"Strict liability" rears its controversial head in Australia

[theclaud]

Well, I'm lumping bicycles in with motorcars as vehicles (albeit human powered ones) and I would add mobility scooters (while moving) to the list as well. Pedestrians, mainly I'm avoiding that can of worms because it truly would be political suicide for someone to try but I agree the argument could be made. Also, in my head we're talking on the carriageway predominantly where as I presume you picture tootling along on a cycle path.

With vehicle speeds, all of them are limited to something, so like the Hummers argument (which I have to say I don't quite get what group you're lumping Hummers in to, big American SUVs?) I don't think they have the same weight to them. Buses and Taxis make sense in bus lanes, if anything adding bicycles is the anathema (not that I'd like to see that stopped).

If you want to debate for the hell of it then alcohol would probably be the obvious one to question why there's no law against it. It definitely contributes to more injuries than mobile phones in anyone's hands and so if we're arguing civil liberties then that would be the obvious one, but that's SCP territory and there's a reason I try not to get involved in that one.

I think he's just pointing out that All Things Are Not The Same. Restricting the freedoms of motorists does not in any way imply that we should restrict the freedoms of pedestrians or cyclists.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

And yet surely there are some laws that make sufficient sense to be applied to more than one person? We are after all, all unique.

 

[Markymark]

Sorry, probably not clear. Show me any links of serious injuries attributed to a cyclist on a phone.

My guess is that the speed cyclust go and the momentum they carry means that collision avoidance is probably much easier in s bike.

My point is that I thinkit happens so rarely that it's not really worth bringing in legislation t cover it.

Yes I'm sure there's lots of scenarios where people wil be killed. But after how many years of phones and cyclists and no accidents do we need to say, actually, it ain't really a problem worth worrying about

 

[mjr]

Pedestrians, mainly I'm avoiding that can of worms because it truly would be political suicide for someone to try but I agree the argument could be made.

And that illustrates the absurdity of the argument... it should fail the laugh test for cycling too. Sadly, we are no longer numerous enough for suggesting it to be political suicide. I hope we can fix that.

 

[jefmcg]

Um, you can drop the talk about whether cyclists are a danger to other road users. Victoria (along with the rest of Australia) has a compulsory helmet law. IE they are happy to have laws that are only designed to protect cyclists from themselves. So that's probably the reason for the mobile law.

Though if you had strict liability, it would make sense to have laws to makes cyclists safer for the sake of a driver who might run into them.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

Sorry, probably not clear. Show me any links of serious injuries attributed to a cyclist on a phone.

Sorry, probably not clear.

Notice I've not said 'and are contributing to major loss of life and limb'. You do realise that the argument 'we only hurt you a bit when we hit you, not enough to go to hospital or anything' is still facile right?

How would you like me to reword that for you?

And that illustrates the absurdity of the argument... it should fail the laugh test for cycling too. Sadly, we are no longer numerous enough for suggesting it to be political suicide. I hope we can fix that.

So, you see nothing wrong with a cyclist riding down the road with a phone to their ear having a conversation, or maybe texting someone? There's nothing there that you think might contribute to the image of cyclists as irresponsible and not valid users of the public highway? I presume you've no problem with someone trundling along in a car at 4mph in traffic checking their facebook? You do realise most pedestrians aren't walking along at 12-15mph yes?

If a pedestrian can do it, so can way. Valid argument? To take a leaf out of your book, if a policeman can do it, should I? A doctor? A soldier?

 

[Markymark]

I can think of lots of reasons. Do those reasons turn into actual real incidents? If not, who cares as it doesn't happen.

 

[mjr]

So, you see nothing wrong with a cyclist riding down the road with a phone to their ear having a conversation, or maybe texting someone? There's nothing there that you think might contribute to the image of cyclists as irresponsible and not valid users of the public highway? I presume you've no problem with someone trundling along in a car at 4mph in traffic checking their facebook? You do realise most pedestrians aren't walking along at 12-15mph yes?

And when did you stop beating your wife, eh?

It's not great, but the suggested solution is disproportionate. The "image" thing is largely unrelated to reality anyway. I suggest that far more motorists are fiddling with their phones than cyclists and it largely goes unpunished. And you do realise most cyclists aren't riding along at 15mph, yes?

In general, though, I'd prefer it if you argued with points put forward, rather than building strawmen arguments that no-one is making.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

I think we've pretty much argued in to a cul de sac anyway. A bunch of us think it's fine, a bunch of us think it's un-needed. I've not really seen any counter arguments likely to change the status quo on that.

Incidentally, I'd actually guesstimate that most of the commuters I see on my route (which is most of the cyclists I see) are doing around 14-15mph average, I was comfortably on that when I was healthy and unwell am sitting around 12.5. At 15 I overtook a few people, but was rarely caught and overtaken. At 12.5 I'm overtaken multiple times a ride. So I'm comfortable with the estimate. Still, that's probably bloody Londoners for you or some such isn't it.

 

[mjr]

Still, that's probably bloody Londoners for you or some such isn't it.

Possibly. London's a bit different. Cyclists seem to push on more, and as you alluded to earlier, you're talking on the carriageway predominantly and I suspect some fairly motor-infested major ones? I'm not pootling, but I am on modal-filtered streets and cycleways a lot more when I'm not in London, so it's more about smooth progress.

I know from riding on London streets, there's a lot to watch out for there, so I'd agree that phoning while cycling would be reckless, but there's already laws against reckless, aren't there? I don't feel it's quite the same while people freewheel into town here alongside the railways and rivers - assuming they pass the Darwin test and stay out of them! - so a blanket ban seems a bit over the top.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

I don't know how Australian law deals with reckless but it wouldn't be the first time a government has brought in a law that overlaps an existing law. There is, after all, no talk of banning mobile use by cyclists in the UK yet and if we start adopting Aussie laws I'm guessing helmets would be higher up the list, Bob forbid.

As for 'well it's not a problem here' that tends to be dealt with by common sense and it's not really bylaw territory. Again, and I reiterate I'm not on some 'ban mobile use band wagon' I'm just a bit surprised at the right to ride and text brigade (possibly the recent Amsterdam trip again where a significant percentage of riders were concentrating on mobile phones, probably to distract themselves from the creaks, groans and dragging chain noises coming from the wrecks they were riding) decrying the idea that the freedom might be removed, if laws are deemed to be needed they stand a good chance of being based on city problems (most likely London) as that's where the politicians are and they really aren't that clever.

 

[Pathfoot]

The main one I would question on that is "on-the-spot fines to cyclists who ride while talking on their mobile phone" - does that actually show up as dangerous to anyone except themselves?

It would be interesting to see if there's any statistical information available on that. However, a cyclist hitting a pedestrian at speed is still propelling enough momentum to cause injury or worse, and the risk of mobile phone use is that it diverts attention from roadcraft. If the phone-using cyclist loses control, the risk is that other road users may be forced into emergency manoeuvres, with the risk entailed in those. The overall risk of phone use may not be as high as for a motor vehicle user, where a short time means a longer travelling distance, but it may not be negligible either.

 

[classic33]

@Shut Up Legs, any idea if this has come about as a result of the 89% increase involving cyclists?
This in the period of 2008-09, compared to 2001-02.

 

[classic33]

Just seen the piece infrastructure-vs-helmets/ at the bottom of your post. Recent survey filled for stayin alive at 1.5 on that.
Its making its way up here.

 

[snorri]

As I understand it, no country in the world has a policy of Strict Liabiity relating to road traffic law, With 3 or 4 exceptions, the UK being one, Presumed Liability is the norm throughout Europe.