I AM a motorist but also a pedestrian, a cyclist and a father of three. Those who say that such a proposal amounts to being guilty until proved innocent are wrong because they are arguing from the assumption that motorists have the absolute right to drive a tonne of metal without any thought for the consequences.
I am concerned about how selfish motorists are becoming. It is time that they started taking responsibility for their actions. Children have a right to move around their environment in safety, and motorists must put children before their own selfishness.
Alastair Hopkins,
Wolverhampton
Worthwhile injustice?
MAKING drivers liable for accidents where they carry no blame is fundamentally wrong. The argument seems to be that it is an unjust law, but worth it if it makes drivers more careful and responsible.
Advertisement
Ben Adams,
Cheltenham
Reclaim the streets
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY support the notion of drivers taking responsibility for collisions with children (report, September 11). It goes some way to redressing the balance of power on our roads.
The street was once the province of walkers, riders and children at play. Then came the motorcar: a half-tonne thundering monster careering within feet of unprotected bodies. What is the result of the invasion of the car? Obesity, children confined to home for fear of accidents, and severed and isolated communities.
Yes, the measure will encourage drivers to take more care, obey the speed limits and put down mobile phones. Otherwise, bring back the man with the red flag.
Advertisement
Simon Bird,
Reading
Blame culture
WHERE we live children already play chicken with oncoming cars. If drivers who hit children have to pay compensation, regardless of who is to blame, it will help to create a generation of young people who not only feel no responsibility for their actions, but expect to be rewarded for it.
Dominic Coombs,
Melton Mowbray
Your problem
Advertisement
WHAT happened to teaching children how to cross the road safely (along with a few manners and a little respect)? People spend all their time campaigning for lower speed limits and traffic calming and so on, and expect everybody else to watch out for their children. They do not seem prepared to take any personal responsibility themselves.
Martin Bethell,
martin-bethell@lineone.net
Burden of guilt
NO LEGISLATION can protect against stupidity, and no legislation can protect children from doing silly things. But responsible parents can help most by teaching the Green Cross code or sending them on a cycling proficiency course (I did mine when I was 11). To me, that would be preferable to a law that makes you guilty until proven innocent.
Neil Gaskell,
Cheshire
Advertisement
Morally wrong
I FIND the recommendations in the Department for Transport study offensive. They imply that I care more for my no-claims bonus than for a child’s life. Nicola Christie, the lead author of the study, says that “it goes against the grain to assume guilt unless it is proven”. I would go further to say that it is morally repugnant to assume guilt unless it is proven, and I am surprised that otherwise just nations could pass such legislation. The Dutch court’s ruling that children under 14 could not be expected to observe traffic rules is rather strange considering that they are expected to observe every other rule of law at the age of 12.
It is certainly not sufficient to absolve responsibility for an accident because the driver was within the speed limit; extra care should always be taken when driving in residential areas, especially when children are around. But if an accident is not the driver’s fault it should make no difference whether the victim is 6 or 60.
I doubt that a reduction in child deaths is a result of these laws. In the Netherlands, for example, there are cycle lanes on both sides of almost every road, devoid of parked cars, which provide more time to react if a child were to run across. I wonder how many cyclists have hit children there.
James Cox-Smith,
London W1
Advertisement
Teenage awareness
WE ALREADY have gangs of youths walking out into the road without looking because they consider it “hard” (and they assume that the motorist will stop for them anyway — I have seen this first hand). This proposal effectively gives them encouragement to do this and will give them and their parents easy access to compensation claims even when the driver is not at fault. It is ludicrous.
Of course, it is incredibly sad to hear of traffic-related fatalities, but blaming the driver is not the way forward. I favour putting individual responsibility first; teenagers are acutely aware of their surroundings and in this age more than ever, I would argue. For the very youngest of children I would ask why they are out in the street unattended.
Julian Lane,
Chesterfield, Derbyshire
The top priority
CHILDREN are vulnerable and they deserve to be the priority for drivers.
My experience as a driving instructor for nearly half my life (I am 71) is that very few children are naughty enough to risk their lives deliberately. Drivers must allow for the forgetfulness of children at play. I always taught my pupils never to drive within 4ft of parked cars, and that if they were forced to drive closer, they should halve their speed. I have helped to save the lives of several children by this method.
Drivers must not be held automatically responsible for the dereliction of duty by parents, but they should be dealt with severely if it is proven in a court of law that their speed and lack of regard caused the accident.
Brian Lansley,
Newport, Isle of Wight
Cock-eyed justice
SOME years ago a drunken youth fell in the road in front of my daughter who was driving my car. She saw him on the roadside and slowed down to around 10mph but could not avoid just about touching him. While she was putting him in the recovery position, and as a passerby telephoned for an ambulance, his drunken 14-year-old so-called mates were dancing on the car bonnet, causing considerable damage. At the same time, they were throwing beer cans at my 17-year-old daughter.
The police commended my daughter for both her driving and her first aid. But who received an invoice for about £30 for his ambulance? I did, as the owner of the car. Where is the justice in that?
Mike Harrison,
harrison6@ntlworld.com
Look at the causes
THE idea that drivers should be forced to pay compensation for hitting a child, regardless of circumstances, is about the daftest idea I have ever heard.
Here in parts of Northern Ireland we already have enough cases of children deliberately running into the sides of moving cars in the hope of picking up compensation for their injuries and a bit of time off school as well. Presumably it has worked for some of them in the past. The A26 near Ballymoney is a favourite spot. Children are often far more devious than many experts give them credit for.
The case of Michael Bradford, who died after being hit while crossing the road at traffic lights by a driver who jumped a red light, was a terrible tragedy, but emotion does not make good law. It appears from the report that the outcome would have been the same had he been an adult.
Incidentally, our whole road-safety philosophy is back to front, in that we concentrate on the outcome rather than on the cause. We should be concentrating on reducing accidents, not casualties. When the accident rate falls, casualties will also fall.
D. J. Garrett,
Comber, Co Down