Eilidh Cairns was death number 2009/2, in the eyes of Police and Transport Authorities, an inevitable accident that happens to people who walk or cycle.
Tha National Audit Office has laid bare what we have been saying for years: British authorities are the most callous and devious in Europe: they emphasise the low overall death rate on the roads and disregard the scandalous butchery of vulnerable road users: the ratio of pedestrian deaths/total road deaths is the highest in the continent.
Kate, Eilidh’s sister is calling for witnesses of the crash, “For me, I need to know why. I need to know the chain of events that occurred that today leaves me with a big gaping and aching hole.”
We wholly sympathise with Kate’s feelings. However from a policy point of view, we don’t need witnesses. The system needs to change: if you kill someone while in charge of a vehicle, you are automatically sent to jail and you will never be able to drive again, unless you can prove that the victim was commiting suicide. For crashes of lesser impact, the penalty would be commeasurably smaller.
Whenever such a change is proposed in this country, the Daily Mail and other Middle England idiots, rage that it is unfair.
Let me spell out the logic:
Under the present system, the cost of an error by a pedestrian or a cyclist is death. The cost of an error by a driver is a small fine.
Under the proposed system, the cost of an error by a pedestrian or a cyclist is still death, so there will be no behavioural change: people will still walk and cycle with care. The cost to the driver however is much higher, no matter the cause: this will produce behavioural changes: drivers will look and stop before turning left, will not drive so close to cyclists and will slow down. This will greatly diminish the number of crashes caused by drivers, which constitutes the large majority of crashes which involve vulnerable road users. A few people will lose their licence because of someone else’s error, a lot more people will not lose their life because of someone else’s error.
What is unfair about that?
Top picture: Cycle Chic Racing Style, originally uploaded by Mikael Colville.
Not Found
The requested URL was not found on this server.
Powerhost Unix1 - For more information, see http://www.newnet.co.uk
What is proposed here has been law in France for decades, and as far as I'm aware, it's law in most other EU countries. As you say, when it was proposed for Britain a few years ago the Clarksons and Daily Fascist brigade went ballistic.
My solution. Move to France.
George Monbiot has similar views to us.
[...] velorution No need for witnesses: .) Share and [...]
I can't help wondering if it might be possible to challenge this discrimination against the vulnerable on the basis of equal protection before the law. In countries with constitutional or legal rights charters like the US and Canada, this is a quite plausible weapon in changing the way the laws are framed and enforced. In Britain, with its more patchwork constitution based as much on custom as on written law, it seems less clear to me how this works. Is equal protection before the law enshrined in customary law or guaranteed by any international instruments the UK has ratified, such as the UN rights conventions or EU human rights laws?
Our daughter Jessica attended the Royal School Armagh, Northern Ireland…but needed to return to Canada to be her (aging – she thought) parents. 18 months later – she is killed. A “routine traffic fatality”. Jessica was at a pedestrian crossing on the sidewalk, with a green light in her favour – a 12 wheel lorry mounted the sidewalk and took her life. Not before she had time to save her young brother (London born – Peter Luc). Under Quebec (Canada)'s insurance scheme (Reward scheme)…the driver was AWARDED with 90% of his salary while the family struggle with the senseless death of their beautiful daughter and sister. Peter Luc, then 10, was hit in the head by this massive vehicle and the family also are left to fund more than 60% of the cost of his rehabilitation. …..for more information you can read the story at http://www.thejessicacampaign.com. I FULLY SUPPORT YOUR SYSTEM – and would like to add my name to your list of supporters.
Of course, it's the same rule over here in NL too. Motorists have to prove a lack of responsibility. They are expected to take care with their dangerous vehicle around vulnerable road users. It's not “unfair” or “anti-car”, it's simply behaving in a civilized way.
It doesn't, of course, mean that Dutch drivers behave perfectly. In fact, while they seem a bit better inside residential areas, I don't think they behave very differently elsewhere. The much better safety of cyclists here vs. the UK is due to the infrastructure differences, not due to training of drivers or cyclists.
raising fines & punishments is not a very effective tool for traffic management. You can raise the fine for speeding – but people will still speed anyway if the road is designed for higher speeds. You have to change the infrastructure. Curbs don't stop lorries. Bollards do. A bumpy brick path will result in lower speeds than a smoothly paved street. We could also discourage use of lorries and cars in favor of bikes and rail, for both transit and cargo.
I have a similar view. The UK government, police 'et al' are currently being complacent about road deaths, as this article shows re: Great Britain slipping down the European road safety table.
The UK once had roads that were the safer than any of our European neighbours. This is no longer the case – and that problem needs tackling now.
mark.
An error is always an error.. no excuses.. A little error will always cause a accident especially in the road..
I hope the police will not abuse their power against the drivers,,