Edinburgh cyclists call for better infrastructure and presumed liability law

JimKillock wrote:

Question to Scottish lawyers: is all traffic law a reserved matter, or would it be possible for Scotland to introduce presumed liability? I'd assume it wouldn't be possible, but it'd be interesting to know.

Presumed Liability would come under civil law rather than criminal law/traffic law be they criminalise or not. Insurance companies already practice this kind of liability when a motorist shunts another yet they are reticent to apply the same approach when a vulnerable road user is injured or killed. 

The Scottish Government have the ability to implement presumed liability but the don't or won't. A previous transport secretary (Keith Brown) shot it down by claiming there was no evidence that it improved driver behaviour. Meanwhile I have no confidence in the current one in regards to active sustainable transport. 

There is much chest beating and platitudes from the SNP in regards to an increase in the modal share for cycling but it remains stubbornly at around the 2% mark. And as much as we in Scotland would love to see improvements it just isn't going to happen unless we end up with a really radical Transport Minister. They seem to be more interested in duelling roads and building bridges rather than taking on and reducing pollution on our roads and ultimately reducing instances of heart/lung disease, obesity and cancer. 

RMurphy195 wrote:

To apply an enforcable speed limit for cyclists would, surely, mean that all cycles would have to be fitted with a working speedometer, illuminated at night, by law?

Yes but then most of those who can do over 20 mph have bike computers already, using them to track speed, distance, speed, etc.

Bmblbzzz wrote:

Speed limits apply to motor vehicles only.

Thanks for the correction.  An cyclists is a vehicle but not a motor-vehicle so it seems you are correct.  It seems the highway code is vague but the letter of the law in the road traffic act is specific and in each law I read, it is always "motor-vehicle".

Southwark was to introduce 20mph limits that applied to "vehicles" not "motor-vehicles" which would include cyclists.  There was backlash - I don't know what the outcome was. 
ref: http://road.cc/content/news/124518-southwark-plans-crackdown-20mph-cyclists

Rule 124 of the highway code does not state "motor-vehicle"
"You MUST NOT exceed the maximum speed limits for the road and for your vehicle "

However, interestingly, it seems the 20mph limit for all vehicles including cyclists has had the definition updated to cyclists are now excluded from the speed limit:
ref: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/1194/regulation/1/made

Although unlikely, cyclists could be prosecuted for speeding under "cycling furiously" or riding dangerously or carelessly."  
Sections 28 & 29 Road Traffic Act 1988 may be used to report dangerous and careless cycling respectively. These offences closely mirror the provisions (sections 2 & 3) for motor vehicles
 

kie7077 wrote:

Speed laws apply to motorists, not cyclists, a 20mph speed limit does not stop a cyclist from cycling at 22mph or 25mph.

I see no good reason why we should not have presumed liability, people seem to miss the point completely on this one, presumed liability is a deterrent from bad driving, that is the main benefit, that benefit faw outweighs any criticisms I've heard of such a law. Right now, there appears to be next to zero effective deterrent in law to stop people from driving badly around cyclists, this needs to change.

Having this law doesn't mean we can't also have other changes beneficial to the uptake of cycling, such as a minimum passing distance law.

The problem with the first is why many drivers will object to presumed liability esp since over the last 30 year I've ridden I personally consider the standard of riding to be terrible with too many WLW (Weekend Lycra Warriors), NB (Neon Brigade), etc. thinking they own the roads or rules don't apply to them yet complaining about others who break them.

I've also found it ironic that the class of transport that should think most defensively tends to do it least even though no matter how much neon or lycra they wear they don't become more invincible.

I mean I had an interesting mountain bike ride this morning with one utterly moronic car driver who probably shouldn't be on the road and one WLW. So first up is the car driver, while heading to Richmond Park I saw this car driver slowly moving towards a T junction where he stops even though I'm some distance off and he waits for an age before finally deciding to pulling out on to the road I was on when I'm a hell of a lot closer but it doesn't end there since we are heading towards a set of traffic lights at a cross road. The light is red and he drives into the bike box and waits in it until the crossing traffic comes to a stop because they have a red light now but for whatever reason he starts to turn left and drive even though our light hasn't gone green as the pedestrian crossing green man is now active although he did eventually stop when he was halfway through turn and now totally past the bike box. The second incident with the WLW was in Kingston, I was coming up from the John Lewis carparks side and was turning right to go under John Lewis and since I had a green light to proceed the other cyclist on the main road had a red so he had clearly ignored and passed the bus exit and tried to go through the big junction.

kie7077 wrote:

Speed laws apply to motorists, not cyclists, a 20mph speed limit does not stop a cyclist from cycling at 22mph or 25mph.

Speed laws apply to road users.  Just because you don't have a speedometer or get charged, it does not mean the rules of the road don't apply to you as a cyclist.   Red lights also apply to road users, cyclists included.   It's one rule for everyone, not one rule for some and do what you like for others.

kieren_lon wrote:

Speed laws apply to road users.  Just because you don't have a speedometer or get charged, it does not mean the rules of the road don't apply to you as a cyclist.   Red lights also apply to road users, cyclists included.   It's one rule for everyone, not one rule for some and do what you like for others.

Actually, no, speed limits as defined in the highway code only apply to "motor vehicles", so horses, roller bladers, runners, skate boarders, cyclists, cannot be charged with a speeding offence. No speed limit applies to them.

Red lights of course do apply to everyone. Technically, every time anyone other than a push-bike cyclist enters a cycle box (passes the Advanced Stop Line [ASL]) after the light has gone red (if they have had safe time to stop at the ASL), they have gone through a red light.  Where I live, this is very much more common than cyclists going through a red light.
However, I would like to see cyclists running a red light also be charged. The highway code needs to be enforced, against all.