumed he was going to turn right into to side street but (as usual) he didn’t indicate. The body language was that he was going to turn in front of me, either as pure arrogance and disregard for pedestrians, or because he thought he was entitled because he hadn’t read the revised Highway Code

Steve Taylor ● 262d

A pedestrians had right of way at all times,including whether on the road,waiting to cross or on the footpath when I learned to drive and it is still so.

Keith Iddon ● 262d

Steve,  my understanding is that you have to give way if the pedestrian is already crossing.  If you deliberately stepped into the road knowing that there was something coming,  then you're the one in the wrong.  The highway code is thankfully still telling people to stop look and listen before crossing.

Nora Watkins ● 262d

At least Steve is slowing down when he hits these gulls. Next one looks likely to be at 20mph.

Tom Pike ● 262d

BTW - I aimed at gull on purpose. I misjudged a bit though because I was trying to get up to 100MPH on the slip road to the motorway but somehow was only going about 60mph when I hit the gull.

Steve Taylor ● 262d

Where is that gull when it's needed ?

Richard Greenhough ● 262d

Nope. I did it on purpose to test him, Dickie. How many times do I have to tell you that I love to live dangerously and am a speed freak - car or motorcycle. My wife is a speed freak to so we are a good match as there is no holding back. Try it Dickie. It’s invigorating and good for the soul. When you next use your Freedom Pass, walk across the cycle lane to the ridiculous Bus Stop Islands without looking!!

Steve Taylor ● 262d

"I am conscious of the fact that I may also get old and confused one day."If you are stepping into the road when you can see a cyclist approaching, it sounds like that day has already arrived.

Richard Greenhough ● 262d

“ sceptical as I've yet to have a driver or a cyclist give way to me as I cross a side road abd I still tend to give way to a left turning vehicle”Absolutely correct. Yesterday in Richmond Borough a cyclist almost hit me as I crossed a side road. I told him that he needed to read the Highway Code. He immediate told me that he had read the Highway Code and I was wrong to be walking across the side street when I was aware he was approaching because he had right of way. I explained that I knew 100% that he was approaching but assumed that, as he was operating a two wheeled killing machine, he would be aware of the Laws of the Road. I suggested he read the Highway Code again!!  As he was an old guy - possibly mid to late 50’s I thought I’d better leave it there and hope that he would take my advice. I am conscious of the fact that I may also get old and confused one day.

Steve Taylor ● 262d

Topic: Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:C9 not safe for pedestrians Posted by: Steve TaylorDate/Time: 20/04/22 20:24:00

Richard Greenhough ● 262d

No you've got it into your head that I think presumed liability equates to presumed guilt. As I said I am capable of understanding how presumed liability is accommodated in legal systems that are based on innocent until proven guilty. The main omission in your understanding of how it works is your focus on courts. You fail to account for the numerous everyday routine transactions in which insurance companies will not risk additional cost and reputational damage disputing claims made by the victims of drivers in a presumed liability system and the positive experience that creates for many thousands of victims who will no longer have to endure the obstructiveness of a system in which they are required to prove the fault of the driver.You have also failed to read or understand the point I have already made about the benefits to cyclists of a presumed liability system far outweighing any potential downsides. Cyclists are hit, hurt and killed by drivers far more frequently than they hit, hurt and kill pedestrians. They are huge beneficiaries of a presumed liability system. But of course pedestrians are the biggest beneficiaries of all. Drivers are not because they are the ones doing just about all the hitting, hurting and killing of people who are not in vehicles. However there is little point in continuing to explain the obvious to you it seems.I am a driver and a cyclist and I have nothing to fear from a presumed liability system that works very well in so many countries because I do not hit people with my car or my bike and if I did I would happily accept the consequences of my actions. Why do you fear it? And why can you not see the paradox between your insistence on explaining the correct distinction between presumed liability and always at fault and your unconvincing fears of blow back against cyclists.

Paul Campbell ● 262d

You clearly don't understand what it is and have got it into your head that presumed liability equals presumed guilt.It is too early to judge the effect of changes to the Highway Code but you might be right to be sceptical as I've yet to have a driver or a cyclist give way to me as I cross a side road abd I still tend to give way to a left turning vehicle if it is ahead of me and signalling. More stick may be needed but you need to be wary of apparently fix all extreme solutions as your desire to punish motorists may also have blow back against cyclists.

Mark Evans ● 262d

“ HounslowTotal number of child pedestrian casualties in 2021 and 2022: 53Figures increased by 30% from 23 deaths and injuries in 2021 to 30 recorded in 2022.”

Steve Taylor ● 262d

“ Richmond borough has been declared 'the safest borough in the capital,' seeing the fewest child pedestrian injuries or deaths in London between 2021 to 2022.A series of Freedom of Information requests to The Department For Transport by Personal Injury Claims UK have revealed the number of child casualties on the roads of London boroughs, which researchers say 'range from minor bumps to fatalities'.Nine child casualties were reported in the borough in 2021, compared to 10 the following year for a total of 19: the lowest across the capital over the two year period.Neighbouring Kingston upon Thames, the former safest borough, saw what researchers described as 'an eye-watering' 114-percent increase in deaths or injuries over the same period, going from seven child casualties in 2021 to 15 in 2022.”

Steve Taylor ● 262d

That’s a second one after the gull you hit at 100 mph?“I did have the frightening experience of having a gull fly into my chest whilst I was accelerating at about  100mph on a slip road to join a motorway. That was pretty scary but, although winded, I managed to maintain control of the bike!”It’s stating to look like carelessness!

Tom Pike ● 262d

Fortunately the Law is being changed to rebalance justice in favour of the innocent pedestrian victims of irresponsible cyclists, to reduce injuries and deaths on roads and pavements and keep cyclists from getting behind handlebars put them behind jail bars, where they rightfully belong, instead. Hopefully these laws will help families of old people to also act responsibly and stop them getting behind handlebars.

Steve Taylor ● 263d

Bless you and again without your career. Never mind you are a constant source of amusement, or would be if you ever said anything mildly amusing or interesting. Go and take your medication there's a good boy.

N V Brooks ● 263d

"No one is going to change the law because you think that it is a good idea to protect cyclists from themselves".No indeed but they will change the Road Traffic Act to rebalance justice in favour of the innocent victims of drivers, to reduce injuries and deaths on roads and pavements and to catch up with more civilised and developed countries. Nobody will be surprised that racists oppose such things.

Paul Campbell ● 263d

All the more reason to keep old Keith off a bike before he hurts someone.

Steve Taylor ● 263d

Keep digging, go deep enough and you may find your nascent connection to reality. No one is going to change the law becuase you think that it is a good idea to protect cyclists from themselves.Do keep up with the insults, you are a source of amusement if nothing, with a definite stress on nothing, else.

N V Brooks ● 263d

I wouldn’t expect a little-Englander racist to know anything about other countries but innocent until proven guilty is the basis of law in countries that have adopted presumed liability. The two are not mutually exclusive. But admittedly bigots are unlikely to have the mental capacity to hold both concepts simultaneously.

Paul Campbell ● 263d

Thankfully, and sensibly 1000 years of statute and precedent with the presumption of innocent until proven guilty will not be overturned simply to appease a few people pursuing a minority transport choice.

N V Brooks ● 263d

I know exactly what it is and how it works and how it is proven to have the impact that I have described but you seem eager to reframe what I think it is to support your arguments against it which it is obvious even you don’t really have any conviction in. Once again personal animus makes otherwise intelligent people say things they don’t mean despite knowing that it makes them look foolish. Asking drivers to behave nicely has been a 50 year experiment that has failed and continues to fail with the changes to the HC. It’s time for some stick and to hit them in their pockets where it hurts the most in order to make them change their behaviour and improve road safety. Now shall we discuss massive increases in costs of SUV parking?

Paul Campbell ● 263d

I'm not against the concept of presumed liability but I don't think you actually grasp what it is.It may be more difficult to introduce in the UK because of the nature of our legal system, I'm not sure, but even in Europe it is for civil cases not criminal ones. As any collision involving serious injury is likely to be a criminal rather than a civil case presumed liability doesn't apply.In countries like Holland and France where presumed liability in civil cases is more robust, it isn't simply a matter of the less vulnerable road user presenting their case and being given a payout. Evidence still has to be presented and considered. Although it notionally is easier to bring a case if you are involved in a collision as a pedestrian or a cyclist I am unaware of any comparative data which shows there are more wins.What is happening in this country is that the hierarchy of road safety is being made clearer and specifying the responsibility of less vulnerable road users for more vulnerable road users. This isn't presumed liability exactly but it is moving us in the same direction and that is very welcome.

Mark Evans ● 263d

It’s precisely my point that everyone is aware of the phone zombie, moron pedestrians around and exactly why cyclists and motorists have to anticipate and take precautions.

Steve Taylor ● 263d

Pedestrians aren’t compelled to read the Highway Code, hence they are always considered innocent. It’s totally the responsibility of cyclists, motorcyclists and motorists to be aware of pedestrians, anticipate their moves, and take appropriate action.

Steve Taylor ● 263d

That's is not a reply to my comment. I am asking for presumed liability in the UK and I expect to see it.In countries with presumed liability it is easier and less costly for victims of drivers to receive compensation from the drivers' insurers and drivers who hit people with their vehicles suffer more punitive financial consequences as a result. This is very beneficial to society and road safety because it changes behaviours. The question is why would anybody oppose it? You don't seem to want to say why which I guess is why you fantasise about ambulance chasing pedestrians routinely throwing themselves in front of cyclists in the many countries with presumed lability.

Paul Campbell ● 263d

OK, own up everyone - who trained the Gull ?

Richard Greenhough ● 263d

Really can't agree Steve, you don't have to go far to see 'phone zombies' walking around, seemingly aimlessly. Someone hitting one of these idiots, cylist or driver is hardly culpable.

N V Brooks ● 263d

“ From your comment I guess you don't anticipate the movements of pedestrians when out on your motorbike - do you have a particularly noisy exhaust to give them warning of your approach ?”Certainly I anticipate the movement of pedestrians when on motorcycle, bike or car. It’s pure logic. I admit I didn’t anticipate the movement of a Gull which flew into my chest as I was accelerating hard on a slip road to the motorway and almost caused me to lose control of the bike at about 60mph. And yes my Triumph has a very noisy exhaust.

Steve Taylor ● 263d

He certainly has a noisy exhaust on this forum.

Mark Frost ● 263d

Paul, I have already explained to you earlier how presumed liability is not the same as 'always at fault' which is what you and Steve are proposing.Presumed liability does not result in bogus claims because collisions will still be investigated. 'Always at fault' would led to an epidemic of insurance scams against both cyclists and drivers which is why no country in the world would consider introducing it.

Mark Evans ● 263d

"Cyclists should ALWAYS be alert and anticipate such movements. As a motorcyclist I have always had to anticipate the movements of cars and trucks."Cyclists have to anticipate the movements of cars, trucks and motorbikes on the road, as well as keeping an eye out for stray pedestrians. From your comment I guess you don't anticipate the movements of pedestrians when out on your motorbike - do you have a particularly noisy exhaust to give them warning of your approach ?

Richard Greenhough ● 263d

“ Cycling to work this morning a man crossed the road in front of me without looking.”Precisely my point. Cyclists should ALWAYS be alert and anticipate such movements. As a motorcyclist I have always had to anticipate the movements of cars and trucks.

Steve Taylor ● 263d

Mark, you are quite correct - the comment from Silly Steve is fairly typical of him hitting "Submit Reply" without thinking. A few years ago I was cycling west along Hammersmith Road when I spotted an old lady setting out to walk across the road from the north side. I rang my bell but she kept on going without looking. As I came closer, still ringing my bell, it became clear that she was going to continue and I had to decide whether to swerve out into the road to avoid her (which, if she had then stopped, would have meant that I hit her) or carry on along the kerbside in the hope that she would hear me and stop. In the end I had to brake sharply and stop just before she reached the kerb, and only at that point did she become aware of my presence. I can only assume that she was deaf, but in any case, walking out across a busy road without looking and continuing all the way across without a single glance towards the oncoming traffic shows at the very least a contempt for her own safety. Pedestrians such as this lady and Mark's man should be responsible road users, and if because they are not, they cause a collision with a cyclist, then they should take the blame, not the cyclist.

Richard Greenhough ● 263d

Presumed liability is effective in criminal cases but it's greatest societal impact, as I have said, is in reducing the costs and time for victims to secure compensation from insurers for the injuries they sustain when hit by drivers. And of course the impact that this has on the costs and availability of insurance for bad drivers. This is what really changes driving behaviour and makes roads safer. The material and long-lasting consequences for hitting somebody with your car act as an effective deterrent.It is funny how you persist in your fantasy that presumed liability results in pedestrians flinging themselves in front of cyclists. Maybe you could share some evidence of this phenomenon from one of the many countries that operates with a system of presumed liability?

Paul Campbell ● 263d

Mark is correct in pointing out pedestrians crossing without looking. Whilst you are calling for the death penalty for anyone even considering getting on a bike, pedestrians should also adhere to the rules for crossing as set out in the Highway code.

Mark Frost ● 263d

'A cyclist should always be criminally responsible for a collision with a pedestrian.'If you think through this daft notion for a moment you'd realise it was unworkable. Cycling to work this morning a man crossed the road in front of me without looking. I had about three yards and rang my bell to warn him. If he had crossed a couple of seconds later I would have hit him. This may sound a bit contrived and conveniently timed to you but I can assure you it happened and near collisions like this are commonplace. If you are saying that I would be liable for prosecution in this case I'd have to give serious consideration to giving up cycling. That is without taking account of all the chancers who would be jumping in front of bikes in the hope of a payout.

Mark Evans ● 263d

A cyclist should always be criminally responsible for a collision with a pedestrian.

Steve Taylor ● 263d

The concept of presumed liability doesn't really fit with an adversorial justice system in which innocence is assumed. In Europe where there often are investigating magistrates they can start with a presumption of guilt but still have to present evidence to convince a judge. The UK is moving towards a system that rebalances the law in favour of more vulnerable road users. Although changes to the Highway Code are not changes to the law they do have an impact on the way evidence will be interpreted and make it more likely that prosecutions will be successful. What it does not mean that a driver is always criminally responsible for a collision with a pedestrian or cyclist or a cyclist is always criminally responsible for a collision with a pedestrian.

Mark Evans ● 263d

Hopefully Boardman will realise that an 86 year old could be a liability when let loose on a bike.

Steve Taylor ● 270d

Well quibbles aside on the language I am glad that you support the campaign for presumed liability and bringing the UK in line most other European countries. This is how legislators would make a real impact on road safety and social justice.

Paul Campbell ● 270d

Presumed liability is not the same as 'always at fault'. I'm well aware of the debate on this and support greater responsibility for less vulnerable road users.

Mark Evans ● 270d

If you are interested in learning more about how widespread presumed liability actually is in Europe and how well supported it is by campaigners here then you may find this article of interest.Or you can carry on thinking that things are absurd because the first time you heard of them is when I mentioned them.Here is a precis and link to the article underneath:Presumed liabilityUnder both English and Scottish law, a claimant cyclist must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that a defendant driver was negligent. Many safety campaigners, including the UK’s national cycle charity, the CTC, have called for a new system of "presumed liability" - whereby the defendant driver would be presumed to be at fault unless they can prove otherwise.In most European jurisdictions, an injured cyclist does not need to establish fault on the part of the motorist. The UK is one of only five countries in Europe, alongside Cyprus, Malta, Romania and Ireland, which have not adopted the presumed liability system.As an English cycling accident lawyer, establishing liability is often a difficult challenge, especially if the cyclist is unable to give evidence due to the nature of their injuries and/or if there are no independent witnesses.The presumed liability system recognises that the liability of one's actions should be proportionate to the degree of danger which they impose on other road users. Every year, around 19,000 cyclists are killed or injured in reported road accidents in the UK. The true figures are likely to be higher as the Department of Transport data excludes incidents which go unreported to the police, even if the cyclist’s injuries required a visit to hospital.https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/newsroom/cycling-accidents-and-presumed-liability-uk-vs-europe/

Paul Campbell ● 270d

Just because you are only now finding out about it does not mean that presumed liability is ridiculous. It is widely adopted and successful. The Danes introduced it all the way back in 1986 for example. It enforces a duty of care on road users by making them financially liable unless they can prove a more vulnerable road user was at fault in a collision. This avoids the present system in the UK which forces victims to take on lengthy and costly legal processes for compensation against well funded insurers who are incentivised to avoid or minimise payouts. Remarkably, like many of the alarmist predictions associated with every road safety improvement, it has not resulted in a wave of incidents of pedestrians throwing themselves in front of bikes. But it has improved the behaviour of drivers and that would be must welcome in the UK. It is socially just. All serious road safety campaigning organisations agree that it is a practical and high impact legislative change and they will have a more receptive group of legislators in place soon to continue to pursue their campaigns after the government agreed to a review five years ago. It’s not just your favourite local cycling campaigner who thinks it’s a good idea. Only bad and dangerous drivers would object to such a practical and high impact improvement to road safety and driving culture.

Paul Campbell ● 270d

As far as I am aware Labour have no legislative proposals with regard to road safety just a general commitment to reduce injuries from collisions. This necessarily involves a more stringent enforcement of the road safety heirarchy and reinforcing the message that less vulnerable road users are always responsible for the safety of more vulnerable road users. What that definitely does not mean is that road users higher up the heirarchy are always at fault if there is a collision. This would be ridiculous and have a hugely negative effect on cyclists as it would provide a bonanza for ambulance chasers and scam artists who would be far less likely to jump in front of a car than a bike. No representative body is proposing this as a policy.

Mark Evans ● 270d

Francis, I don't see what you see. £7k bikes are in the minority by far and club riders are also the minority  in Richmond Park and I am there most weekends. However that is a side issue and you're ignoring the main point here - you can't have marshals policing bike riders on roads that are open to cars. That is what you do for closed road bike events. This is like your underground car park idea for central Chiswick. You've got a great imagination. And actually you're just doing what Boardman is describing by diverting attention away from the only important point - drivers kill and injure people, drivers cause pollution and drivers cause congestion. You can worry about these club riders who bother you so much when you've tackled the thing that matters.

Paul Campbell ● 270d

“ I don't really think you can compare the two.”I’m not comparing the two. I’m simply saying it’s disingenuous to believe that an 86 year old on a bicycle shouldn’t be subjected to the same legal requirements for physical and mental competence as an 86 year old car driver.

Steve Taylor ● 270d

Rat runs for cyclists. Great.The whole point of road user hierarchy is to make people more responsible for what they do. Unfortunately you are talking about people here, and if history tells us anything it’s that people are inherently irresponsible. It’s why you get drunken fights in pubs, football hooligans and all the other asb that has nothing to do with driving.People like Campbell can’t comprehend that the idiot in a car is probably an idiot on a bike or an idiot in the pub. Maybe too close to home.

Simon Hayes ● 270d

Paul, in my experience a lot of those riders are members of a club; and even if they aren’t, I daresay that the average Richmond domestique riding a £7k Factor will have a few bobs to ensure that pedestrians don’t wander in their path on a weekend.Even more so in Regent’s, which on Saturdays and Sundays turns into a crit course but without the safety infrastructure. Might as well get it in!

Francis Sheehan ● 271d

You’re absolutely right, Mark, and thanks for correcting me. As a cyclist I do feel strongly about my role in ensuring the safety of others, and often times - like for instance when I ride through Hounslow at peak time, or on C9, I’d chose to go slower and keep one foot unclipped - just in case. People don’t check, or even if they do since you’re not a car they’ll go anyway. So many others don’t, though. Enforcement is definitely needed.

Francis Sheehan ● 271d

But Nora why would we want to live in a society where elderly people have mobility choices and where those who can no longer drive but could ride a bike are able to do so in order to prolong their independence and connection to community? Won't somebody think of the able-bodied petrosexuals whose short local car journeys might be slightly inconvenienced by such a hellish vision? What we should do to prevent his happening is definitely make sure we don't reinforce Boardman's point about a fallacious moral panic by suggesting that octogenarian cyclists are potential killing machines.

Paul Campbell ● 271d

My point is that as we get older we tend not to be in such a rush.  And it's much easier to continue jumping in the car,  getting on a bike is much more difficult.  You would naturally slow down because you're self propelled.  I don't really think you can compare the two.

Nora Watkins ● 271d

Sorry should of course read “who is to say” rather than “whose to say”

Steve Taylor ● 271d

If you are a danger to yourself it follows that you are a danger to others. If you fall off your bike who knows the consequences and how you could affect other cyclists or pedestrians or even fall in front of a car or bus. Even if the old codgers are poodling along at 20mph, whose to say they will see a child stepping in front of them and whose to say they have sharp enough reflexes to swerve or stop.

Steve Taylor ● 271d

Steve,  I think that's an exaggeration.  An unfit person in a vehicle is a danger to themselves and others because it's not that much work to operate a vehicle with power steering etc (unlike the old days when turning the wheel took quite an effort). How many 86 year old cyclists do you see shooting along at 20mph?  In my experience,  the term "pootling" is much more in line with how people over 80 ride bikes.  The danger is more likely to be to yourself rather than others. 

Nora Watkins ● 271d

Interesting that during the Boardman rant he doesn’t actually say Taft the 86 year old is legally competent to ride a bike. Unlike car drivers over 70 who have to legally declare medical competency, any old codger can get on a two wheeled killing machine and take to the streets. Difficult to understand how a 86 year old who cannot drive, and struggles to walk, thinks he is competent to safely handle a bicycle.

Steve Taylor ● 271d

Francis, I am sorry but I am rather chortling at the idea of some London Dynamo marshals policing the behaviour of unaffiliated cyclists on open roads in Richmond and Regent's Park with cars blasting past and continuing to cause all the actual danger and collisions.If you are proposing closing the roads to cars entirely for set times while cyclists do training laps then that is a different story but a tough sell to the public if it happens more than once or twice a year.It is good to have Sawyers Hill closed to cars on the weekends and in my experience this has created a much safer and more pleasant environment for all. The next obvious step is to close Queen's Road to through traffic between Kingston Gate and Richmond Hill.

Paul Campbell ● 271d

Oh I think most cyclists will value drivers being automatically assumed to be at fault for hitting cyclists and pedestrians and the dramatic change this will make to driver behaviour far more than they will be concerned about proving they are not at fault if they hit a pedestrian. Certainly all the serious cycling campaigning organisations do. They are aware of the difference between perception of risk and the reality.

Paul Campbell ● 271d

It is already enshrined in the Highway Code and any additional reinforcement of this hierarchy is to be welcomed. However, legislators need to tread carefully. If cyclists are automatically assumed to be at fault if they hit a pedestrian it would serve as a massive disincentive to get on a bike.

Mark Evans ● 271d

Sounds like you'd be in favour of a new Labour government implementing a change in the law to presumed liability to reinforce the hierarchy of road users Mark? I couldn't agree more with that. It will have far more impact on road safety than anything else that has been suggested here. I also think it is more likely to actually happen.

Paul Campbell ● 271d

Precisely!  I taught my daughter to ride a bike on the river path between Barnes and Putney. It was perfect. And when she was confident, and I felt she was competent enough, we regularly cycled the Tamsin trail. It’s perfect for recreational cycling and it’s fun for kids and has some wonderful challenges. Hence I still feel that an outright ban on cycling the roads through Richmond Park on weekends is a reasonable option and will reduce accidents. Why can’t cyclists just calm down a bit and enjoy the Tamsin Trail. It was built and designed for recreational enjoyment which is good for the soul. I simply can’t understand how any cyclist can claim to enjoy cycling on the roads on Richmond Park when they are constantly having to dodge cars or have cars riding up their bums. There’s no enjoyment in that. Just stress and angst and a build up of road rage. It helps no one.

Steve Taylor ● 271d

There are lots of very sensible points in your post and I think the cycling clubs doing timed laps in parks will be taking on your suggestions of improved stewarding without being forced to.However, I do think you have blurred the heirarchy of road users and how it relates to safety. If you are in a motor vehicle you become responsible for the safety of more vulnerable road users such as cyclists and pedestrians. If you are on a bike you are you are responsible for the safety of pedestrians.This means that it isn't a defence to say 'she just stepped out in front of me' if you are driving or cycling at a speed inappropriate for the circumstances.It isn't true to say that the enquiry determined the cyclist in this case determined that the cyclist wasn't at fault. The coroner decided to record it as an accidental death because that was the only option open to them. The police had declined to press charges initially and that may have been because it wasn't recorded as a road traffic collision until two months afterwards by which time it was too late to collect evidence to secure a conviction. That the cyclist was an investment banker and therefore able to afford expensive legal representation may also have had some bearing on the lack of action taken against him.Any one who cycles regularly knows that pedestrians will regularly step out in front of them assuming the road is clear because they don't hear the sound of an engine. Obviously any collision is primarily their fault but any cyclist who does ride in the expectation that this is likely to happen is also partly culpable.

Mark Evans ● 271d

Simon, I'll try my damnednest to keep this thread civil.The case you mentioned (the Regent's Park one) is an utter tragedy, no ifs no buts. An elderly lady died walking her dog, and that's something that should never have happened.The cyclist was going above the 20mph limit, that's for sure, and it's also true that both Regent's Park and Richmond become a peloton on weekends, which is something I personally don't agree with and is one of the reasons why you'll see me in either (mostly the Tamsin trail) at 5AM on weekends when the light comes up early. You can't have people in TT bikes and aerosuits in a city park mixing with pedestrians, cars and horses, especially if they're going on the aerobars. (And I don't quite like the snobbery to be fair, but that's just me).But it has to be said that the enquiry itself determined that the cyclist wasn't at fault. The poor lady crossed the road without watching, leaving him no time to break. This is NOT to say that the lady is at fault, she has paid the ultimate price for this slight lapse of attention. What I think we ought to be having is a mature conversation on cycling (fat chance, considering that this forum is unfortunately awash with people calling each other names like they were 6 instead of 60). I think there's a fundamental difference between, say, the cyclist going to work, or taking kids to school, or going for a nice recreational ride, and the semi-pro riding in a peloton like it's the Giro. I happened to gatecrash (while trying to go to work off-hours) into the starting line of the Ride London event last weekend: they had volunteers, a signposted route, and it was next to impossible for the random pedestrian to crash into the peloton. Safe, nice, and good for everyone. Then, every Saturday and Sunday in Richmond and Regent's parks, we have the same crowd, doing the same speeds, but with no safety nets at all. And that's dangerous, because I know how clueless people are and how hard it is to avoid a pile-up when somebody walks into a line of cyclists. In this specific case, then, in my opinion we have two choices: ban or regulate. Banning, in my opinion, serves no purpose. People will just do it, and the Met is just not geared up to police it. Regulate means that the clubs doing laps (they're all clubs anyway, and if you look at the bikes they're not made of zero-hour contract workers) take part in funding marshals, safety barriers and safe routes for pedestrians. They already do it on race days.That's just my 2p's worth for these sorts of events, but I wouldn't take one (tragic) example to paint every single one of the millions who cycle. Otherwise we might be doing the same with car drivers and that's as wrong.

Francis Sheehan ● 271d

The cartoon is too clever for you? Wow! The local killer cyclist panickers are even more stupid than I thought.

Paul Campbell ● 271d

Oh yes. A cartoon that means nothing. Do grow up.

Simon Hayes ● 271d

Paul Campbell ● 271d

Tell that to the family of the lady killed in Regents Park by a time trialling cyclist. Chris Boardman is a fool. Rants about saving the planet yet takes his family to the Maldives on holiday…

Simon Hayes ● 271d

They are but the police don't know them because they go to another school.

Paul Campbell ● 272d

Though lightning wielding cows are a plenty in W4 Paul, seemingly.

Mark Frost ● 272d