The Driver's Site for the East Midlands

Welcome to Drivers' Union East Midlands.
Our Mission: Better road safety at lower cost. No unnecessary delay or slowing of road transport. No unnecessary or unjust prosecution of safe drivers.

Motorists & Drivers' Union is at

For specific topics click the appropriate label (above).

Search This Blog

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:


  1. I've always thought that with the privilege of being able to drive a motor vehicle comes the responsibility to do no harm with it. If extra liability is placed on drivers, this can be mitigated by driving safely, minimising the chances of actually killing other road users. And society won't miss a few people being stripped of their privileges to drive.

  2. Let's dump the 'privilege to drive' rubbish. We are all privileged, the community is all privileged, that people are prepared to struggle to provide vehicles and drive to keep society going. Society has no problem with banning gun use and ownership as an unwanted undesirable privilege so why not ban driving and car ownership on that basis? Because it knows the whole edifice would collapse with the mass death associated with such an economic collapse. So far from being a privilege, I am trying to make drivers see their worth and importance to all of us and expose the privilege myth for what it is.

    But these drivers are humans. They make mistakes. On any drive they are making thousands of decisions, most of which are subconscious. To imagine that they will get everything right all the time is to be totally unrealistic. That they are doing about 300 billion miles a year, sharing the highway with opposing traffic, animals and humans, in the UK, with less death on the road than from accidents in the home is an incredible achievement that needs to be applauded. But to then impose hazards and liabilities, that the community don't need at all, is against the interests of society and vital infrastructure.

    Would we allow cycling along railway lines and say train drivers must prove it was a cyclists fault? Well it's exactly the same principle.

    Now I fully expect lot's of anger and insult from the Cycle Lobby for raising all this but surely they cannot demand just what they like and expect no logical reply? It's a simple question that our lawmakers must ask before adopting further impediments on important infrastructure. Do we need road cycling? Must we have road cycling? Whenever cyclists demand massive finance and draconian unworkable rules, surely they must show they're essential to the community before they're just conceded to?

    Clearly that isn't happening enough, hence we are now to support cycling with £600,000 a year, £10 from each one of us, and no-one actually needs it! What sort of decision is that? Some-one has to raise all this surely?

    It's the road cycling lobby that is raising all these question and drawing the focus of drivers in their own defence I am sorry to say.

  3. Keith- the railway tracks argument is daft- railways are not public rights of way.

    And I still assert that driving is still a privilege for any individual, regardless of how much society as a whole needs it.

  4. It isn't whether there's a right but what happens if you mingle with large machinery. I was simply replying to the no brainer that it is the motors that do the killing. Of course they do if you want to mingle with them. It's the same with trains. That you are a trespasser is is irrelevant, you were hit because you were mingling with trains.

    But the context was about spending lot's of money on something no-one actually needs and is a hazard. Why do we need cyclists? To reply that all cycling accidents are caused by essential machinery, is not only inaccurate but omits to consider that all cycling accidents are primarily caused by a dangerous scenario.

    I am amazed that cyclists are in denial of that in order to just carry on with it.

    As for privilege, you are only parroting some anorak's cliche. It's just as silly as saying that breathing, drinking and eating is a privilege too.