FOLLOWING this week's debate on Cycle Law Scotland's stricter liability proposals in the Scottish Parliament, I am heartened to see political support for our proposals growing.
All too often, however, I encounter arguments against stricter liability that unfortunately work to obscure the true nature of our proposals.
One of the most frequent is that stricter liability would violate the principle of innocent until proven guilty, as argued by John Maxwell (letters, October 30). However, the concept of innocent until proven guilty exists in criminal law and does not extend to Scots civil law.
Also, as Iain AD Mann said, more cycling-specific infrastructure is offered as the only true solution to cycle safety, but this does not address the fact that right now we must seek to reverse a worrying trend of increased cycle casualties on our roads. By taking steps to extend greater legal protection to vulnerable road users as part of a package of measures we will hopefully achieve a safer environment for those cyclists on our roads and at the same time encourage others to take to the roads.
By slowly chipping away at misconceptions, I'm confident that the public will understand the merit of introducing stricter liability into Scots civil law to protect vulnerable road users. We are not equal on our roads as cyclists and pedestrians are at risk of sustaining severe injury in a collision with a faster-moving and much heavier vehicle. For all of us who drive with care and attention and in accordance with the Highway Code there is nothing to fear from a stricter or presumed liability regime.
Brenda Mitchell,
Founder, Cycle Law Scotland,
16-20 Castle Street,
Edinburgh.
The blinkered and frankly, selfish, views of the cycling lobby never cease to amaze me. Campaigners are once again calling for more money - that will be taxpayers' money of course - to be spent on their hobby, on the grounds that it improves health and helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector.
Cycling on our roads today is akin to bungee-jumping and far more dangerous. Just look at the accidents and casualties which are reported almost daily in the media. I cannot understand why schools, the Scottish Government and other agencies which ought to know better continue to encourage and support this most dangerous and unnecessary mode of transport, given the congested and totally inadequate state of our roads. Many safety experts argue that mixing traffic of very different sizes and speeds is a major cause of many accidents. Once our roads are fixed (and our cyclists are properly trained, licensed and insured), by all means encourage the sport. Until then recognise the dangers and advise accordingly.
The claimed reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is another misconception. How many litres of fuel and how many tons of greenhouse gas are produced daily by lines of vehicles having to slow down to a crawl - often for half a mile or more - before accelerating briskly to overtake a cyclist, only to find the manoeuvre has to be repeated a few yards further down the road? The only real winner seems to be the Treasury, which receives more tax from the unnecessary sale and consumption of extra fuel.
J Napier,
71A Park Street, Alva.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article