8. LEGAL POWERS
This section focused on five questions regarding the use of legal powers.
8.1. CHAPTER SUMMARY Changing the liability law to match the laws of many European countries was extremely popular with respondents, stakeholders and Local Authorities. It was seen as an effective way of impacting on the current driver culture, which many felt ignored the needs and rights of people who cycled. A minority view suggested that cyclists were sometimes at fault and hence did not think drivers should always be blamed. For many respondents, a road tax on cyclists was seen as a bad idea, pointing out that cyclists did not pollute the air or damage the roads, and already contributed to the roads budget through general taxation. The idea of all users paying tax was also criticised on the basis that its premise meant pedestrians and child cyclists would also have to pay. It was pointed out that a tax on cyclists would be inefficient to collect. A very small minority of views suggested a tax would be acceptable if the money was hypothecated for cycling improvements. Current enforcement was criticised and many respondents wanted stricter penalties for drivers who broke speed limits, parked on cycle lanes and occupied advanced stop lines. Both these violations and the laxness in enforcing against them were seen by some to reflect a culture where the cyclist was unimportant, which had to change. Local Authorities pointed out that additional enforcement had to compete for limited resources and suggested more funding was needed to improve enforcement. Shared paths was an issue that split respondents. Many backed the view that vulnerable groups could not be guaranteed protection on shared paths from cyclists. Many also felt that promoting paths would lead to drivers believing cyclists should not be on the road at all. Shared paths were backed by some respondents, suggesting they could be used to link up routes and create better networks. They were also suggested as a way of making novice cyclists more confident. Local authorities said it was expensive to redetermine paths as the regulations to do so were complex. Respondents felt Local Authorities had to take forward redetermination proposals, with the Scottish Government and maybe RTPs or Transport Scotland providing oversight, guidelines and standards. Local authorities themselves identified a specific role for the Scottish Government, saying the regulations governing redetermining paths and dealing with objections needed to be simplified, possibly by legislation. The Scottish Government was also identified as the prime mover in efforts to have the liability law changed and a module on cycling added to the driving test, as this would require cooperation with the UK Government. |
8.2. Question 9: Should Liability Laws be changed to give cyclists (and pedestrians) more protection?
While a considerable majority of a respondents focused a great deal on driver behaviour and what could be done to change it, some also believed that cyclists' own responsibilities should not be neglected.
8.2.1. Protecting Cyclists
Changing the liability law and giving cyclists more protection was on balance, quite popular. There was a belief that cyclists should have more protection, especially from careless motorists and bus drivers. One respondent contrasted the experiences of cycling in Scotland with Canada, where bus drivers kept a respectable distance.
Many agreed that the laws should be changed to make sure the liability was on the driver to prove he or she was not at fault for an incident. The action to study European Laws on this matter was welcomed by many respondents who agreed that changing the law would make drivers be more aware of cyclists and their rights on the road. Many Local Authorities have also welcomed this proposal.
More detailed suggestions include ensuring that culpability is with the group of users higher up in the hierarchy, so groups less vulnerable are more culpable. A council has proposed liability in any incident could lie with the vehicle travelling at the faster speed.
8.2.2. Potential Issues
Some respondents said there was not enough information on the existing liability law to make an informed decision. There was a call for more clear cut information as a few respondents felt the proposed idea was to always make drivers liable in the event of an incident, regardless of whether the cyclist was at fault. The legal implications have not been understood by many respondents and some have chosen to not answer this question. A couple of Local Authorities also declined to comment.
A few respondents were of the opinion that liability laws should not be one-sided and cite the example of shared paths, where pedestrians need protection from cyclists. One respondent suggested focusing instead on segregated lanes, which would avoid these problems.
A minority of respondents believe the law should not be changed. A couple of responses suggested focusing on prevention of accidents. A respondent suggested car drivers should not have liability if cyclists choose to cycle on the road rather than a provided cycleway. A number of respondents also mentioned the need to include horse riders in any hierarchy of users.
8.3. Question 10: Should all road users pay road tax? If so, how much should it be for cyclists and how could it be enforced?
There was considerable consensus on this issue, with most respondents saying taxing cyclists was a bad idea (see Chart 1) which would discourage potential cyclists. Many also felt cyclists shouldn't pay tax for a variety of reasons.
8.3.1. Current form of taxation
A lot of respondents pointed out that the current system of taxation is based on emissions and that either by this logic or by the logic of taxing according to damage done to roads, cyclists would not qualify for any form of tax. Some respondents went further in pointing out that even current taxes on cars don't actually account for all externalities caused by driving. A considerable number of respondents also pointed out that many cyclists own cars and pay Vehicle Excise Duty in any case.
8.3.2. Positive contribution
Most respondents pointed out that cyclists did not emit any pollutants and that by cycling they were making a positive contribution to congestion and the environment. A number of people pointed out that roads are damaged far more by cars and Heavy Goods Vehicles than cycles as damage to roads is proportional to the weight of the rear axle of the vehicle. Some respondents even felt cyclists could be given rebates on the basis that they were contributing in a good way to society.
8.3.3. Inefficient to collect such a tax
If such a tax was implemented, most respondents were worried that administrative costs would be more than what the tax raised. A number of people pointed out taxing on the basis of road damage would mean the level of tax would be between 2p and 10p thus making it completely inefficient to set up a system to collect this tax.
It was also pointed out that road maintenance is paid for from general taxation and cyclists contribute to this via Income Tax, Council tax, VAT and so on. Furthermore many respondents felt that the term 'all road users' would by definition have to include pedestrians and child cyclists, thus making it unlikely a tax of this form would be accepted.
8.3.4. Hypothecation
It was pointed out that despite misconceptions, the current system of taxation was not hypothecated and that money collected via VED was not spent on road maintenance. There was a view that if any tax was implemented, any money raised should be put back into better cycling facilities. Most felt however such a tax would be regressive and discouraging. A number of stakeholders and all Local Authorities who responded were also against any form of cycle tax (see Chart 2).
Chart 1 - Percentage Spread of Individual Responses
Chart 2 - Percentage Spread of Organisations' Responses
8.4. Question 11: Should current powers of enforcement be better used? If so, which ones and how?
This question on enforcement produced a wide range of responses. Though the majority focused on enforcing laws against drivers, some felt cyclist behaviour should also be controlled.
"If we want more cycling, speed limits should be more strictly enforced. The benefit to society generally in terms of reduced CO2 emissions and reduced accidents would more than outweigh the additional costs of enforcement." - An individual Respondent |
8.4.1. Controlling Driver behaviour
A major cause of concern was the way drivers drove in general, often ignoring the rights of cyclists on the road. Many respondents felt drivers were often careless or even drove dangerously and that a cultural step-change in attitudes was needed before on-road cycling became perceived as safe. There was support for including a module on cycling as part of the driving test.
Two common responses to this question also focused on drivers parking in cycle lanes and drivers ignoring speed limits. Another frequent cause for complaint was drivers occupying advanced stop lines ( ASLs).
Some respondents suggested double yellow lines in cycle lanes to ensure cars did not park over them and block them. It was also suggested that adopting similar legislation to the English Traffic Management Act 2004 would allow local authorities to enforce moving offences (such as speed limit violations) and simplify enforcement over offences such as parking on kerbs.
Speed limit enforcement was a common theme in respondents' replies. The fear of fast traffic was the major concern for all on-road cyclists and for all potential cyclists who listed it as the main reason they avoided the road. Many respondents backed the move to introduce 20 mph and several Local Authorities also welcomed this, alongside better enforcement of existing limits. A few respondents suggested that speed cameras be concealed. Some respondents wanted car drivers using mobile phones to be fined and warned as this was seen to be a common cause of distraction for drivers.
Some Respondents wanted offences against cyclists to be linked to driving bans and higher penalties, especially if offences caused injury. Many respondents felt drivers did not take the issue of cyclist safety seriously and that the law needed to be more strictly enforced. Many felt that cyclists needed priority in planning and implementation, so drivers would be more aware that they existed.
Many respondents were dismayed by the perceived attitude of the Police to cyclist incidents and suggested they needed to change their views of enforcement. Some respondents asserted that it was very difficult to take things further with the Police as it was not a high priority for them.
8.4.2. Controlling Cyclist behaviour
Several respondents said cyclists who jumped red lights should also be disciplined as such behaviour gave cyclists a bad reputation. Cyclists who used pavements also caused considerable consternation to respondents, though a few defended this behaviour.
A pedestrian respondent suggested pavement cyclists posed a menace to pedestrians and that this should be strictly enforced against. Many respondents who were cyclists also criticised the behaviour of fellow cyclists who broke the law. They argued this presented a poor impression to drivers and pedestrians and made it harder to convince drivers that people who cycled or wanted to cycle belonged on the road.
A final few did not provide a clear answer or said they did not understand the question; this may be because the consultation asks about existing powers of enforcement without specifying exactly which ones these are.
8.4.3. Potential issues
While a number of Local Authorities are supportive of efforts to enforce laws against bad behaviour, many of them and stakeholders such as COSLA pointed out that the police would have to reprioritise a lot of resources to make this feasible. They did not think this could be done in the current climate unless more funding was made available for this.
8.5. Question 12: Should Local Authorities make greater use of their powers to redetermine the use of roads which are footways/pathways to create cycle tracks which can be used by both cyclists and pedestrians, where it is suitable to do so? Would this encourage you to cycle more?
Whilst the idea of creating more cycle routes is extremely popular, a lot of respondents were worried about potential conflicts of interest with pedestrians if paths were re-determined. Note that paths in this context refers to roads that are footways and pavements only, not off-road paths as these are already shared use. SportScotland has said that the starting point for off-road paths under legislation is shared use and would like this to be made clearer to prevent confusion.
8.5.1. Potentially unpopular
The Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland ( MACS) has stated it is against shared routes except for cases where they are designed well and ensure the safety of vulnerable groups. However, MACS and a number of respondents worry that this cannot be guaranteed on all paths. Indeed, many respondents who were frequent cyclists were against this measure for two principal reasons.
One was that the dangers of shared paths were too great and the potential for conflict was very high due to differences in speed between pedestrians and cyclists, especially commuter cyclists. Also, existing off-road shared routes are unpopular with some respondents as it was suggested there was often little awareness of other traffic streams on a shared path (due to people using phones, music players, etc). One respondent offered to take the writer of the CAPS document on a commute along his route to see the problems of shared routes.
A second reason was that respondents felt the more there was an emphasis on off-road or beside-road infrastructure, the more likely it was that drivers would see cyclists as belonging only off-road and question why the ones who remained on-road did so, thus potentially increasing risky behaviour towards on-road cyclists. Many respondents thus feel shared pavements should only be a last resort measure.
8.5.2. Some support
Some respondents suggested wide pavements in urban areas could and should be partitioned. If shared paths could be two way as opposed to one way, a number of respondents feel they could be of benefit. Some are very enthusiastic about the possibility of re-determining paths, as long as the necessary standards in Cycle by Design were followed. These respondents support making the redetermination process simpler for Local Authorities to administer.
A number of respondents are supportive, though cautious, not only for the reasons of safety mentioned above, but also because they are wary that this would be seen as a cheaper alternative to on-road provision. Some feel that it might be better to focus on re-determining road space by reducing on street parking; more kerbed lanes were suggested.
Many respondents who are enthusiastic suggested that Scandinavian countries have examples of good practice. One respondent pointed out that some police forces in the UK support children cycling on pavements where roads are too dangerous. Another said the policy of some countries like Denmark has been to have incremental changes to avoid the ire of motorists and other users.
When shared paths are done properly and successfully, many respondents think it could allow for networks to be linked up more easily. One response cited Exeter as an example of good practice where such measures can improve school cycling levels. The fact that shared use paths could promote leisure cycling was also emphasised.
Many respondents felt that some requirements for national quality standards on this issue were needed, as pavements could be uneven, especially in rural areas, which could lead to problems for both pedestrians and cyclists. There was a suggestion that cycling groups should collaborate with dog owners to help resolve conflicts on shared use paths.
8.5.3. Potential Issues
Local Authorities were enthusiastic about using re-determination to link up networks. However most of them struck a note of caution over the procedure for re-determining a pavement. They pointed out that the current process was complex and expensive.
This was especially true if objectors did not withdraw their objections, in which case the dispute had to be resolved by Scottish Government Ministers. Councils had to bear these costs and suggested that simplifying this process would allow them to re-determine pavements more quickly.
8. 6. Question 13: Who is best placed to deliver these changes?
As is the case with the other questions over delivery of changes, Local Authorities are the most popular agency for most respondents. However a number of other parties and organisations were also identified, especially over issues like changing liability laws and enforcement.
Identified Body | Identified Role |
Local Authorities | - To take forward redetermination proposals on shared paths and to possibly enforce regulations
|
Scottish Government | - To make redetermination process simpler via legislation and to provide necessary guidelines and standards;
- To take up issue of changing liability law and adding module to driving test with UK Government
- To fund improvements to enforcing and redetermination projects
|
Transport Scotland | - To provide oversight and guidance if necessary
|
Regional Transport Partnerships | - To co-ordinate efforts by local authorities to provide joined up networks of cycle paths
|