Letters: We drivers need to accept the consequences of introducingour lethal machines on to the road

QUOTE:
YOU report that police will assiduously enforce the law against drivers who overtake cyclists too close, and that every week in Scotland at least three cyclists suffer serious, life-changing injuries, usually from a collision with a vehicle (“Drivers warned: Give space to cyclists or risk criminal conviction�, The Herald, July 7).

Yet no politician, government agency, or local authority while hailing the recent huge increase in cycling (and walking) has yet acceded to the demands of safety campaigners to replace the current fault-based compensation system with strict liability.

Many drivers claim that they always do drive with due consideration for vulnerable road users and are outraged by the suggestion that they should be automatically liable for the consequences of any lapses.

Such assertions of innocence are less convincing when one thinks of the young mother doing the school run before racing off for a nine o'clock start at her workplace, or the middle-aged businessman late for a meeting at which he hopes to conclude a profitable contract.

And how many “careful� drivers comply with the 20mph speed limit which is specifically intended to protect vulnerable road users? (NOT MANY - SM)

Under strict liability the legal wrangling (and lawyers and extra insurance staff) can be dispensed with as fault is established automatically at the point of impact. With that done the lawyers and medics can then be called in to assess the value of the injury suffered by the victim.

That may take some time, but even under the present fault-based system instalments can be paid out by the insurance companies as soon as liability is established.

When we drivers exercise the privilege of introducing a couple of tons of potentially death-dealing metal on to public roads we should in fairness accept that we are automatically liable for the consequences regardless of fault. And we should remember that every day we ourselves and our families are likely to be vulnerable road users even if we do no more than step out of our cars to cross the street.

William Neilson, Edinburgh EH16.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...omments-anchor

On 09/07/2020 18:30, Simon Mason wrote:
QUOTE:
YOU report that police will assiduously enforce the law against drivers who overtake cyclists too close, and that every week in Scotland at least three cyclists suffer serious, life-changing injuries, usually from a collision with a vehicle (“Drivers warned: Give space to cyclists or risk criminal conviction�, The Herald, July 7).

Yet no politician, government agency, or local authority while hailing the recent huge increase in cycling (and walking) has yet acceded to the demands of safety campaigners to replace the current fault-based compensation system with strict liability.

Many drivers claim that they always do drive with due consideration for vulnerable road users and are outraged by the suggestion that they should be automatically liable for the consequences of any lapses.

Such assertions of innocence are less convincing when one thinks of the young mother doing the school run before racing off for a nine o'clock start at her workplace, or the middle-aged businessman late for a meeting at which he hopes to conclude a profitable contract.

And how many “careful� drivers comply with the 20mph speed limit which is specifically intended to protect vulnerable road users? (NOT MANY - SM)

Under strict liability the legal wrangling (and lawyers and extra insurance staff) can be dispensed with as fault is established automatically at the point of impact. With that done the lawyers and medics can then be called in to assess the value of the injury suffered by the victim.

That may take some time, but even under the present fault-based system instalments can be paid out by the insurance companies as soon as liability is established.

When we drivers exercise the privilege of introducing a couple of tons of potentially death-dealing metal on to public roads we should in fairness accept that we are automatically liable for the consequences regardless of fault. And we should remember that every day we ourselves and our families are likely to be vulnerable road users even if we do no more than step out of our cars to cross the street.

William Neilson, Edinburgh EH16.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...omments-anchor

Don't be so effin' stupid and anti-social.

How can it be right to hold anyone responsible for anything for which
they are not responsible?

On Saturday, 11 July 2020 00:30:37 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 09/07/2020 18:30, Simon Mason wrote:
QUOTE:
YOU report that police will assiduously enforce the law against drivers who overtake cyclists too close, and that every week in Scotland at least three cyclists suffer serious, life-changing injuries, usually from a collision with a vehicle (“Drivers warned: Give space to cyclists or risk criminal conviction�, The Herald, July 7).

Yet no politician, government agency, or local authority while hailing the recent huge increase in cycling (and walking) has yet acceded to the demands of safety campaigners to replace the current fault-based compensation system with strict liability.

Many drivers claim that they always do drive with due consideration for vulnerable road users and are outraged by the suggestion that they should be automatically liable for the consequences of any lapses.

Such assertions of innocence are less convincing when one thinks of the young mother doing the school run before racing off for a nine o'clock start at her workplace, or the middle-aged businessman late for a meeting at which he hopes to conclude a profitable contract.

And how many “careful� drivers comply with the 20mph speed limit which is specifically intended to protect vulnerable road users? (NOT MANY - SM)

Under strict liability the legal wrangling (and lawyers and extra insurance staff) can be dispensed with as fault is established automatically at the point of impact. With that done the lawyers and medics can then be called in to assess the value of the injury suffered by the victim.

That may take some time, but even under the present fault-based system instalments can be paid out by the insurance companies as soon as liability is established.

When we drivers exercise the privilege of introducing a couple of tons of potentially death-dealing metal on to public roads we should in fairness accept that we are automatically liable for the consequences regardless of fault. And we should remember that every day we ourselves and our families are likely to be vulnerable road users even if we do no more than step out of our cars to cross the street.

William Neilson, Edinburgh EH16.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...omments-anchor

Don't be so effin' stupid

I know, the idea that Motorists will one day take responsibility for their actions is moronic.

On 11/07/2020 04:15, Mike Collins wrote:
On Saturday, 11 July 2020 00:30:37 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 09/07/2020 18:30, Simon Mason wrote:
QUOTE:
YOU report that police will assiduously enforce the law against drivers who overtake cyclists too close, and that every week in Scotland at least three cyclists suffer serious, life-changing injuries, usually from a collision with a vehicle (“Drivers warned: Give space to cyclists or risk criminal conviction�, The Herald, July 7).

Yet no politician, government agency, or local authority while hailing the recent huge increase in cycling (and walking) has yet acceded to the demands of safety campaigners to replace the current fault-based compensation system with strict liability.

Many drivers claim that they always do drive with due consideration for vulnerable road users and are outraged by the suggestion that they should be automatically liable for the consequences of any lapses.

Such assertions of innocence are less convincing when one thinks of the young mother doing the school run before racing off for a nine o'clock start at her workplace, or the middle-aged businessman late for a meeting at which he hopes to conclude a profitable contract.

And how many “careful� drivers comply with the 20mph speed limit which is specifically intended to protect vulnerable road users? (NOT MANY - SM)

Under strict liability the legal wrangling (and lawyers and extra insurance staff) can be dispensed with as fault is established automatically at the point of impact. With that done the lawyers and medics can then be called in to assess the value of the injury suffered by the victim.

That may take some time, but even under the present fault-based system instalments can be paid out by the insurance companies as soon as liability is established.

When we drivers exercise the privilege of introducing a couple of tons of potentially death-dealing metal on to public roads we should in fairness accept that we are automatically liable for the consequences regardless of fault. And we should remember that every day we ourselves and our families are likely to be vulnerable road users even if we do no more than step out of our cars to cross the street.

William Neilson, Edinburgh EH16.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...omments-anchor

Don't be so effin' stupid

I know, the idea that Motorists will one day take responsibility for their actions is moronic.

You can't read and comprehend, can you?

The article quoted above is not an argument for making individuals take
responsibility for their own actions (a principle few would challenge).

It is an "argument" for placing the responsibility for the actions of
one person onto another person, without that second person having been
in any way at fault.

When you get into senior school, try reading it again.

On Saturday, 11 July 2020 14:17:25 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 11/07/2020 04:15, Mike Collins wrote:
On Saturday, 11 July 2020 00:30:37 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 09/07/2020 18:30, Simon Mason wrote:
QUOTE:
YOU report that police will assiduously enforce the law against drivers who overtake cyclists too close, and that every week in Scotland at least three cyclists suffer serious, life-changing injuries, usually from a collision with a vehicle (“Drivers warned: Give space to cyclists or risk criminal conviction�, The Herald, July 7).

Yet no politician, government agency, or local authority while hailing the recent huge increase in cycling (and walking) has yet acceded to the demands of safety campaigners to replace the current fault-based compensation system with strict liability.

Many drivers claim that they always do drive with due consideration for vulnerable road users and are outraged by the suggestion that they should be automatically liable for the consequences of any lapses.

Such assertions of innocence are less convincing when one thinks of the young mother doing the school run before racing off for a nine o'clock start at her workplace, or the middle-aged businessman late for a meeting at which he hopes to conclude a profitable contract.

And how many “careful� drivers comply with the 20mph speed limit which is specifically intended to protect vulnerable road users? (NOT MANY - SM)

Under strict liability the legal wrangling (and lawyers and extra insurance staff) can be dispensed with as fault is established automatically at the point of impact. With that done the lawyers and medics can then be called in to assess the value of the injury suffered by the victim.

That may take some time, but even under the present fault-based system instalments can be paid out by the insurance companies as soon as liability is established.

When we drivers exercise the privilege of introducing a couple of tons of potentially death-dealing metal on to public roads we should in fairness accept that we are automatically liable for the consequences regardless of fault. And we should remember that every day we ourselves and our families are likely to be vulnerable road users even if we do no more than step out of our cars to cross the street.

William Neilson, Edinburgh EH16.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...omments-anchor

Don't be so effin' stupid

I know, the idea that Motorists will one day take responsibility for their actions is moronic.

You can't read and comprehend, can you?

Childish.


The article quoted above is not an argument for making individuals take
responsibility for their own actions (a principle few would challenge).

It is an "argument" for placing the responsibility for the actions of
one person onto another person, without that second person having been
in any way at fault.


The Motorvehiclist is bringing all the danger to the situation.

When you get into senior school, try reading it again.

More childishness.

On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 03:46:11 GMT, Mike Collins
wrote:

On Saturday, 11 July 2020 14:17:25 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
[time for a snip]

It is an "argument" for placing the responsibility for the actions of
one person onto another person, without that second person having
been in any way at fault.


The Motorvehiclist is bringing all the danger to the situation.

[]

This I believe to be the Law on the Continent. It makes it much safer for
vulnerable road users. We need it here too.
Look up 'Presumed Liability'

Though this guy doesn't find it means less danger:
https://departmentfortransport.wordp...the-liability-
myth/

Here's a mini-quiz:
Did you read the article before replying? [Yes/No]

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.

On 12/07/2020 04:46, Mike Collins wrote:
On Saturday, 11 July 2020 14:17:25 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 11/07/2020 04:15, Mike Collins wrote:
On Saturday, 11 July 2020 00:30:37 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 09/07/2020 18:30, Simon Mason wrote:
QUOTE:
YOU report that police will assiduously enforce the law against drivers who overtake cyclists too close, and that every week in Scotland at least three cyclists suffer serious, life-changing injuries, usually from a collision with a vehicle (“Drivers warned: Give space to cyclists or risk criminal conviction�, The Herald, July 7).

Yet no politician, government agency, or local authority while hailing the recent huge increase in cycling (and walking) has yet acceded to the demands of safety campaigners to replace the current fault-based compensation system with strict liability.

Many drivers claim that they always do drive with due consideration for vulnerable road users and are outraged by the suggestion that they should be automatically liable for the consequences of any lapses.

Such assertions of innocence are less convincing when one thinks of the young mother doing the school run before racing off for a nine o'clock start at her workplace, or the middle-aged businessman late for a meeting at which he hopes to conclude a profitable contract.

And how many “careful� drivers comply with the 20mph speed limit which is specifically intended to protect vulnerable road users? (NOT MANY - SM)

Under strict liability the legal wrangling (and lawyers and extra insurance staff) can be dispensed with as fault is established automatically at the point of impact. With that done the lawyers and medics can then be called in to assess the value of the injury suffered by the victim.

That may take some time, but even under the present fault-based system instalments can be paid out by the insurance companies as soon as liability is established.

When we drivers exercise the privilege of introducing a couple of tons of potentially death-dealing metal on to public roads we should in fairness accept that we are automatically liable for the consequences regardless of fault. And we should remember that every day we ourselves and our families are likely to be vulnerable road users even if we do no more than step out of our cars to cross the street.

William Neilson, Edinburgh EH16.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...omments-anchor

Don't be so effin' stupid

I know, the idea that Motorists will one day take responsibility for their actions is moronic.

You can't read and comprehend, can you?

Childish.

Yes, that's how one should describe your eccentric reaction, but as you
know, I try to be more polite than ost (and certainly a lot more polite
than you).

But you have hit the nail on the head - a feat of self-perception for a
change.

The article quoted above is not an argument for making individuals take
responsibility for their own actions (a principle few would challenge).
It is an "argument" for placing the responsibility for the actions of
one person onto another person, without that second person having been
in any way at fault.

The Motorvehiclist is bringing all the danger to the situation.

The old ones are the best, eh?

A cyc;list rides stright through a red traffic light and the driver
passing lawfully at green is the one "bringing all the danger to the
situation"?

Yeah, right.

You aren't only childish (because most children would be well above your
sort of idiocy).

When you get into senior school, try reading it again.

More childishness.

Exactly. When are you going to grow up?

On Saturday, July 11, 2020 at 4:15:02 AM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:

I know, the idea that Motorists will one day take responsibility for their actions is moronic.

That's why we have the courts and jail.