Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Edinburgh cyclists call for better infrastructure and presumed liability law

Survey coincided with June's Edinburgh Festival of Cycling in Scottish capital...

Cyclists in Edinburgh want to see more off-road or separated cycle routes and restrictions on the number of cars entering the centre of the Scottish capital, according to a new survey.

The poll, commissioned by Allan McDougall Solicitors as part of its sponsorship of the Edinburgh Festival of Cycling, which ran from June 10-18 this year, also saw strong support for tram lines being made safer for people on bikes.

> Cyclists sue over Edinburgh tram track crashes – two lead cases head to court… in 2019

The law firm said that when asked what could be done to make the city’s streets safer for them, cyclists called for changes including:

1. More dedicated, car-free or segregated cycle ways that are connected with each other.

2. Fewer cars allowed on roads in city centres.

3. Checks that installations such as tramlines are safe for cyclists.

4. Penalties for drivers using cycle lanes for driving, stopping and parking.

5. Cleaning and repainting of existing cycle lanes.

6. 20mph default speed limit for all urban areas.

7. Investigation of other cities with better infrastructure.

8. Review of the national transport strategy and budget, with more to be spent on walking and cycling facilities.

9. Road repairs.

10. Removal of setts and speed bumps.

Respondents were also asked about what they did in the event of being involved in a road traffic collision while riding their bike, with many admitting they were deterred from pursuing a claim because of perceived hassle, not knowing how to go about it, and problems in establishing where fault lies.

There was support for the introduction of presumed liability which in civil cases attributes liability to the less vulnerable road user (so, a motorist if a cyclist is injured, or a cyclist if it is a pedestrian who has been hurt) unless it can be shown the injured party was responsible, whether in whole or in part.

The UK is one of just five European Union Member States not to have such a system, the others being the Republic of Ireland, Malta, Cyprus and Romania.

Julie Harris, head of the personal injury team at Allan McDougall Solicitors, said: “We very much favour the introduction of a system of ‘presumed liability’, so that in the event of a road accident involving a cyclist, the vehicle driver is automatically at fault.

“Cyclist safety should also be of paramount consideration when infrastructure is designed. As the greenest way to travel, every effort should be made by local and national government to make it the safest way too.

“As many of us are both cyclists and drivers as well as pedestrians, an integrated approach would be the best way to build awareness and change behaviours.

 

“By pursuing a legal case, an injured cyclist is not just acting in their own interests, but in the interests of the whole cycling fraternity,” she added.

“Often it takes someone to pursue a claim for remedial action to be taken to the benefit of all.”

Edinburgh Festival of Cycling founder and director, Kim Harding, commented: “Evidence from around the world has shown that restricting car use in built up areas makes them safer, more pleasant places to live, work and socialise.

“More walking and cycling is good for health, communities and the local economies: win, win, win!”

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

14 comments

Avatar
JimKillock | 6 years ago
0 likes

Question to Scottish lawyers: is all traffic law a reserved matter, or would it be possible for Scotland to introduce presumed liability? I'd assume it wouldn't be possible, but it'd be interesting to know.

Avatar
giff77 replied to JimKillock | 6 years ago
2 likes

JimKillock wrote:

Question to Scottish lawyers: is all traffic law a reserved matter, or would it be possible for Scotland to introduce presumed liability? I'd assume it wouldn't be possible, but it'd be interesting to know.

Presumed Liability would come under civil law rather than criminal law/traffic law be they criminalise or not. Insurance companies already practice this kind of liability when a motorist shunts another yet they are reticent to apply the same approach when a vulnerable road user is injured or killed. 

The Scottish Government have the ability to implement presumed liability but the don't or won't. A previous transport secretary (Keith Brown) shot it down by claiming there was no evidence that it improved driver behaviour. Meanwhile I have no confidence in the current one in regards to active sustainable transport. 

There is much chest beating and platitudes from the SNP in regards to an increase in the modal share for cycling but it remains stubbornly at around the 2% mark. And as much as we in Scotland would love to see improvements it just isn't going to happen unless we end up with a really radical Transport Minister. They seem to be more interested in duelling roads and building bridges rather than taking on and reducing pollution on our roads and ultimately reducing instances of heart/lung disease, obesity and cancer. 

 

Avatar
RMurphy195 | 6 years ago
0 likes

In my view, presumed liability becomes more important withthe development of self-driving vehicles,and the big question "who is responsible" e.g. the owner, the driver, the company that produced the car, the person who defined the software, the person who wrote it, someone who hacked it, and so on.

Teake care of the victim first, then argue the toss about who stumps up. At present it's the other way around.

Avatar
RMurphy195 | 6 years ago
0 likes

To apply an enforcable speed limit for cyclists would, surely, mean that all cycles would have to be fitted with a working speedometer, illuminated at night, by law?

Avatar
embattle replied to RMurphy195 | 6 years ago
0 likes

RMurphy195 wrote:

To apply an enforcable speed limit for cyclists would, surely, mean that all cycles would have to be fitted with a working speedometer, illuminated at night, by law?

 

Yes but then most of those who can do over 20 mph have bike computers already, using them to track speed, distance, speed, etc.

Avatar
Bmblbzzz | 6 years ago
2 likes

Speed limits apply to motor vehicles only. They don't apply to cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders and horse-drawn vehicles, skateboards, etc. And they're different, in some cases, for different motor vehicles. That's in the UK, in some countries they do apply to all road users. Red lights apply to all vehicles, but not pedestrians, excpet for the red lights at level crossings. Again, that's in the UK, and in some countries they also apply to pedestrians. 

Avatar
kieren_lon replied to Bmblbzzz | 6 years ago
0 likes

Bmblbzzz wrote:

Speed limits apply to motor vehicles only.

Thanks for the correction.  An cyclists is a vehicle but not a motor-vehicle so it seems you are correct.  It seems the highway code is vague but the letter of the law in the road traffic act is specific and in each law I read, it is always "motor-vehicle".

Southwark was to introduce 20mph limits that applied to "vehicles" not "motor-vehicles" which would include cyclists.  There was backlash - I don't know what the outcome was. 
ref: http://road.cc/content/news/124518-southwark-plans-crackdown-20mph-cyclists

Rule 124 of the highway code does not state "motor-vehicle"
"You MUST NOT exceed the maximum speed limits for the road and for your vehicle "

However, interestingly, it seems the 20mph limit for all vehicles including cyclists has had the definition updated to cyclists are now excluded from the speed limit:
ref: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/1194/regulation/1/made

Although unlikely, cyclists could be prosecuted for speeding under "cycling furiously" or riding dangerously or carelessly."  
Sections 28 & 29 Road Traffic Act 1988 may be used to report dangerous and careless cycling respectively. These offences closely mirror the provisions (sections 2 & 3) for motor vehicles
 

 

Avatar
kie7077 | 6 years ago
1 like

Can we have comment notifications back please. I want it and of course it's good for your ad revenue.

Avatar
kie7077 | 6 years ago
2 likes

Speed laws apply to motorists, not cyclists, a 20mph speed limit does not stop a cyclist from cycling at 22mph or 25mph.

I see no good reason why we should not have presumed liability, people seem to miss the point completely on this one, presumed liability is a deterrent from bad driving, that is the main benefit, that benefit faw outweighs any criticisms I've heard of such a law. Right now, there appears to be next to zero effective deterrent in law to stop people from driving badly around cyclists, this needs to change.

Having this law doesn't mean we can't also have other changes beneficial to the uptake of cycling, such as a minimum passing distance law.

Avatar
embattle replied to kie7077 | 6 years ago
0 likes

kie7077 wrote:

Speed laws apply to motorists, not cyclists, a 20mph speed limit does not stop a cyclist from cycling at 22mph or 25mph.

I see no good reason why we should not have presumed liability, people seem to miss the point completely on this one, presumed liability is a deterrent from bad driving, that is the main benefit, that benefit faw outweighs any criticisms I've heard of such a law. Right now, there appears to be next to zero effective deterrent in law to stop people from driving badly around cyclists, this needs to change.

Having this law doesn't mean we can't also have other changes beneficial to the uptake of cycling, such as a minimum passing distance law.

 

The problem with the first is why many drivers will object to presumed liability esp since over the last 30 year I've ridden I personally consider the standard of riding to be terrible with too many WLW (Weekend Lycra Warriors), NB (Neon Brigade), etc. thinking they own the roads or rules don't apply to them yet complaining about others who break them.

 

I've also found it ironic that the class of transport that should think most defensively tends to do it least even though no matter how much neon or lycra they wear they don't become more invincible.

 

I mean I had an interesting mountain bike ride this morning with one utterly moronic car driver who probably shouldn't be on the road and one WLW. So first up is the car driver, while heading to Richmond Park I saw this car driver slowly moving towards a T junction where he stops even though I'm some distance off and he waits for an age before finally deciding to pulling out on to the road I was on when I'm a hell of a lot closer but it doesn't end there since we are heading towards a set of traffic lights at a cross road. The light is red and he drives into the bike box and waits in it until the crossing traffic comes to a stop because they have a red light now but for whatever reason he starts to turn left and drive even though our light hasn't gone green as the pedestrian crossing green man is now active although he did eventually stop when he was halfway through turn and now totally past the bike box. The second incident with the WLW was in Kingston, I was coming up from the John Lewis carparks side and was turning right to go under John Lewis and since I had a green light to proceed the other cyclist on the main road had a red so he had clearly ignored and passed the bus exit and tried to go through the big junction.

 

Avatar
kieren_lon replied to kie7077 | 6 years ago
0 likes

kie7077 wrote:

Speed laws apply to motorists, not cyclists, a 20mph speed limit does not stop a cyclist from cycling at 22mph or 25mph.

Speed laws apply to road users.  Just because you don't have a speedometer or get charged, it does not mean the rules of the road don't apply to you as a cyclist.   Red lights also apply to road users, cyclists included.   It's one rule for everyone, not one rule for some and do what you like for others.

 

Avatar
ipanel replied to kieren_lon | 6 years ago
0 likes

kieren_lon wrote:

Speed laws apply to road users.  Just because you don't have a speedometer or get charged, it does not mean the rules of the road don't apply to you as a cyclist.   Red lights also apply to road users, cyclists included.   It's one rule for everyone, not one rule for some and do what you like for others.

Actually, no, speed limits as defined in the highway code only apply to "motor vehicles", so horses, roller bladers, runners, skate boarders, cyclists, cannot be charged with a speeding offence. No speed limit applies to them.

Red lights of course do apply to everyone. Technically, every time anyone other than a push-bike cyclist enters a cycle box (passes the Advanced Stop Line [ASL]) after the light has gone red (if they have had safe time to stop at the ASL), they have gone through a red light.  Where I live, this is very much more common than cyclists going through a red light.
However, I would like to see cyclists running a red light also be charged. The highway code needs to be enforced, against all.

Avatar
kieren_lon | 6 years ago
0 likes

As a cyclists used to cycling I'm London my opinion may differ from the popular concensus.

1. I don't want a 20mph limit. Comfortable for me is about 22mph and I will be riding faster for a lot of my journey. It keeps in the flow of the traffic, I don't get overtaken as much and I feel safer.

2. I'm not a fan of presumed liability. There are bad road users of all vehicles particularly with a significant minority of cyclists. I would like all road users (unrealistic) to be certified proficient. I'm sure they could fit it in the school curriculum and offer a 1 day moped style CBT course for others. Roads are dangerous - everyone should be at a minimum standard.

Avatar
embattle | 6 years ago
0 likes

Nothing I would disagree with on that list although it lacks any points regarding cyclist responsibilities, hell point 6 could be broken by most cyclists.

Latest Comments