Feed aggregator
Standards Australia renews threat of home battery storage ban
If Tesla takes EV charging off-grid, we need to rethink energy
Finkel drops ball on national energy savings scheme
Eco Energy gets approval for three more Qld solar farms
Senvion credits VRET in deal to deliver 429MW Murra Warra wind farm
Finkel modelling ignores new technologies, cheaper renewables
Australian coal power in free-fall, but they making off like bandits
Global Solar Council selects new CEO, Jodie Roussell
Nordic region shines in cleantech innovation leadership
Sungrow PV and Energy Storage Equipment Powers Five Maldivian Islands
NAB keen to value 'natural capital'
Will Australia adopt a Clean Energy Target?
Cars overwhelmingly cause bike collisions, and the law should reflect that
On a Thursday morning in June 1817, the prolific inventor Karl Drais took his Laufmaschine (running machine) for a 13km spin along the banks of the Rhine.
The voyage on the wooden bike, not dissimilar to a modern toddler’s balance bike, lasted just under an hour. The early bicycle sparked an immediate craze, and later versions became a symbol of freedom for workers and women.
Two hundred years after their invention, bicycles are widely recognised as an effective tool to combat physical and mental health problems, reduce congestion on urban roads and improve the quality of the environment.
However, cycling participation across Australia is stagnating. This is mainly because of concerns about safety. A report released last week by the Royal Automobile Association of South Australia found that in the vast majority of crashes the cyclist was not at fault.
To keep our cyclists safe, it may be time to adopt the approach of many European nations by introducing legislation that, in civil cases, presumes that car drivers caused a collision unless there is evidence to the contrary.
Shifting the burden of proof to drivers – who must prove they didn’t cause a crash – has been highly successful in other nations, along with other measures, in keeping cyclists safer and reducing accidents.
![](https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/172671/width754/file-20170607-11311-14wuse7.jpg)
Despite a significant reduction in road deaths in Australia over the past few decades, recent data point to a steady increase in serious injuries among vulnerable road users, including cyclists.
Australia needs serious action if we want to reverse this trend. Last week’s report from the RAA confirms other research in this area, such as a 2013 University of Adelaide study that examined police crash records and found drivers caused four in every five crashes between cars and bicycles.
These results are similar to a Monash University study in which researchers examined camera footage of similar incidents. They found that drivers were responsible for the actions preceding the incident in 87% of cases.
The previous studies show that most of these crashes occur at intersections, and generally involve a cyclist travelling in a straight line on a single carriageway at the time of the collision with the motor vehicle.
The presumption of liabilityPrevious road safety lessons, like the successful seatbelt campaign, tell us education and infrastructure only work in combination with strong regulations. However, legislation in the area of cycling safety is inadequate and puts an unfair burden on cyclists.
Under current laws, if a car collides with a bicycle or a pedestrian on Australian roads, they must make a case against the motorist to claim on the motorist’s insurance. If the insurance company contests the claim, the injured cyclist or pedestrian has to take the case to a civil court.
Surely the burden of proof should shift onto the more powerful road user, especially given that the research suggests they are more likely to be the one at fault.
To do so, we need a presumed liability law that protects vulnerable road users. Similar laws have been introduced in Canada and in many European countries, including the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark and France. Under these laws, sometimes also referred to as “reverse onus” or “strict liability” laws, drivers must prove that a collision with a cyclist or a pedestrian was not their fault.
These laws affect civil cases only and do not remove the presumption of innocence. In criminal law, drivers in collisions with vulnerable road users remain innocent until proven guilty. It’s also not about always blaming motorists; for example, if a cyclist ran a red light and caused a collision, they would obviously be at fault and would not receive compensation.
An Australian version of these laws would mean that cyclists were more likely to be fairly compensated in the event of a crash. More importantly, such laws would encourage motorists to take extra care when driving alongside vulnerable road users. In many European nations presumed liability, which was originally introduced to reduce traffic crashes, is widely believed to be a key component of encouraging safer cycling.
A presumed liability law would encourage the full range of health, environmental and social benefits of cycling, and keep the spirit of Drais’s original Laufmaschine alive.
However, the law alone is not sufficient. Better cycling infrastructure, reduced speed limits in residential areas, and improved education for drivers and cyclists are all needed to keep our roads safe for everyone.
![The Conversation](https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/78922/count.gif)
Soufiane Boufous is a member of the Australasian College of Road Safety Executive Committee, NSW Chapter.
Rare black-tailed godwits released into wild at Welney
Global demand for coal falls in 2016 for second year in a row
UK leads trend away from coal, with use down 52.5%, while China continues to consume less of the dirtiest fossil fuel
Global demand for coal has fallen for the second consecutive year, according to a BP study, helped by the US and China burning less of the dirtiest fossil fuel.
The UK was described as the “most extreme example” of the trend away from coal, which has resulted in use of the fuel returning to levels not seen since the start of the industrial revolution.
Continue reading...The battle for nesting sites among the birds and the bees
Lord Howe microgrid in doubt as Frydenberg rules out wind turbines
Bee swarm swamps car in Hull
Multi-million dollar upgrade planned to secure 'failsafe' Arctic seed vault
Improvements aim to ensure the vault’s role as an impregnable deep freeze for the world’s most precious food seeds after a recent flooding by melting permafrost
The Global Seed Vault, built in the Arctic as an impregnable deep freeze for the world’s most precious food seeds, is to undergo a multi-million dollar upgrade after water from melting permafrost flooded its access tunnel.
No seeds were damaged but the incident undermined the original belief that the vault would be a “failsafe” facility, securing the world’s food supply forever. Now the Norwegian government, which owns the vault, has committed $4.4m (NOK37m) to improvements.
Continue reading...