I was pleasantly surprised to read the above post as it was not at all what I was expecting. To me two of the strongest points were made in the following paragraphs
Like most countries in the world, the Netherlands has a rule by which a driver whose car collides with the rear of a car in front is normally held to be responsible for the collision. The threat of being held liable has not eliminated rear end crashes either in the Netherlands or any other country. Such crashes are rarely intentional. It is a human failing that results in crashes like this occurring. The "strict liability" law in the Netherlands is very similar. It also has not had an appreciable effect on the rate of crashes between drivers and cyclists as these also are not intentional. All it has done is to make clear where financial responsibility lies after damage has been caused.
It is very rare that a more severe punishment results in less crime. If it did, then we might expect that the USA having capital punishment for murder in most states might have eliminated murders in the USA. However, the USA has an intentional homicide rate of 4.8 per 100000 people in comparison with a rate of just 0.87 per 100000 in the Netherlands, where there is no capital punishment. There is no direct relationship between punishment and behaviour. Other factors are involved.
2nd Womble, just where do you get off posting sensible, rational material like that ? I am sure it won't catch on
2nd Womble, some good and valid points there, I believe from the information I have read and doco's I have seen that the Netherlands have drastically reduced their road deaths, injuries and accidents between cars and bikes by introducing a number of key
1 - A road and bike lane network that has been integrated into the city where by both parties can drive and ride without crossing paths (excluding driveways, cross roads etc)
2 - Strict Liability
3 - A basic understanding by 101% of the nation that the road accidents and deaths (at the time prior to these introductions) can quit easily be fixed and need
to be fixed.
4 - A understanding that a vehicle when used incorrectly is a dangerous weapon and if used in that way (whether or it be on purpose or by accident) and someone (i.e cyclist in our case) is seriously hurt and dies, the driver is treated accordingly. It appears that people understand and can see the logic with this in that a car is like a loaded gun, where as here...
I don't believe that one of any of the above three would help us here in Australia, BUT all three... Yes and I would go as far as to say that some sort of method of tracking cyclists is also obviously needed (we all know there's heaps of cyclists out there all day every day breaking the laws)