Sunday, 15 February 2015
Cyclists demand drivers prove their innocence.
In this new campaign to make drivers prove innocence The premise as usual is an assumption that we choose to drive and perhaps more central that we must have road cycling.
I have posted a comment as follows:
Wait a minute. I question: 'If you choose to use 1 ton of metal' We do not 'choose' to run cars or to depend on them, we all depend on them; even cyclists.
Without drivers and walkers society would collapse totally. And that especially includes the private car. All forms of transport is now based around the private motor car making all the links and connections. On the other hand, cycling is pure choice and something society doesn't need or depend on at all. It's really no good cyclists being upset about that reality.
Surely, if cyclists are demanding such a liability to be imposed on its essential infrastructure, society is entitled to ask do we need cyclists? The answer is pretty self evident; it's no we don't.
If road cycling were suggested now as a new invention, with unprotected humans mingling with all these one ton machines, we would call out the men in white coats.
I say all this as a cyclist. The fact is, that the vast majority of people who have ever cycled are like me. No Lycra, no spandex, no shorts and lightweight racers: just a nice sedate upright roadster European style and we demand nothing.
Either cycle or don't cycle but don't moan and make people ask: 'Why do we need them anyway?' And don't respond that drivers are not entitled to do that. They have every right to ask it.
So a case starts off. Your client chose to expose himself by, being unprotected, to mix, mingle, compete with and generally be in the path of large, heavy, essential, and complex moving machinery operated by complete strangers of varying ability and mental capacity. And the court rules that, by definition of his chosen activity, the cyclist is already 80% liable?
See a previous blog on this subject: