The Driver's Site for the East Midlands

Welcome to Drivers' Union East Midlands.

Motorists & Drivers' Union is at

For specific topics click the appropriate label (above).

Search This Blog

Sunday, 1 June 2014

So why should drivers pay for self imposed danger?

From Local Transport Today (LTT)



More Blog on Boardman & Here







Brenda Mitchell, Cycle Law Scotland
















  1. presumed liability would put the pedestrian as ultimate top dog followed by horse riders, cyclists, motorcyclists, cars, vans, buses and finally lorries, so in this instance it would be on the lorry driver to prove the car driver at fault and so on but the main thing is it's only to do with civil law not criminal law

    1. Of course it's civil law and it will cost us all via the insurance companies. But this isn't to benefit drivers at all. What's so wrong with the current system each case on its merits? HGVs, Cars and walkers are all essential for our survival now so what's horses and cyclists got to do with it? Both are a liability in their own right and totally superfluous so far as maintaining society is concerned. That isn't anti horse or cyclist by the way but a reality on which all policy must be based to be rational now. So what is the strict liability of someone walking along railway lines being hit by a train?

      This is a totally anti driver move that 35 million drivers should oppose if they have any sense.

  2. If someone is walking along a railway line they are guilty of trespass which carries a £1000 fine whereas the roads are open to all that is why it's called a public highway. At the moment more pedestrians than cyclists are being hit by motorists, presumed liability will stop motorists using the SMIDSY excuse to get off

  3. You miss the point. Cyclists choose to do it and society doesn't need them to cycle on roads. So why saddle important and crucial infrastructure for them or horses. Of course pedestrians do come to grief too but at least they are essential for the community but they should still take reasonable steps for their own safety, especially when crossing the carriageway and so all cases should be decided individually on their circumstances too. But let pedestrians fight their corner on their own merit. Why should cyclists hang on to their skirts. We must have pedestrians and protect them as best we can. But everything must be cost effective. If a scheme will cost so much that the money would save more lives in the NHS or with police or rescue services then we are losing the plot. This would be one such example of that.

  4. so all the people who cycle to work, to the shops, ect do not contribute to the economy? pull the other one

  5. Never ever said that. But the economy and society would collapse very quickly without drivers but not so without cyclists. As a liability on essential infrastructure and slowing it, road cycling doesn't help the economy at all.

    Those you refer to, all depend on drivers even if they don't drive themselves. Oh and how much 'shopping' can a cyclist do? A week's shopping for a family of four? Compost and plants from the garden centre? DIY stuff like heavy tins of paint and adhesive? Why are retail centres surrounded by massive car parks? I don't think retailers would miss people on bikes much. So perhaps you should 'pull the other one' :-).

  6. In the past I've managed to get £50s worth of food on the back of a bicycle, a canon pixma mp272 printer, new clothes and even new tyres and I rode perfectly safe and as for slowing traffic down may I remind you of rush hour which converts roads and motorways into car parks, I mean there are zero cyclists on the m25 but at certain times of the day traffic barley crawls along it same goes for other roads oh and what did we all do before the motor vehicle came along how did we manage? pretty good as it turns out if you look at what was invented before the internal combustion engine.

    1. Yes we've all carried daft loads on bikes making them even more unstable. But you miss the point, society must have driving but not cycling. Before internal combustion and steam? The horse, camel, bullocks, carriages, wagons, coaches, traps and so on. Society never expanded on manpowered transport and could not have done either, no matter what that idiot Carlton Reid thinks and writes. :-))

    2. Really? You mean to say the Ancient Egyptians didn't use manpowered transport to move the materials for building the pyramids? They were quite an advanced SOCIETY for their time after all. Venice relied and still DOES rely on MANPOWERED gondola's to transport both people AND goods(though these days it's only for places close to the canals and lagoons), hand carts have also been instrumental in the growth of modern society and even today, some places still rely on them as VITAL parts of socio-economic growth.

      As for society collapsing without cyclists, well, that shows what sort of idiot you are, without people cycling, you would end up with traffic jams that could last for days, such as the one seen in China during 2010 that lasted 9 days and stretched for over 100Km and public transport would be more overwhelemed than it already is, this would be because, if those cyclists didn't use their bikes, they would either use the car or use public transport, just look at what happened during the tube strikes, so face it, motorists and transport companies are basically at the mercy of cyclists but motorists are ALSO at the mercy of those who choose to use public transport, without cyclists nd those who use public transport, it could take a week just to get out of most cities, 2 weeks to escape London, also, nobody said about putting things on the bike itself, there are such things called TRAILERS that you can get for towing behind a bike and yes, I have seen people carrying a full sized fridge/freezer in such a trailer, quite a few times actually, but anyway, please stop talking out of your arse, it's unbecoming of someone at your age to spout such nonsense.

      By the way, I have also saved a copy of everything I have typed here and wll keep posting it until you publish it and finally admit that you're wrong about everything you say.

    3. The Egyptians could only build the large objects locally and most of them were pretty useless. They didn't expand or get their Empire until after they mimicked the Ipsos and their chariots. I am specifically talking of land movement and even boats for distance needed sail until steam or gally slaves for engines in ancient empires. Even our canals ran on heavy loads pulled by horses. As society grew, with faster, long distance, load and people bearing road transport so did population so that now the population cannot exist or sustain without road transport and cars. Do you really believe that all this can now be done by pushbike and manpower? And you call me an idiot? We will let the readers judge who's the idiot.

    4. Society always has and always will rely on some sort of manpower somewhere and society would do FAR better with a few million LESS private motorvehicles(note the word private, meaning cars owned by people like you and me, for personal use), so why would society as a whole, do better without them? For a start, it would severely reduce the strain on the NHS caused by road collisions and obesity, less road collisions would also reduce the strain on the emergency services, traffic jams would be much smaller, allowing public transport and deliveries to get to destinations faster, car parks could be turned into green spaces for people to enjoy and to attract wildlife, did you also know that Brighton has seen MORE trade since more cycle and bus lanes have been put in?

    5. Yes of course but on the roads, only walkers are essential manpower. It doesn't need cyclists. No everything depends on the private car. Unless we sleep at bus termini, airports and railway stations. And all that public transport is operated by people who must have cars. The NHS would fold without cars. It's not 'personal use'. Society is designed around it and depends on it that's why we are 'allowed' to operate these dangerous machines with very little qualification or monitoring. What nonsense? Strain on NHS? With the car we are healthier and live longer. Take cars from the road and society will collapse from lack of basics, including food water and power. Many would die. Of course there will be road death, at the moment after 300 billion driver miles a year, less death on the road from all causes than from accidents in the home. The NHS is killing 30,000 a year from being unable to care. Cars and drivers are keeping sixty million alive so look at the positives from them. Obesity? What's that to do with driving? It's about poor diet, sedentary computer games and tv, and there are much more efficient and safer ways to get exercise than road cycling? It's really not attractive to 90% of the population and only a minority do it or able to do it for very long. Most people don't find cycling viable at all so don't do it. It's like jogging. They may feel superior but most people think it's daft.