On 26 nov, 18:46, The Grey Man wrote:
In article ,
says...



It is here.

http://ukcyclerules.com/2010/11/16/s...-legal-protect...

--
Simon Mason

Thank you for posting that Simon, it's yet another nail in the coffin of
the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" (and I say that as a
weekday cyclist and a weekend motorist).

If you want my 2 Euros worth, they're both as bad as one another and the
concept that one is automatically presumed guilty in the event of an
incident, irrespective of facts, is a joke.

There is no presumption of guilt. This is about civil liability and
not criminal guilt.

You write that a presumption of guilt (or, in this case, civil
liability) "irrespective of facts" is a joke. I quite agree. However,
this proposal (in Holland it is already the law) merely reverses the
burden of proof. If the motorists can adequately show facts which
convince the police or court of a cyclist's contributory negligence
the motorist will not need to pay civil compensation.

In Holland this law is part of the protection afforded to vulnerable
road users: if one reads the statistics one will see that this policy
has partially contributed to a far greater percentage of urban
journeys being made by bike here than in the UK. Vulnerability is seen
in terms of both being physically more exposed than a car driver and
in many cases (particularly children) economically weaker.

The greater percentage of journeys made by bike has a fairly positive
effect on the courtesy and understanding displayed by drivers. Their
kids a cycling to school at the same moment that thay are in their
cars driving to work. One cannot ignore the fact that the
infrastructure here does favour separate facilities for cyclists.
Shared facilities are not, in my humble opinion, the solution and
create frustration for both cyclists and drivers. The majority of
adult cyclists are also drivers.