The SNP – I've been a member since the 80s – are the
brave party (not Bravehearts, that's a nonsense slur opponents
without a clue throw our way), prepared to make bold political decisions in
order to force change for the better.
Last weekend I attended
my first party conference. I was buoyed by the bold and positive
talk — Scotland can and will be changed for the better. We just
have to work hard to make it happen.
Then came the debate on
cycling:
Conference recognises
the dangers inherent in cycling on busy roads...and supports the
Roadshare campaign for stricter liability as a means of building
mutual respect between road users.
Duncan Ross, chairman
of Glasgow Kelvin, the SNP's biggest branch, was the proposer. His
speech got a good response with decent applause. How dangerous it can
be to cycle on the roads, protected only by lycra, high-vis clothing
and a helmet. Why should the victims of accidents — cyclists and
pedestrians — be the ones who have to prove they weren't at fault?
Why shouldn't the onus (duty of care and legal liability) be on the
people driving the (potentially, often) deadly weapons? My fellow
party members applauded and appeared to agree.
Then came those
speaking against and the brave, bold party started to sound like
dull-as-ditch-water Daily Mail readers.
Cyclists run red
lights. Cyclists ride on the pavements. Cyclists would need to be
insured. Cyclists would need to take proficiency tests. Car insurance
premiums would go up. Poor, poor, unprotected drivers and their
unquestionable right to the road.
I wasn't a delegate,
wasn't scheduled to speak, but I wanted to stand and shout: This
isn't about what's good for drivers, it's about making cycling safer
and more accessible. Drivers have had it their own way for decades,
and look where it's got us.
Almost
every day I
cycle to work — and it's a short 4-mile ride each way — some
idiot driver puts my life at risk, and it's only my preventative
measures, or sheer good fortune, that saves me from injury. They cut me
up, pull out in front
of me, drive onto the advance boxes at junctions, turn left into my
path, etc, etc, etc. And those drivers are so blasé about it. They
simply don't care, about my health or any legal consequences. If they
did, then surely they would act more carefully, right? Would they be so
blasé
if they knew that in the event of any accident they were likely to be
considered liable, that the onus
would be on them to prove that the cyclist they had injured,
or perhaps killed, wasn't to blame? I doubt it.
I passed my driving test less than ten years ago. During my lessons my instructor would often ask why driving in busy traffic made me so nervous. He knew that I cycled in the city — an act he thought bordered on the reckless, like an extreme sport — thought it odd that I would be concerned whilst protected by a car's metal box, crumple zones and air bags. I tried to explain that, when cycling, if I made a mistake I was only likely to injure myself; a driving error could seriously injure or even kill someone else. My nerves came from the sense of responsibility (how altruistic, I hear you cry!).
To my fellow SNP
members who were against the motion, please remember that this is
about protecting the vulnerable, the cyclists and pedestrians. That's
middle-aged men in lycra like me, but it's also kids riding to
school, women choosing two wheels rather than four for their commute,
old folk tootling to the corner shop, families keeping fit together
at the weekend. It's also about the people who would love to ditch
four wheels for two but are petrified of riding on the road.
Stricter liability is
about forcing societal change, as with the gender quotas on public
boards that we voted for at the same conference: society hasn't
changed and women are still under-represented. We go for quotas in
order to force the change. We are the party pushing forward
minimum-unit-pricing for alcohol. Is it popular? Not really. Will it
force societal change for everyone's benefit? We definitely believe
so, the evidence indicates. In despite of opposition from other
parties and the alcohol lobby we stand firm.
So come on SNP, for the
sake of cycling and society, lets not be a party of SMIDSYs, lets be
brave.
More on the Roadshare campaign here.
From a country with strict liability the MSP's comments are idiotic in the extreme:
ReplyDelete"Cyclists would need to be insured."
Wrong. I have normal liability insurance as a person, not as a cyclist. Got it wrong there. Instead of making up stuff, SNP's should be looking at where this already happens and deal with facts, not trying to make up extra barriers to cycling.
"Cyclists would need to take proficiency tests."
We have proficiency tests in schools like the UK, nothing else. So again, evidence from not very far away shows that is nonsense.
"Car insurance premiums would go up. "
As I don't have a car, this may be the case, at least if you hit a Pedestrian/cyclist, but that's kind of the point: if you hit a cyclist or pedestrian in the UK there are practically no consequences. At least in Germany there is some comeback.
I may add that if I hit a pedestrian while cycling, the same applies to me: I am liable, and quite right too. Why should I expect people to leap out of my way so I can ride as fast as I like?
There is strict liability in the Canadian province of Ontario (largely populated by Scots!) and the sky did not fall. Instead, Ontario's roads became the safest of any jurisdiction in North America.
ReplyDeleteNow, that wasn't just strict liability, but a whole package of road safety measures. Including making SMIDSY a confession of criminal negligence and guilt.