I propose a different, partly contradictory liability change for vehicle accidents, specifically for bicyles: that any cyclist who contravenes Road Traffic Acts shall be considered at least equally responsible for any accident, and in absence of fault by the other party, completely responsible.

(I'm fed up to the back teeth with nearly hitting unlit cyclists going places they shouldn't, and knowing I'll be blamed if I hit them if I'm in a car, and they'll get off scot free if I'm on my cycle)

I suppose you must have used a filament bulb in the rear until the recent change to the RVLR, then?

I did until fairly recently, yes.

Very law abiding. Also dumb, given that LEDs have been about ten times better for rear use for some years. Me, I'm not enchanted by a proposal that would have held me automatically at fault because I didn't use flaky rear lights.

Your current LED may not technically be legal if it has a steady mode as well as a flashing mode.

Are you saying that the 2005 changes that legalized flashing LEDs didn't also legalize steady LEDs, or that he may not have a (BS or equivalent) approved LED ?

http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/63/article19.html

"If your flashing lights are capable of being used as conventional
lights as well, they are required to meet BS 6102 (or a European
equivalent)."

Why? It's perfectly reasonable to be in favour of a change in the law that would require one to change one's own behaviour.

In any case, RVLR 3A says (and has said since 1994) in part:

(1) Nothing in these Regulations shall render unlawful any act or 
    omission which would have been lawful were—
  (a) there to be substituted for any reference to a British Standard in 
      these Regulations a reference to a corresponding standard ...
(2) For the purposes of this regulation, “corresponding standard”, in 
    relation to a relevant British Standard Specification, means—
  (a) a standard ... of a national standards body ... of any State within 
      the European Economic Area;
      ...
    where the standard ... provides, in relation to lamps, retro 
    reflectors and rear markings, a level of safety equivalent to that 
    provided by that British Standard Specification and contains a 
    requirement as respects the marking of such parts equivalent to that 
    provided by that instrument.

Since BSI is the UK's national standards body, new versions of BS 6102/3 were and are "corresponding standards" to the old versions required by the Regulations (assuming they still require marking and don't reduce safety). Come to that, the same is probably true of the German regulations, which have allowed LEDs for quite some time.

Smooth. Let's do pedal reflectors, then, since we just did elsewhere. Want to bet on Nicolai having a full set? At all times (given their tendency to have nuts and bolts made of cheese and fall off randomly)? Do we really want to make recumbents completely legally unviable rather than merely committing a trivial offence?

Nyers. I got the same response.

I said to Jif, when I go out and murder someone I shall expect to be invited to a consultation exercise with the Crown Prosecution Service to determine how I might more fully comply with the relevant legislation in future.

Pah.

AOL. I was rather more "At least I'm getting ignored..."

Surely a cyclist and a car driver with only third-party (or especially "Act-Only") insurance are already in the same position if a car drives into them, ie they have to persuade the idiot's insurance company that they have to cough up for the idiot's action (I'm not convinced about the word reckless here) ?

Comprehensive and legal cover on car insurance exist partly because drivers (have been persuaded that they) want to avoid the hassle of persuading the other guy's insurance company that he was in the wrong.

Er, no. Your fully comp. insurance is not going to pay up if they can possibly cause the other guy's insurance to pay up... but presumably they do more of the work than a 3rd party only insurance policy would do. (My Mum had someone rear end her car and had to chase him for the money even with fully comp. insurance). Having an insurance company to do the chasing is handy though.

I do.

I used the Write To Them website to contact my MP on behalf of Amnesty International UK - they're trying to get politicos to sign a thing saying Guantanamo Bay=Bad Thing and please to be closing it now. The campaign is called Unsubscribe.

I got a letter back saying thanks, and gosh, yes, it is a bad thing, I don't think it'll do much good but I'll sign up - so, for now, I have a warm happy Involved glow. Later on I'll have a look to see if he did sign up, but for now I don't want to spoil the glow of being politically active.

They Work for You and Write To Them are good things. I somehow doubt that MPs think so.

I hear[1] that TheyWorkForYou has led to a decline in the old practice of "pairing" where MPs who were going to vote opposite ways on a bill would agree to pair so that both could go and do something else instead of turning up to vote. Now of course, that leads to irate constituents going "how could you abstain on $vital_issue!?" I think on the whole this is a good thing as if they actually turn up there is a small chance they may be influenced by the debate ... that is the point of it after all.

[1] from friends working for mySociety

I do.

I used the Write To Them website to contact my MP on behalf of Amnesty International UK - they're trying to get politicos to sign a thing saying Guantanamo Bay=Bad Thing and please to be closing it now. The campaign is called Unsubscribe.

I got a letter back saying thanks, and gosh, yes, it is a bad thing, I don't think it'll do much good but I'll sign up - so, for now, I have a warm happy Involved glow. Later on I'll have a look to see if he did sign up, but for now I don't want to spoil the glow of being politically active.

They Work for You and Write To Them are good things. I somehow doubt that MPs think so.