Flying Kites?

I see that a number of people have picked up on this story and run with it. Perhaps, though, running is not the thing to be doing. The Times sub heading on this one is somewhat misleading:

Ministers are considering a far-reaching change in the law in a bid to promote greener transport

Really? So why were none of these ministers quoted? It’s always a good idea with these stories to ask the pertinent question; “which ministers?” and “what precisely are they saying about it?”

Perhaps there is no quote in the Times because ministers aren’t actually considering anything at the moment – or at least, not overtly. This is a kite flying exercise, I suspect, and it is a fake charity, Cycling England that is doing the flying. I notice that a few people have suggested as much in the comments to the blog posts I link to, but they have largely been ignored.

All that said, the proposal (whoever is making it) is the antithesis of natural justice, the approportioning of blame irrespective of negligence is deeply immoral. The excuse offered that other countries have introduced such a measure is neither here nor there – other countries do not necessarily have common law and as such, should not be emulated. Tort Law has developed in England since Plantagenet times and is a mature and robust system. At its heart is the principle that we owe our neighbours a duty of care. So, when out on the roads, we are obliged not to kill or injure other road users – whatever our own mode of transport. Sounds sensible. Indeed, it is sensible. Therefore, if I fail to exercise due diligence and dent your metalwork, you may sue me and my insurer will pick up the tab and vice versa.

If, however, an un-insured road user causes an incident, things become murky. A pedestrian once stepped between two parked cars into my father’s path, causing him to come off his motorcycle. She admitted there and then that it was her fault for not looking before stepping off the pavement, but, no matter, as my father was the insured road user, the NHS sent his insurer the bill for the ambulance – so, this article is merely expanding on an insidious practice that has been going on for some while. The accident I just mentioned happened in the nineties.

But, but, but, common law places a responsibility on all of us to avoid endangering others by our actions or omissions. Hence, the cyclist who fails to observe the rules of the road or fails to put lights on at night is guilty of negligence and may cause an accident as a consequence – and they must accept the consequences of that negligence. That someone else should be forced to pay for that negligence goes against the very principle of tort law and is contrary to justice. But, then, such things are but tender reeds drowned in a torrent of totalitarian thought dressed up as environmentalism. Who cares about justice if it forces people out of their cars in the name of the new green gods and goddesses?

As a motorcyclist, I am a vulnerable road user. Consequently, I ride defensively as I have no wish to end up dead before my time. This means that I assume other road users are homicidal maniacs and take avoiding action accordingly. I will give way rather than endure a collision, ease off and let someone pull out who has clearly not looked. So what? I live to ride another day. I have a highly developed sixth sense that alerts me to stupid behaviour microseconds before it occurs. This keeps me alive. I don’t worry about fault, I simply avoid getting involved – more of which in a moment.

My work takes me across the length and breadth of England. As I have to cover around 30,000 miles per annum – not to mention commuting from southern France to get here – trying to do this on a bicycle is a laughable suggestion. It isn’t going to happen, not least given that my clients may be several hours drive apart. My cycling, therefore is strictly for leisure and no amount of pious greenery is going to change this. I use the car for work and intend to continue doing so.

One commenter on the blogs covering this (I think it may have been Iain’s) mentioned a principle of advanced driving – that every accident is the driver’s fault. What this commenter was driving at [sic] was the defensive driving approach I take when on the bike and carry with me in the car. It is to assume that every accident is avoidable with appropriate awareness and anticipation – to take responsibility for avoiding someone else’s accident and not to get involved. This is a sound approach to driving, but with the best will in the world, is not perfect. There is always the really, really stupid road user out there who does something so utterly unexpected, that even the most careful and aware driver can be caught out. Taking responsibility for avoiding other peoples’ accidents is not the same thing as accepting responsibility for their negligence and nor should it be.

As this government totters towards well deserved annihilation at the polls – at least, I bloody well hope they will be annihilated – I expect we will see more of these batty schemes being floated by the vested interests that have been nurtured under New labour. Quangos and fake charities full of the nasty, envious and downright insidious little creeps who are the parasites that live off the decaying flesh of a rotten, corrupt administration. Afraid that their host is dying, they seek to find themselves a new one before the decay is brought to an abrupt end with the clean gunshot of the ballot box. They must be denied that life. They are a part of the rotten carcass and must be cleaned out with the stinking, fetid host upon which they have flourished this past decade.