A lot of kids are killed every year because they dart into the road without looking. We need to contain cut-thru traffic and enforce caution (25mph is too fast on residential streets), but it’s also imperative to teach kids responsibility with their bicycles.

Kevin’s comment:
The concept of “innocent until proven guilty” is a standard part of British-derived criminal law in Canada, the USA and other parts of the world that inherited British-developed concepts of democracy and human rights.

But I wasn’t writing about criminal law. The Ontario statue is about civil liability. The onus is upon operators of motor vehicles to avoid hitting other persons or things upon the road. And if one of them does hit a cyclist, they are responsible for paying for the damages they cause and can be sued in civil courts. If a motorist does cause damage and is sued, he is assumed to have been negligent unless he can prove otherwise.

Even in the USA (at least in Wisconsin, I don’t know about Florida) it is much easier to establish responsibility in a lawsuit than a criminal conviction. As a certain O.J. Simpson famously found out.

The standard for a successful lawsuit is that of “balance of probability.” Are the odds 51% or higher?

The standard for a criminal conviction is “beyond reasonable doubt.”

As a matter of practical working out, the civil negligence statue in Ontario is an extremely valuable tool for cyclists. There have been several well-publicised cases where motorists who caused serious injuries have “beat the rap” criminally, but were found at fault when sued. And were awarded damages substantially in excess of their (mandatory) drivers’ insurance policies so as to be sued into bankruptcy.

I constantly read in USA newspapers about children who were killed on the road and the motorist says things like “she darted in front of my car.” Consequences = zero. In Ontario, that motorist would be about to lose everything he owns.

The result is that people driving cars do so very carefully in residential areas so that they don’t hit children. Or cyclists.

193. (1) When loss or damage is sustained by any person by reason of a motor vehicle on a highway, the onus of proof that the loss or damage did not arise through the negligence or improper conduct of the…is upon… the operator of the motor vehicle.”

In the USA, citizens are held innocent by our government unless the government can prove otherwise in most cases. Sadly, this principal is subject to an ever decreasing sphere of American life.

http://soc.kuleuven.be/io/ethics/paper/Paper%20WS5_pdf/James%20Dunn.pdf

Summary: Are the ethical problems more serious when one side in the debate bases its policy recommendations on moralistic claims of fostering the public interest, enlightened inter-generational stewardship, and saving the planet, while the other side makes its case on market efficiency, majority rule, and freedom of consumer choice?

In developing policies to reduce the negative externalities of the automobile in democratic nations with widespread auto ownership, they should consider the principle that mechanical engineering is almost always easier and more cost effective than social engineering.

Responsible public administrators and policy analysts have an ethical obligation to critically examine the assumptions behind their preferred programs, to continually and carefully consider the arguments and the data that are raised by the program’s critics, and to be ready to use their expertise to revise or replace such programs when the facts warrant it.

“If you wanted to change the law to the way it is is in the Netherlands where a car driver is automatically thought to be at fault…”

Kevin’s comment:
We have the same law here in Ontario. Does Florida not have something similar to this?

Onus of disproving negligence

193. (1) When loss or damage is sustained by any person by reason of a motor vehicle on a highway, the onus of proof that the loss or damage did not arise through the negligence or improper conduct of the owner, driver, lessee or operator of the motor vehicle is upon the owner, driver, lessee or operator of the motor vehicle. 2005, c. 31, Sched. 10, s. 3.

Source:
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h08_e.htm#BK279

And that is what matters, is it? Having ridden on cycle tracks, I think they are as unsafe as riding on sidewalks here.

More people on sidewalks or cycletracks doesn't make anyone safer.

If you wanted to change the law to the way it is is in the Netherlands where a car driver is automatically thought to be at fault and to back in time and change things where 75% of the population after WWII rode bicycles to work, I would think that you and Kevin would have a point.

bicycle ridership in The Netherlands has risen faster than the population growth. This means, more people adopt the supposedly inferior bicycle infrastructure every day.

What Kevin is inching towards is that if more people bicycle, the chances of car-on-bike accidents will reduce. Bike-on-bike accidents are much less severe.

Yeah, I think most folks already understand that.

Kevin’s comment:
The key difference is that when rude people in cars hit me, I am much more likely to die.

Ah, Keri points us to some yummy irony this morning. Many anti-car bikeway advocates are promoting bicycle facilities which make auto use easier (at least at the most obvious level) by getting bicyclists out of the way of motorists.

Some years ago a local anti-car, pro-cycle-track woman (who was not much of a cyclist at all, but was a car owner) spoke to our Citizen’s Advisory Committee on the benefits of cycle-tracks. One committee member (a former bike shop owner) related his story of visiting The Netherlands in the 1950s. He said car travel was slow-going in some places due to all the bicyclists, who basically took over the roadways. I imagine Dutch motorists are probably happier these days with cyclists out of the way on many major streets.