Go Flip!!!



cfsmtb

New Member
Apr 11, 2003
4,963
0
0
Excellent article from todays Shun, courtesy of Flip Shelton, known to many of us in Melboring as a RRR-FM Breakfaster and all-round talented person.

:)

**********

Life on the road is no beach
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20954392-5006880,00.html
Flip Shelton, December 20, 2006 12:00am
Article from: Herald-Sun


FLIP SHELTON writes: 'GET off the ----ing road!", is now a common outburst hurled at cyclists on Beach Rd.

Abuse hurled by drivers has increased so significantly, it's close to becoming an official sport in Melbourne.

I copped abuse last weekend on three separate occasions. Each stream of abuse was clearly articulated and shouted with vitriol and contempt.

I could have been wearing a jersey inviting drivers to "Have a go ya mug".

It happened twice when I was in a small group of cyclists and once when I was on my own. We weren't asking for it, just riding down the road obeying the road rules.

We were abused because we were cyclists.

In Melbourne there are one million cars and one million bicycles.

It's an interesting statistic.

While the numbers are even, the impact of car versus bike is not. Each year 35 cyclists are killed and 2500 seriously injured, and with bike sales on the increase, so these numbers will increase.

There are no statistics on the number of close shaves or minor scrapes that cause shock and terror.

This is the trauma I want to highlight.

This is a public plea to car and truck drivers.

While you are bigger and faster, you don't live alone in the concrete jungle. The roads support various forms of life and we can all co-exist with one simple action.

It's called courtesy.

There are some mongrel drivers who terrorise cyclists. They honk, tailgate, swerve, slow down to abuse you then speed off.

According to Bicycle Victoria, when a car hits a cyclist above 40km/h there is an 80 per cent chance of death. If a car hits a cyclist below 40km/h there is 80 per cent chance of survival.

Some drivers don't realise the stress they cause. They don't know because they have never been in our shoes, the ones with bike-riding cleats.

To these people I say, get on a bike and ride the roads for some first-hand experience. It will change the way you drive.

If you don't want to do that, just think of every cyclist as your own flesh and blood. It will change the way you think about cyclists.

Next time you drive past a cyclist, don't toot, simply give them a wide berth.

And no, a few centimetres is not a wide berth.

Some drivers think cyclists hog the road, but it is legal for two cyclists to ride abreast along a double-lane road as long as they are not more than 1.5m apart.

I'm not saying cyclists are perfect and some cyclists do disobey road rules, which annoys the hell out of me, but we are certainly more vulnerable.

CYCLISTS are simply trying to commute, keep fit or help the environment.

Personally, I have been forced off the road and on to people's lawns. I have found myself hugging a tree after being pushed off the road by careless drivers.

It's essential all road users learn to co-exist.

The roads are only going to get more crowded.

Remember to enjoy the TRIPS. That stands for Tolerance, Respect, Interact, Patience and Safety.

We will all have a much better chance of living longer.
 
Flip has a nice way with woids... she was also very articulate on 3yAWn yesterday...

as I said to the WoJ'ers...you glow girl!

oh yeah , in case you missed it, I suggested to the HuN that we have onus of proof on drivers where a bicycle injury occurs....so a legislative change is needed down the track, and maybe sooner rather than later.

It needs to be a push for onus of liability in the first instance to be on the driver of a motorised vehicle in any incident involving a bicyclist or a pedestrian , this would not go astray in Oz.

It would certainly deliver a higher standard of alertness from drivers than we get now, it may even reduce the road toll.

Of course drivers will suggest it would then be open for all riders to do as they please, but I prefer to think that they (riders) would be less anxious about riding and thus be more visible, more predictable and more willing and able to obey the law...and of course more people of all ages will ride their bikes...

we need to ensure kids (those under 8)get proper instruction at the right ages to develop the right attitudes and behaviours about riding and bikes on roads... old codgers (and anyone over 8) will have to be reschooled (hard) or have the fear of the hip-pocket nerve put into them with onus of proof legislation to encourage their behavioural change...guarantee it would change things overnight.

whatcha thunk?
 
In aus.bicycle on Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:22:09 +1100
rooman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> It needs to be a push for onus of liability in the first instance to be
> on the driver of a motorised vehicle in any incident involving a
> bicyclist or a pedestrian , this would not go astray in Oz.
>
> It would certainly deliver a higher standard of alertness from drivers
> than we get now, it may even reduce the road toll.



How do you view this working?

I presume the point is crashes with no witnesses, or no traffic
control - in other words red light runners are going to be obvious.

I am not sure it's going to make that much difference to careless or
aggressive drivers. Because the whole *point* about such people is
that they don't consider the consequences of their actions.

It might lead to more convictions, but that will make no difference
without a lot more publicity.

And why won't such publicity lead some quantity of cyclists to
consider they can take more risks if the driver behaviour does change?

Zebee
 
Zebee Johnstone said:
In aus.bicycle on Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:22:09 +1100
rooman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> It needs to be a push for onus of liability in the first instance to be
> on the driver of a motorised vehicle in any incident involving a
> bicyclist or a pedestrian , this would not go astray in Oz.
>
> It would certainly deliver a higher standard of alertness from drivers
> than we get now, it may even reduce the road toll.



How do you view this working?

I presume the point is crashes with no witnesses, or no traffic
control - in other words red light runners are going to be obvious.

I am not sure it's going to make that much difference to careless or
aggressive drivers. Because the whole *point* about such people is
that they don't consider the consequences of their actions.

It might lead to more convictions, but that will make no difference
without a lot more publicity.

And why won't such publicity lead some quantity of cyclists to
consider they can take more risks if the driver behaviour does change?

Zebee
As it does in Northern Europe

There fear of God is in drivers ...drivers avoid going anywhere near a rider.

Crashes happen, dickheads on both sides display stupididty and arrogance, but the overall attitude of the general populace will change very quickly (on both sides). Drivers will be more considerate, riders will be more accepting of their responsibility as well.

Some history...20+ years ago the Main Roads depts in Australia did a number on governments and ensured that policy and road design, road laws and road traffic management discriminated against bicycle riders and pedestrians. Out of this (of necessity) came the lobby groups and advocacy groups to fight for rights, thus was spawned the Bicycle Insititue of Victoria (which is the brand we know as Bicycle Victoria) and the Bicycle Federation of Australia (the federal lobbby and advocacy body for all bicycle interests).

It has been an uphill battle to counter the horrible road infrastructure and rules of traffic control that have been developed. These groups and lately other groups have had and continue to have a monumental fight to correct the situation in the face of this biased, costly and aggressive flaw.

Road networks have been built to exclude riders and pedestrians and along the way drivers have become aligned with this policy and the lack of clear laws on sharing the road , with limited instruction to new drivers, misinformation, dehumanising bicycle riders ( why do you think they use the word "cyclists" so much in the media and rarely words like -a mother who chooses to ride a bike for health etc) this is dehumanising in the minds of drivers which greatly exacerbates attitudes and directs behaviour.

The small failures of a few riders and drivers who would take advantage of such a "radical" (for Australia and the USA at least) change to the onus of liability would be overcome in massive measure to the greater community benefit if such a measure was introduced.

A word of caution, no radical changes will happen by attitude change from education alone. It will take a jolt to be effective. Thus a matter of liability, in conjunction with eduction and infrastructure, but a change to the law on liability can be that influential jolt.

As a population we are a nation of conservative change managers, we react to rapid change badly and prefer an evolving approach to bring about change. In terms of infrastructure , slow change is also evident, partly driven by attitude (wait and see-show me the stats- prove it etc...) and also a small population base for a huge geographical area and competition for available and future funds to effect change.

The "stats" are available, world's best practice in bicycling/pedestrian/driver interaction is already under way in Northern Europe and other parts of the world (eg: Curatibo Brasil ).

We do not have the infrastructure to provide riding and walking choices such as Europe, but we do have the ability to look at the best of such practcies and seek to integrate them into Australia to deliver outcomes that are effective for the greater community good (health, environment, sustainable transport) at issue with these is the short term profit and interest motive of business and selfish people who resist change as their comfort zone will be shaken up.

Liability and its direct onus on a driver is part of the solution, a vital part.
 
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:22:09 +1100
> rooman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It needs to be a push for onus of liability in the first instance to be
>> on the driver of a motorised vehicle in any incident involving a
>> bicyclist or a pedestrian , this would not go astray in Oz.
>>
>> It would certainly deliver a higher standard of alertness from drivers
>> than we get now, it may even reduce the road toll.

>
>
> How do you view this working?
>


I'd see it as very similar to current laws on shared paths where if
there is an accident between cyclist and ped (or dog) then the cyclist
is at fault. There will always be extenuating circumstances and that's
why you get an opportunity to present your case at court.

DaveB
 
rooman said:
We do not have the infrastructure to provide riding and walking choices such as Europe, but we do have the ability to look at the best of such practcies and seek to integrate them into Australia to deliver outcomes that are effective for the greater community good (health, environment, sustainable transport) at issue with these is the short term profit and interest motive of business and selfish people who resist change as their comfort zone will be shaken up.

Liability and its direct onus on a driver is part of the solution, a vital part.

As does the German drivers test as I've mentioned on a.b several times before. The tests build in anticipation, the need for observation and a emphasis upon motorists being aware of their environment and taking appropriate measures to ensure the safety of other road users.
 
rooman wrote:
> Flip has a nice way with woids... she was also very articulate on 3yAWn
> yesterday...
>
> as I said to the WoJ'ers...you glow girl!
>
> oh yeah , in case you missed it, I suggested to the HuN that we have
> onus of proof on drivers where a bicycle injury occurs....so a
> legislative change is needed down the track, and maybe sooner rather
> than later.
>
> It needs to be a push for onus of liability in the first instance to be
> on the driver of a motorised vehicle in any incident involving a
> bicyclist or a pedestrian , this would not go astray in Oz.


Bunk.

I want to be treated as an equal, I don't need or want to be above the
law. When I ride on the road, I want the same rights, and the same
responsibilities, as every other road user.

Fortunately, your idea won't float, because it doesn't deserve to.
 
Bleve said:
rooman wrote:
> Flip has a nice way with woids... she was also very articulate on 3yAWn
> yesterday...
>
> as I said to the WoJ'ers...you glow girl!
>
> oh yeah , in case you missed it, I suggested to the HuN that we have
> onus of proof on drivers where a bicycle injury occurs....so a
> legislative change is needed down the track, and maybe sooner rather
> than later.
>
> It needs to be a push for onus of liability in the first instance to be
> on the driver of a motorised vehicle in any incident involving a
> bicyclist or a pedestrian , this would not go astray in Oz.


Bunk.

I want to be treated as an equal, I don't need or want to be above the
law. When I ride on the road, I want the same rights, and the same
responsibilities, as every other road user.

Fortunately, your idea won't float, because it doesn't deserve to.
double bunk

Carl, you have the confidence to do that...and good for you, and so do many others, but the equality isnt there...your body is not equal in mass as a 4WD it will crumble and mash up when hit by a driver who considers might is right...you wont be around to say..oops maybe he should have been told he had a primary liability for me as I am the vulnerable road user here.

The European situation is in place , it works.

Its nice to have bravado, but it is little comfort when your dead
 
In aus.bicycle on Thu, 21 Dec 2006 09:41:56 +1100
cfsmtb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> As does the German drivers test as I've mentioned on a.b several times
> before. The tests build in anticipation, the need for observation and a
> emphasis upon motorists being aware of their environment and taking
> appropriate measures to ensure the safety of other road users.


It is clear there has to be a multi pronged approach.

Better training and testing, with a lot of emphasis on anticipation,
and on non-car road users being legitimate rather than "hazards".

Better road design with more attention paid to how various vehicles
interact.

More work on attitudes. for example road safety ads that don't say "it
is Ok to take your eyes off the road and dig around in your bag as long
as you are doing 60kmh not 62kmh"... (Yeah that series of ads ****** me
off big time!). More work on publicising the consequences of careless
behaviour, although how to get people to think "that might be me"
instead of "I'd never be in trouble like that, it is always other
people" is going to be hard.

And of cours ethe biggie. How to fix the underlying problem that car
use is essential to current society so that anything making car use
hard or expensive for any adult is unthinkable and unworkable?

Zebee
 
rooman wrote:
> Bleve Wrote:
> > rooman wrote:
> > > Flip has a nice way with woids... she was also very articulate on

> > 3yAWn
> > > yesterday...
> > >
> > > as I said to the WoJ'ers...you glow girl!
> > >
> > > oh yeah , in case you missed it, I suggested to the HuN that we have
> > > onus of proof on drivers where a bicycle injury occurs....so a
> > > legislative change is needed down the track, and maybe sooner rather
> > > than later.
> > >
> > > It needs to be a push for onus of liability in the first instance to

> > be
> > > on the driver of a motorised vehicle in any incident involving a
> > > bicyclist or a pedestrian , this would not go astray in Oz.

> >
> > Bunk.
> >
> > I want to be treated as an equal, I don't need or want to be above the
> > law. When I ride on the road, I want the same rights, and the same
> > responsibilities, as every other road user.
> >
> > Fortunately, your idea won't float, because it doesn't deserve to.double bunk

>
> Carl, you have the confidence to do that...and good for you, and so do
> many others, but the equality isnt there...your body is not equal in
> mass as a 4WD it will crumble and mash up when hit by a driver who
> considers might is right...you wont be around to say..oops maybe he
> should have been told he had a primary liability for me as I am the
> vulnerable road user here.



You can make the same argument that truck drivers should be
automatically at fault if they hit a car, that bike riders should be at
fault if they hit a pedestrian etc, but it's just as invalid. The
'might is right' argument is fundamentally broken and so is its
opposite of 'weak is right'. Go read John Forester if you want a
detailed position on this. If you like, I can lend you my copy. It's
not the psycopaths you have to worry about (you can't do anything about
them anyway), it's normal drivers doing normal driving and making
normal mistakes, and *riders* doing dumb things in traffic.

> The European situation is in place , it works.
>
> Its nice to have bravado, but it is little comfort when your dead


Again, this has nothing to do with bravado. If you want to make a
*real* difference, start thinking about teaching *riders* safe road
riding skills. We have a vested interest, it's our lives. Forester
quotes some very interesting stats and interprets them well. I suggest,
if you haven't read his take on this, that you invest the time. At
least, you'll understand where I'm coming from with my position on this.
 
Bleve said:
rooman wrote:
> Bleve Wrote:
> > rooman wrote:
> > > Flip has a nice way with woids... she was also very articulate on

> > 3yAWn
> > > yesterday...
> > >
> > > as I said to the WoJ'ers...you glow girl!
> > >
> > > oh yeah , in case you missed it, I suggested to the HuN that we have
> > > onus of proof on drivers where a bicycle injury occurs....so a
> > > legislative change is needed down the track, and maybe sooner rather
> > > than later.
> > >
> > > It needs to be a push for onus of liability in the first instance to

> > be
> > > on the driver of a motorised vehicle in any incident involving a
> > > bicyclist or a pedestrian , this would not go astray in Oz.

> >
> > Bunk.
> >
> > I want to be treated as an equal, I don't need or want to be above the
> > law. When I ride on the road, I want the same rights, and the same
> > responsibilities, as every other road user.
> >
> > Fortunately, your idea won't float, because it doesn't deserve to.double bunk

>
> Carl, you have the confidence to do that...and good for you, and so do
> many others, but the equality isnt there...your body is not equal in
> mass as a 4WD it will crumble and mash up when hit by a driver who
> considers might is right...you wont be around to say..oops maybe he
> should have been told he had a primary liability for me as I am the
> vulnerable road user here.



You can make the same argument that truck drivers should be
automatically at fault if they hit a car, that bike riders should be at
fault if they hit a pedestrian etc, but it's just as invalid. The
'might is right' argument is fundamentally broken and so is its
opposite of 'weak is right'. Go read John Forester if you want a
detailed position on this. If you like, I can lend you my copy. It's
not the psycopaths you have to worry about (you can't do anything about
them anyway), it's normal drivers doing normal driving and making
normal mistakes, and *riders* doing dumb things in traffic.

> The European situation is in place , it works.
>
> Its nice to have bravado, but it is little comfort when your dead


Again, this has nothing to do with bravado. If you want to make a
*real* difference, start thinking about teaching *riders* safe road
riding skills. We have a vested interest, it's our lives. Forester
quotes some very interesting stats and interprets them well. I suggest,
if you haven't read his take on this, that you invest the time. At
least, you'll understand where I'm coming from with my position on this.
Ive read Forrester, I see where you are coming from, I also adhere to Hurst's view (Art of Urban Cycling) and the "vehicular style of riding" which both Forrester ( as proponent) and Hurst ( as commentator) discuss.

Responsiblility for your own conduct is all you can control to preserve your own safety, you cannot stop the dumbass runing into you, and you can stop doing dumbass things...

What is normal is dictated by the environment prevailing.

In this country that includes a very poor education system for riders, especially new adult riders.

Most of the indiscretions we see committed by riders are from riders who have been around alot...red light runners will mainly be riders who are drivers and who have been riding for yonks...you know who they are, you and I see them every day, they dont give **** and will not, ever.

By the same token, drivers continue to answer the mobile, change lanes unpredictably, drive distracted and every day become more and more coccooned and insulated from the outside road environment.

Drivers havnt been fully educated to watch out for riders either, bigger vehicles in the food chain seem to deliver a high degree of right is might and this can only be tempered by education and enforcement.

Under the present system which is vague and offers many outs to drivers and riders, it results in enforcement after the event.

I am suggesting a view that a change to the burden of proof will assist in correcting attitudes before the event. It would raise the perception by those very normal drivers and riders of whom you speak to be more aware, more attentive and better drivers of a lethal weapon and better riders of a vulnerable vehicle.

Forrester and Hurst write of how we must act on a personal level to stay alive within our own control of the environment we engage. That will never change and we all must take responsibility and care for ourselves and assume the other guys is a dumbass who isnt going to do what you expect, except the unexpected.

Normal behaviour is a reponse to what is normal, if we dont have an appreciation in the minds of normal drivers that is reflected in the law we will continue to have drivers thinking riders shouldnt be on the road and they will take the initiative to get them off it, by running you off the road or running you down personally at every opportunity. That is where we are at now...driver aggressive behaviour and media campaigns and commentary derogatory of all riders (shoppers, commuters, moms, dads, kids because of a negative view of riders they dehumanise as "cyclists", not people)

so what else is going to change that...education of new riders is something we have lacked for decades...there is limited scope for that now, bike shops BV and some programmes and BuG classes help here.

If any new rider had to undergo a competency and laws test that would be a good thing, it would probably happen if a licence for adult riders was introduced and would call for training programmes with credentialled instructors and aboc would have heaps of work...( :)) not unlike a motor bike licence with industry credential issuers working for VicRoads. Not so silly.

We have made these suggestions as table items for discussion and consideration in talks with government and will continue to do so, these forums give feedback to all these issues and are valuable to evolve greater safety outcomes for all road users.

One thing that is essential is to cooperate in the process not derogate, there are many schools of thought and we as riders are very close to our passion, so often we reduce our objectivity...I sure as hell am guilty of that... passion is good, balance is necessary and the interests of community benefit is paramount.
 
In aus.bicycle on Thu, 21 Dec 2006 13:28:56 +1100
rooman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> I am suggesting a view that a change to the burden of proof will assist
> in correcting attitudes *before* the event. It would raise the
> perception by those very normal drivers and rdiers of whom you speak to
> be more aware, more attentive and better drivers of a lethel weapon and
> better riders of a vulnerable vehicle.


Suggesting, but haven't really proven or even given much evidence for.


That one change isn't going to make any difference to the majority who
aren't thinking of it at the time. Who is the onus on in rear end
collisions? HOw many of those are there?

If the change needs lots of backup - education, publicity, training,
culture change - then what evidence is there that those things need
the onus changed to be effective?

Zebee
 
rooman wrote:

> Ive read Forrester, I see where you are coming from, I also adhere to
> Hurst's view (Art of Urban Cycling) and the "vehicular style of
> riding" which both Forrester ( as proponent) and Hurst ( as
> commentator) discuss.


Ok, so we're on the same wavelength, at least on this approach :)

> Responsiblility for your own conduct is all you can control to preserve
> your own safety, you cannot stop the dumbass runing into you, and you
> can stop doing dumbass things...


Yep. 100% agreement.

> What is normal is dictated by the environment prevailing, in this
> country that includes a very poor education system for riders,
> especially new adult riders. Most of the indiscretions we see committed
> by riders are from riders who have been around alot...red light runners
> will mainly be riders who are drivers and who have been riding for
> yonks...you know who they are, you and I see them every day, they dont
> give **** and will not, ever.


Yep, and the same mindset is in people that drive at 60 in 40 zones, do
80 in 60 zones etc, people will do whatever they think they can get
away with. This doesn't change much by changing laws, it changes by
increasing the likelyhood of detection (I think, anyway).

> By the same token, drivers continue to answer the mobile, change lanes
> unpredictably, drive distracted and every day become more and more
> coccooned and insulated from the outside road environment.


Yes, because they know they'll most likely get away with it. But these
behaviours aren't specific threats to cyclists, this type of behaviour
kills and maims everyone on the road, not just those of us that choose
to ride bikes.


> Drivers havnt been fully educated to watch out for riders either,
> bigger vehicles in the food chain seem to deliver a high degree of
> right is might and this can only be tempered by education and
> enforcement.


Again, I think that's an incorrect argument. If might was right,
trucks would have right of way, and they don't.

> Under the present system which is vague and offers many outs to drivers
> and riders, it results in enforcement *after* the event.


Errr .. how can you enforce a breach that hasn't happened? This isn't
a Tom Cruise Sci Fi film.

>
> I am suggesting a view that a change to the burden of proof will assist
> in correcting attitudes *before* the event. It would raise the
> perception by those very normal drivers and rdiers of whom you speak to
> be more aware, more attentive and better drivers of a lethel weapon and
> better riders of a vulnerable vehicle.


The goons that buzzed me yesterday morning and sped off at 80 outside
Flinders St station wouldn't care, they know they won't get caught.

> Forrester and Hurst write of how we must act on a personal level to
> stay alive within our own control of the environment we engage. That
> will never change and we all must take responsibility and care for
> ourselves and assume the other guys is a dumbass who isnt going to do
> what you expect, except the unexpected.


Agreed 100%

> Normal behaviour is a reponse to what is normal, if we dont have an
> appreciation in the minds of normal drivers that is relfected in the
> law we will continue to have drivers thinking riders shouldnt be on the
> road and they will take the initiative to get them off it, by running
> you off the road or running you down personally at every opportunity.
> That is where we are at now...


That has nothing to do with a presumption of guilt though, there's no
connection.

> so what else is going to change that...education of new riders is
> something we have lacked for decades...there is limited scope for that
> now, bike shops BV and some programmes and BuG classes help here.


Yes, this is an area where BV really does need to be more active, I
think - rumour has it that there's something in the pipeline, but I
don't have anything firm on it. I've been looking at doing a bunch of
instructional videos to give away, but as a *very* part time coach with
very limited resources, it's non-trivial to do.

Bike-ed at schools could do with a revamp, but our schools have so many
things they need to be doing .. ditch school holidays I say :)

> If any new rider had to undergo a competency and laws test that would
> be a good thing, it would probably happen if a licence for adult riders
> was introduced and would call for training programmes with credentialled
> instructors and aboc would have heaps of work...( :)) not unlike a motor
> bike licence with industry credential issuers working for VicRoads. Not
> so silly.


I don't think it's silly either (see recent comments re powered bikes),
but the outcry from the "I don't want to/It's too hard/it's not
fair/you'll stop people riding" brigade would be deafening. It'd be
like banning recreational fishing - we know it's cruel and inhumane,
but there's entrenched culture that's insurmountable.

> We have made these suggestions as table items for discussion and
> consideration in talks with government and will continue to do so,
> these forums give feedback to all these issues and are valuable to
> evolve greater safety outcomes for all road users.
>
> One thing that is essential is to cooperate in the process not
> derogate, there are many schools of thought and we as riders are very
> close to our passion, so often we reduce our objectivity...I sure as
> hell am guilty of that... passion is good, balance is necessary and the
> interests of community benefit is paramount.


agreed, but that doesn't mean we have to agree :)
 
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 20:56:33 +0000, Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> I presume the point is crashes with no witnesses, or no traffic
> control - in other words red light runners are going to be obvious.


Further - this is even more incentive to do a runner. If there are no
witnesses, and you're guilty by default, then surely the risk/reward of
leaving the scene is more attractive.

--
Dave Hughes | [email protected]
There's no point in being grown up if you can't be
childish sometimes.-- Dr. Who
 
Zebee Johnstone said:
In aus.bicycle on Thu, 21 Dec 2006 13:28:56 +1100
rooman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> I am suggesting a view that a change to the burden of proof will assist
> in correcting attitudes *before* the event. It would raise the
> perception by those very normal drivers and rdiers of whom you speak to
> be more aware, more attentive and better drivers of a lethel weapon and
> better riders of a vulnerable vehicle.


Suggesting, but haven't really proven or even given much evidence for.


That one change isn't going to make any difference to the majority who
aren't thinking of it at the time. Who is the onus on in rear end
collisions? HOw many of those are there?

If the change needs lots of backup - education, publicity, training,
culture change - then what evidence is there that those things need
the onus changed to be effective?

Zebee
Zeebee there is plenty of research..often finding it is difficult..and it exists in respect to parallel issues like child safety on and near roads including but not limited to bicycle riding.

A good offering on these issues is from the OECD and their policy briefs. such an example is this one:
http://www.cemt.org/JTRC/Children-Policy-brief.pdf.

an except is below:

"where they state "Less than a third of the countries had legislation that assumes driver responsibility in a crash involving a child pedestrian; the presence of such legislation dis-tinguished these countries from countries that performed less well in terms of pedestrian safety. Such legislation places the burden of proof on the driver,and the presence of such a law may modify driver behaviour in residential areas and create a more child-centred approach to safety.
Less than a third of the countries had legislation that
assumes driver responsibility in a crash involving a
child pedestrian; the presence of such legislation dis-
tinguished these countries from countries that per-
formed less well in terms of pedestrian safety. Such
legislation places the burden of proof on the driver,
and the presence of such a law may modify driver
behaviour in residential areas and create a more child-
centred approach to safety
OECD publications can be securely purchased
from the OECD Online Bookshop
www.oecd.org/bookshop
The OECD Policy Briefs are available on the OECD’s Internet
For further information
For further information about the OECD’s work on
keeping children safe in traffic, contact John White,
Joint OECD/ECMT Transport Research Centre,
e-mail: [email protected];
Tel: (33-1) 4524-9596.
Page 7
Page 8
FRANCE
OECD Headquarters
2, rue André-Pascal
75775 PARIS Cedex 16
Tel.: (33) 01 45 24 81 81
Fax: (33) 01 45 24 19 50
E-mail: [email protected]
Internet: www.oecd.org
GERMANY
OECD BERLIN Centre
Albrechtstrasse 9/10
D-10117 BERLIN
Tel.: (49-30) 2888353
Fax: (49-30) 28883545
E-mail:
[email protected]
Internet:
www.oecd.org/deutschland
JAPAN
OECD TOKYO Centre
Nippon Press Center Bldg
2-2-1 Uchisaiwaicho,
Chiyoda-ku
TOKYO 100-0011
Tel.: (81-3) 5532 0021
Fax: (81-3) 5532 0036/0035
E-mail: [email protected]
Internet: www.oecdtokyo.org
MEXICO
OECD MEXICO Centre
Av. Presidente Mazaryk 526
Colonia: Polanco
C.P. 11560
MEXICO, D.F
Tel.: (00.52.55) 5281 3810
Fax: (00.52.55) 5280 0480
E-mail:
[email protected]
Internet: www.rtn.net.mx/ocde
UNITED STATES
OECD WASHINGTON Center
2001 L Street N.W.,
Suite 650
WASHINGTON D.C. 20036-4922
Tel.: (1-202) 785 6323
Fax: (1-202) 785 0350
E-mail:
[email protected]
Internet: www.oecdwash.org
Toll free: (1-800) 456 6323
For further reading
Where to contact us?
The OECD Policy Briefs are prepared by the Public Affairs Division,
Public Affairs and Communications Directorate.
They are published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General.

www.oecd.org/publications/Pol_brief
Policy Brief
Keeping Children Safe in Traffic
Keeping Children Safe in Traffic,
OECD (2004), ISBN 92-64-10629-4
Road Safety – Impact of New Technologies,
OECD (2003), ISBN 92-64-10322-8
Safety on Roads – What’s the Vision,
OECD (2002), ISBN 92-64-19681-1
Ageing and Transport – Mobility Needs and Safety
Issues,
OECD (2001), ISBN 92-64-19666-8
Delivering the Goods – 21st Century Challenges
to Urban Goods Transport,
OECD (2003), ISBN 92-64-10280-9
Can Cars Come Clean – Strategies for Low-
Emission Vehicles,
OECD (2004), ISBN 92-64-10495-X
 
In aus.bicycle on Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:25:11 +1100
rooman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> residential areas and create a more child-centred approach to safety.-
> Less than a third of the countries had legislation that
> assumes *driver* responsibility in a crash involving a
> child pedestrian; the presence of such legislation dis-
> tinguished these countries from countries that per-
> formed less well in terms of pedestrian safety. Such
> legislation places the *burden* of *proof* on the *driver*,
> and the presence of such a law may modify *driver*
> behaviour in residential areas and create a more child-
> centred approach to safety


Correlation is not causation,

They imply that the onus is the only difference, I'd be surprised and
would want to see their research.

This extract clearly says "may modify", not "will modify" which is the
claim you made.

Zebee
 
Zebee Johnstone said:
This extract clearly says "may modify", not "will modify" which is the
claim you made.

The extract:

" .. Such legislation places the burden of proof on the driver, and the presence of such a law may modify driver behaviour in residential areas and create a more child-centred approach to safety .."

Put simply into laymans terms, a 100% compliance with any legislation is unattainable in reality when weighing up risk management on public roads. The point you're trying to make, if any, is stretching the bounds and taking the point out of context. Rules and laws are guideslines, humans being the faulty creatures they are, habitually break them, be those actions intentional or not. And hence, that's why the legal system exists.

However proving clearer legal guidelines for education, awareness and accountability can create the means for safer road environment and will assist towards more satisfactory outcomes, than the current laissez-faire attitude on Australian roads. Even the most jaded traffic engineer, police officer or emergency service personnel would probably agree with that point.
 
In aus.bicycle on Thu, 21 Dec 2006 18:13:56 +1100
cfsmtb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
>>
>> This extract clearly says "may modify", not "will modify" which is the
>> claim you made.
>>
>>

>
> The extract:
>
> " .. Such legislation places the burden of proof on the driver, and the
> presence of such a law may modify driver behaviour in residential areas
> and create a more child-centred approach to safety .."
>
> Put simply into laymans terms, a 100% compliance with any legislation
> is unattainable in reality when weighing up risk management on public
> roads. The point you're trying to make, if any, is stretching the
> bounds and taking the point out of context. Rules and laws are


I don't think so. I think they are saying that it might do it, but
they aren't saying it will change anyone. Just that it might.

I think that to read that as "it will except for a few" is foolish.


> However proving clearer legal guidelines for education, awareness and
> accountability can create the means for safer road environment and will
> assist towards more satisfactory outcomes, than the current
> laissez-faire attitude on Australian roads. Even the most jaded traffic
> engineer, police officer or emergency service personnel would probably
> agree with that point.


I think education and awareness are good things. It isn't clear to me
that changing onus on its own will do anything, nor is it clear that
if you have better education and work on changing attitudes that it is
needed at all.

What evidence have you that fewer other things such as education and
awareness will be needed, and what evidence have you that the
ecucation and awareness and other efforts will not work without
changing the onus.


Zebee
 
Zebee Johnstone said:
I don't think so. I think they are saying that it might do it, but
they aren't saying it will change anyone. Just that it might.

I think that to read that as "it will except for a few" is foolish.

The problem here is typical of your comments on a.b, ie: you don't really comprehend what has been presented to you, or you actually don't *want* to comprehend the information at all. What is your magic bullet for 100% compliance amongst road users? Are you actively lobbying in Sydney for legislative change via the cycling groups you are a member of, or is this simply boorish point scoring for no legitimate outcome?
 
Dear Zeebee,

I am not a voice crying in the wilderness here ( well maybe I am down here in hot SE Melb today when I didnt venture out trying not to be smoke asphyxiated...) so with teary eyes (from the smoke that did get in) I say to you ...

China has driver liability, as do France, Belgium, Denmark, Holland, Sweden .

It has become the subject of much wishing and suggestion across the globe.
In NZ (can.org.nz) back in 2003 the Cycling Advocates Network stated it strongly supports the idea of adopting the 'burden of proof' approach, used overseas. This is the principle that drivers of motor vehicles have to prove that they were not at fault for accidents between their vehicle and a bicycle or pedestrian.

In east Kent UK, (spokeseastkent.org.uk), came out strongly and advocated for this back in 2002, when they said automatic liability takes a step forward
in the new law the European Commission was proposing that car and lorry drivers shall always be liable in accidents with a cyclist or a pedestrian. This already applied over much of Europe, it’s why French drivers give a polite little "toot" and pull over when they come up behind a cyclist. The reasoning is simple. The danger always comes from the heavier car or lorry. The "soft" road user as a victim always comes off worse than the car driver. The bigger heavier vehicle is always held to be at fault, lorry to car/cyclist/pedestrian, and car to cyclist/pedestrian. Another argument is that as car and lorry drivers have a compulsory insurance against liability they will have to change
their behaviour. As those of us who cycle abroad can vouch it certainly works. In principle, the biker or pedestrian should never be liable for damage inflicted in traffic and s/he will also be compensated for damage and or injury incurred.
The Netherlands suggested this system eight years ago, with the political compromise that car drivers are always liable for at least 50% of the damage. The original 100% proposal didn’t make it after vehement reactions from the car lobby.

Of course there have been the usual bleats in the UK from people like RAC spokesman Edmund King who has said, "The extra burden could tip more hard-pressed motorists over the edge, into not getting insured." Comments like that are not sought from RAC members but usually come as a knee jerk reaction. The proposal drawn up by the European Commission, was part of an effort to harmonise motor insurance laws across the EU.
Spokes campaigned for this change in the rules for some time.

Again in the UK CTC have a well publicised policy on Driver Liability. it is enumerated below

Driver liability
Driving a motor vehicle is an inherently dangerous activity which, in principle, should impose a high duty of care on drivers towards other road users. The risk of injury on our roads is borne most heavily by those groups who impose the least danger on others – pedestrians and cyclists, children and those with impaired mobility (we refer to these groups as Vulnerable Road Users, or VRUs). The need to correct for similar imbalances of power or vulnerability is recognised by the law in areas such as employment
contracts, employee or public health and safety, and consumer protection. Yet traffic law makes no such provisions, and treats all road users as equals. Consequently the motorists’ duty of care towards other road users is under-recognised, both in law and more generally in public attitudes.
It is worth noting that, in a study of cyclists’ injuries, it was found that the driver was at fault in 65% of cases, whereas blame attached to the cyclist in just 33% of injuries (this dropped still further if child cyclists’ injuries were excluded) . This is all the more remarkable when one considers that the average cyclist is much younger, less experienced and less well trained than the average driver (there is, after all, no minimum age or training requirement for cycling).
In France, Belgium and the Netherlands, the legal position of vulnerable road users is enhanced by laws which effectively mean that, in collisions between motor vehicles and VRUs, liability for personal injury damages suffered by VRUs rest with the drivers involved, unless they can show that the VRU acted in a way that was clearly illegal and/or seriously negligent.
This arrangement means that vulnerable road users can obtain compensation for damages without it being necessary to find a driver to have committed a tort or criminal offence, nor to attach criminal responsibility to the driver as a result. However it reflects the fact that that drivers should expect to share space with all legitimate street users (including children and other untrained VRUs) and therefore have a duty of care to drive in a way that allows for the possibility of unexpected or erratic movement by those users.
Such a law would not (and should not) give vulnerable road users “carte blanche” to act irresponsibly – CTC would not support it if it did. However, assigning the “default assumption” of liability for personal injury damages to drivers reflects the fact that, in motor vehicle / VRU collisions, VRUs are far more likely to be injured than vehicle occupants; moreover (and consequently) they are far less likely to recall how the collision occurred with the clarity needed to be a “good witness” in court. Hence VRU crash
victims often find it very difficult to obtain compensation for damages. This current situation regularly leads to grave injustice, far more serious than anything that could possibly result from reversing the burden of proof in such cases. To give an example, the injustice suffered a child who cannot claim damages despite being maimed for life by a dangerous driver, because s/he cannot provide adequate witness evidence that the driver was at fault, is far greater than the injustice that an entirely blameless drivers
might suffer in the reverse situation – this would usually be no more than the loss of a “no claims” bonus.
CTC view
The law on driver insurance schemes should be changed, so that, where a driver is in collision with a vulnerable road user (VRU, i.e. a pedestrian, cyclist or person with
impaired mobility), the drivers’ insurance would be required to cover the costs of personal damages suffered by the VRU unless the driver could show that the VRU had acted in an illegal or negligent manner such that their standard of road behaviour fell well below what would normally be expected of a person of their age and intellect, or that
another driver involved in the collision was wholly or partly liable.
Mills P. Pedal cycle accidents: a hospital based study. TRL research report RR20, 1989.


The USA is the land of the litigant, so they will never have driver liability, it will limit lawyers case loads, heaven forbid and that is why Forester's views on cycling as vehicles is necessary there.
We do not have the population base to support huge separate riding path infrastructure, again which Forester and others say is of dubious merit and only serves to encourage the incompetant to be more incompetant.

I firmly believe a modification to driver liability slanted in favour of less vulnerable road users will be a benefit. Sure we also need rider education to improve competency and skills. This I see is also strongly the personal responsibility of all riders to equip themselves and their bikes to be suitable road users anyway. Too many adults riding now dont think that way.. they see a bike as something they rode as a kid, they know how to ride it and will venture out onto the road...BUT they dont know how to ride it safely in todays world of volume traffic and an aggressive mindset from many drivers, and the mistakes and inattention ofdrivers and riders can be tragic.

A package that educates, adjusts thinking and behaviour, brings about greater responsibility acceptance and is enforceable where necessary to redress wrongdoings is what I would like to see...of course it must have many elements.

Driver liability is one element I consider worthy of discussion and assessment.