According to this video, the Netherlands in the 70s was car-choked but congestion, child deaths & oil scares led to changes.
Mark Wagenbuur of 's-Hertogenbosch in the Netherlands makes cycling-in-the-Netherlands videos. Some of them go viral. This one looks like it's going to be wildly popular.
Using then and now footage, he argues that the Netherlands wasn't always so bike-friendly. That so many people cycle in the Netherlands is also due to political decisions to reign back the car.
The video will be used by cycle campaigners to show that even the most congested, car-choked cities can be redesigned for people on foot and who travel by bike.
“The Netherlands’ problems were and are not unique, their solutions shouldn’t be that either," said Wagenbuur.
Article continues below
Advertisement
The video ought to be watched in tandem with this film about strict liability, the precept that says the operator of the larger vehicle is to blame for smashes unless this can be proved otherwise. So, an HGV which smashes into a car is automatically at fault; a car which smashes into a cyclist is automatically at fault; and a cyclist who smashes into a pedestrian is automatically at fault. It's important to stress this is for insurance purposes, not for criminal prosecution purposes.
In the video, Hans Voerknecht, international coordinator for Fiets Beraad ('Bicycle Council'), explains how strict liability works in the Netherlands. For instance, it doesn't mean 'terrorist cyclists' smashing into static cars for compensation payments: motorists are not liable in these (fictional) cases. But, when moving, motorists have a duty of care not to hit vulnerable road users.
The UK is only one of four Western European countries that doesn't have 'strict liability' to protect cyclists and pedestrians.
Strict liability entitles a crash victim to compensation unless the driver can prove the cyclist or pedestrian was at fault.
Add a new comment
You need to be logged in to post comments. If you do not have an account then please register.
Comments
2 comments
Personally I think the word Stricter is a poor choice and possibly a failing in the translation process. Gun owners have a presumed liability for any action in which that gun causes damage, death, or injury, even if they are not the person who discharged that gun. THe same should translate to a motor vehicle and this aligns well with the employer liability - for example an employer who employs a driver who has no HGV licence to drive HGV's and requires the driver to work outside the constraints of law, or even commonsense is not the driver of the vehicle but potentially carries a greater guilt, as will the client who demands a continuous pour of concrete but cuts corners by not having a batching plant on site or sufficient holding area for a fresh 'jigger' load of concrete (6-10 cu.m - around 20 Tons typically), so the trucks have to run against the clock to keep the pour fed with concrete. So can we use the term presumed liability - you are driving a vehicle which can cause damage and injury and there is a presumed liability that you will address by driving it with especial consideration for slower and lighter road user who will suffer serious consequences of a collision. In the event of a collision with a lighter and smaller road user you will be presumed liable for this unless the action of that road user is show to have contributed to the outcome in a way you could not have allowed for.
Dave Holladay Oct 22nd 2011 at 5:19PM
0 0"Yes there were some cyclepaths, but they were of an entirely different type than today: narrow, of poor surface, dangerous or absent at junctions and not connected." So why is Britain still building bikepaths exactly like that?
Chris Juden Oct 24th 2011 at 11:52AM
0 0