Innocent... Prove it!

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM (INTERACTIVE)
21

philgor:
all the more reason not to vote green, at the moment, i really am swaying to ukip…

It looks like UKIP will do well this time. Apart from the fact people will be afraid to vote for them because: A) Their parents always voted Labour/Conservative so they must vote Labour/Conservative, and B) idiots like this woman on radio 4. They got 3 people to talk to Farage, this woman, a pro-european ■■■■ I mean small business owner, and a guy who’s dad was/is a Jamaican immigrant.

Jamaica dad said “I worry about racist tendencies” or some ■■■■■■■■. Business ■■■■ said “Hurr-durr Europe” after being told they intended to strike up trade deals with Europe, but just get rid of European control (where did the CPC come from gents? And what about a possible new limit of 4m for trailers. Woman said “I think what’s he’s said makes a lot of sense, but I’m afraid to vote UKIP because my friends will think I’m a racist.”

That’s right love, you make the suffragettes proud.

22

They should bring in a cycle test to show them they don’t own the road.
We get the blame anyway pull and we will check your card lol

23

we used to have the cycling proficiency test at schools I still have all my badges from the years I went along in the summer.

the green party also want to reduce the size of hgv’s down to a maximum 20tonnes and move more by rail and canal ( they didn’t mention horse and cart though).

so a party who are green expect smaller trucks and vans to do the same amount of deliveries as what we have now, but assisted by means of transpotty which have been outdated, don’t work etc.

going back to the original topic, its horses for courses if the vehicles have all these singing/dancing cameras all over it wont be too hard to prove that johnny lycra wearer undertook you etc.

24

To be fair it’s not only the Green party that are spouting this nonsense, apparently the Lib-Dems are at it to.

Lib Dems propose introduction of ‘presumed liability’

When lorries hit cyclists the driver should have to prove they are not liable says Green Party leader

25

its obviously cheaper than building cycle lanes.

which get my goat when cyclists still insist on riding on roads when a lane is there for cyclists ( they should fine them on the spot for non compliance ).

26

Cyclists say that badly maintained cycle lanes or tracks are the reason they don’t use them.
Cycle lanes are for plodders not serious cyclists.
Put a tax on the purchase of all new cycles to improve and maintain the cycle lanes.
Its OK having screens and mirrors galore but are you not at some point supposed to look at the road ahead or do we just stay stationary constantly checking mirrors and monitors.
A lot of cyclists do take care and ride sensibly but there are those that at on a mission and ride at inappropriate speeds.there was a thread about filtering a while ago, I have seen motorcyclists carefully filtering through traffic at a steady rate been overtaken by a cyclist going hell for leather with no chance of stopping if a situation occurs.

27

It’s good to see paranoia is alive & well on TNUK. Strict liability has been in effect in some countries for years, it’s currently under review in Scotland. It’s designed to protect the vulnerable road user when in collisions with the powerful road user. It simply states that, unless the vulnerable road user can be clearly found to be at fault then the more powerful road user is, by default, liable. Seems pretty basic to me. Instead of looking at how the truck driver caused the accident it looks at the cyclist to see what they did first, if they did nothing wrong it must have been the truckers fault.
It’s already in use here & you don’t even realise it. If you drive into the back of someone, or vice versa, who’s at fault? Without any other evidence the driver running into the rear of another vehicle is deemed to be at fault.
It’s not even a factor in criminal liability, only civil liability in cases of injury.

28

scanny77:

Glen A9:
It’s not about innocence or guilt of anything, though. It’s simply about which insurance policy the claim will be against.

Insurers often assume liability when there is no proof to the contrary as it is, such as 50:50 settlements where there are two conflicting stories with no evidence to prove either way, so both parties get a claim recorded on their policy.

There are no civil liberties being taken away by such proposals as it only affects your insurance policy, not your criminal record.

I don’t understand your point. Cyclists do not have insurance so how can this be about insurance?

It sounds like yet another form of persecution to me. I do agree with Rikki in the grander scale of things but as already said, innocent until proven guilty is slowly being eroded

You are wrong, plenty cyclists have insurance, it just suits the TNUK members thinking to assume, incorrectly as usual, that they don’t.

29

teflon:
there was a thread about filtering a while ago, I have seen motorcyclists carefully filtering through traffic at a steady rate been overtaken by a cyclist going hell for leather with no chance of stopping if a situation occurs.

Try telling roaduser66 you think this is dangerous. Just because it isnt strictly illegaL he couldnt see the problem.

BillyHunt:
Instead of looking at how the truck driver caused the accident it looks at the cyclist to see what they did first, if they did nothing wrong it must have been the truckers fault.

The problem isnt about looking at both parties its about assuming one party is guilty till they can prove otherwise. Looking at cyclist first is great. If theres no evidence,eyewitnesses or CCTV then im to rely on them being 100% honest and saying “yes officer,I was totally at fault there”. See any problems there? If what you say is true regarding them having insurance (and without any idea as to whether its true or not ill give you the benefit of the doubt and believe it) then why would they risk a blameworthy claim if they can avoid it?
Plenty cyclists on the road have no freakin clue about the highway code,road signs or they do and just ignore them. Is it fair that they get presumed innocence?
An couple examples
1 - Cyclist comes up to junction and does not slow down and turns left. Im heading down the road and they come out infront of me and I cant stop and hit them. It LOOKS like I hit them from behind but thats not what happened. Cyclist sees chance of a claim and says he was going straight and denies coming from junction so I get the blame. Tell me that wont happen?
2 - Cyclist runs red light and I hit them. My light was green. Cyclist says HIS was green and I ran the red. Under these great new proposals I lose my license,job and livelihood because I have no proof my light was green. See any pitfalls yet?
3 - A totally dishonest cyclist decides he needs money. He cycles around till he spots the perfect area and scenario. Truck turning left. He times it till the truck is moving then shoots up the inside and takes a dive. Screams that he was there along and the truck driver ignored/didnt see him. No witnesses or evidence otherwise. Cha-ching. Compo claim in and hes quids in. Truck driver is deemed guilty without any evidence remember. Is that scenario impossible? We already have crash for cash in cars,just how long till theres a significant increase on cyclist “accidents”?
And I always here about other countries having all these in place already. That’s as maybe but im betting that A- They have significantly better infrastructures than us and B - More considerate cyclists.
Me personally,I have no problem with cyclists on the road. As ive said many times before,no one owns the road and they have as much right to use it as anyone. I dont buy the “they dont pay road tax” argument. But I have aproblem with the majority (and it is the majority unfortunately) who either pick and choose what laws they want to apply or ignore basic road signs and rules. Yes there are lots of pro cyclists on the road. Members of cycling clubs and they ride safely,obey the rules etc. But there are also lots and lots of idiots who decide a bike is great but dont bother to read a highway code or learn basic road skills. Those are the ones who will create the problems

30

Im shocked my fellow sisters have so many problems with cyclists.
Either pass em, give em loads of room to pass you or just trickle along nice and steady and let traffic conditions dictate the flow.

Just treat them in the same way as you would if your boyfriend was on that bike…
Bunch of nancies… :wink:

I just know a cyclists gonna ■■■■ me off now after writing this.
Presumed liability is a good thing IMHO (as long as im not on the end of it).

31

Remember people the idea’s come from the Green Party so don’t take it seriously.

Dipper_Dave:
Im shocked my fellow sisters have so many problems with cyclists.
Either pass em, give em loads of room to pass you or just trickle along nice and steady and let traffic conditions dictate the flow.

This. Or in other words, act like they have AIDS or Ebola and don’t get closer than spitting distance to them.

32

BillyHunt:

scanny77:

Glen A9:
It’s not about innocence or guilt of anything, though. It’s simply about which insurance policy the claim will be against.

Insurers often assume liability when there is no proof to the contrary as it is, such as 50:50 settlements where there are two conflicting stories with no evidence to prove either way, so both parties get a claim recorded on their policy.

There are no civil liberties being taken away by such proposals as it only affects your insurance policy, not your criminal record.

I don’t understand your point. Cyclists do not have insurance so how can this be about insurance?

It sounds like yet another form of persecution to me. I do agree with Rikki in the grander scale of things but as already said, innocent until proven guilty is slowly being eroded

You are wrong, plenty cyclists have insurance, it just suits the TNUK members thinking to assume, incorrectly as usual, that they don’t.

I have never heard of cycle insurance and I cant imagine anyone paying for it unless they have a ridiculously priced bicycle. I am planning on buying the cheapest mountain bike I can get my hands on but I wont be insuring it. The cycle lanes round here are on the pavement anyway but that is beside the point

33

The-Snowman:

teflon:
there was a thread about filtering a while ago, I have seen motorcyclists carefully filtering through traffic at a steady rate been overtaken by a cyclist going hell for leather with no chance of stopping if a situation occurs.

Try telling roaduser66 you think this is dangerous. Just because it isnt strictly illegaL he couldnt see the problem.

BillyHunt:
Instead of looking at how the truck driver caused the accident it looks at the cyclist to see what they did first, if they did nothing wrong it must have been the truckers fault.

The problem isnt about looking at both parties its about assuming one party is guilty till they can prove otherwise. Looking at cyclist first is great. If theres no evidence,eyewitnesses or CCTV then im to rely on them being 100% honest and saying “yes officer,I was totally at fault there”. See any problems there? If what you say is true regarding them having insurance (and without any idea as to whether its true or not ill give you the benefit of the doubt and believe it) then why would they risk a blameworthy claim if they can avoid it?
Plenty cyclists on the road have no freakin clue about the highway code,road signs or they do and just ignore them. Is it fair that they get presumed innocence?
An couple examples
1 - Cyclist comes up to junction and does not slow down and turns left. Im heading down the road and they come out infront of me and I cant stop and hit them. It LOOKS like I hit them from behind but thats not what happened. Cyclist sees chance of a claim and says he was going straight and denies coming from junction so I get the blame. Tell me that wont happen?
2 - Cyclist runs red light and I hit them. My light was green. Cyclist says HIS was green and I ran the red. Under these great new proposals I lose my license,job and livelihood because I have no proof my light was green. See any pitfalls yet?
3 - A totally dishonest cyclist decides he needs money. He cycles around till he spots the perfect area and scenario. Truck turning left. He times it till the truck is moving then shoots up the inside and takes a dive. Screams that he was there along and the truck driver ignored/didnt see him. No witnesses or evidence otherwise. Cha-ching. Compo claim in and hes quids in. Truck driver is deemed guilty without any evidence remember. Is that scenario impossible? We already have crash for cash in cars,just how long till theres a significant increase on cyclist “accidents”?
And I always here about other countries having all these in place already. That’s as maybe but im betting that A- They have significantly better infrastructures than us and B - More considerate cyclists.
Me personally,I have no problem with cyclists on the road. As ive said many times before,no one owns the road and they have as much right to use it as anyone. I dont buy the “they dont pay road tax” argument. But I have aproblem with the majority (and it is the majority unfortunately) who either pick and choose what laws they want to apply or ignore basic road signs and rules. Yes there are lots of pro cyclists on the road. Members of cycling clubs and they ride safely,obey the rules etc. But there are also lots and lots of idiots who decide a bike is great but dont bother to read a highway code or learn basic road skills. Those are the ones who will create the problems

Now it’s all well & good putting in mythical scenarios but try substituting lorry, or truck if you prefer, for cyclist, see any change there because I don’t. Does anyone admit liability these days? Does anyones boss tell them to admit liability at the scene or exactly the opposite? Does your insurance company? No I thought not, so why should cyclists, who just might be drivers going to or from work, do any different?
You can see plenty threads on here from drivers that have been caught speeding, drink driving, breaking height/weight laws and many others all asking for advice on how to get away with it so, while I know cyclists are no angels, it’s a bit rich trying to play the persecuted driver card.

34

[/quote]
I have never heard of cycle insurance and I cant imagine anyone paying for it unless they have a ridiculously priced bicycle. I am planning on buying the cheapest mountain bike I can get my hands on but I wont be insuring it. The cycle lanes round here are on the pavement anyway but that is beside the point
[/quote]
Thereby becoming part of the problem & not the solution.

35

BillyHunt:
Now it’s all well & good putting in mythical scenarios but try substituting lorry, or truck if you prefer, for cyclist, see any change there because I don’t. Does anyone admit liability these days? Does anyones boss tell them to admit liability at the scene or exactly the opposite? Does your insurance company? No I thought not, so why should cyclists, who just might be drivers going to or from work, do any different?

Mythical scenarios they might be but are you telling me any of the three are impossible to imagine actually happening?
I didnt say the cyclist should be presumed guilty either. My problem is with PRESUMED guilt by any party. Your right,there is no change if you switch the words cyclist for truck. But you cant have one party presumed guilty without evidence. It wont work.
No one admits liability either at the scene or afterwards. It nullifies your insurance for a start. So a cyclist wouldnt admit it was there fault even if it was. Driver or not,at that particular time they are a cyclist. And without evidence to the contrary,lorry driver gets the blame. Your actually proving my point about how dangerous this proposal could be by admiting a cyclist would keep quiet about blame. And they have the upper hand because they are deemed innocent regardless

BillyHunt:
You can see plenty threads on here from drivers that have been caught speeding, drink driving, breaking height/weight laws and many others all asking for advice on how to get away with it so, while I know cyclists are no angels, it’s a bit rich trying to play the persecuted driver card.

Your always going on about not all cyclists are bad,and i’m in agreement Well,neither are all drivers. Ive had many a set to on here with so called drivers wanting to know how to get off with speeding fines etc. But not all drivers are the same. Ive had 1 speeding fine in 19 years of driving (82 on a motorway) so I fail to see how its rich to play the persecuted driver card when I can be totally innocent yet get the blame. I obey all highway code and road signs so,yes,ill play the persecuted driver card and its TOTALLY justified since,in your own words,some cyclists are no angels. And THOSE cyclists,as ive already stated,are the ones who will cause the problems with these proposals

36

The-Snowman:

BillyHunt:
Now it’s all well & good putting in mythical scenarios but try substituting lorry, or truck if you prefer, for cyclist, see any change there because I don’t. Does anyone admit liability these days? Does anyones boss tell them to admit liability at the scene or exactly the opposite? Does your insurance company? No I thought not, so why should cyclists, who just might be drivers going to or from work, do any different?

Mythical scenarios they might be but are you telling me any of the three are impossible to imagine actually happening?
I didnt say the cyclist should be presumed guilty either. My problem is with PRESUMED guilt by any party. Your right,there is no change if you switch the words cyclist for truck. But you cant have one party presumed guilty without evidence. It wont work.
No one admits liability either at the scene or afterwards. It nullifies your insurance for a start. So a cyclist wouldnt admit it was there fault even if it was. Driver or not,at that particular time they are a cyclist. And without evidence to the contrary,lorry driver gets the blame. Your actually proving my point about how dangerous this proposal could be by admiting a cyclist would keep quiet about blame. And they have the upper hand because they are deemed innocent regardless

BillyHunt:
You can see plenty threads on here from drivers that have been caught speeding, drink driving, breaking height/weight laws and many others all asking for advice on how to get away with it so, while I know cyclists are no angels, it’s a bit rich trying to play the persecuted driver card.

Your always going on about not all cyclists are bad,and i’m in agreement Well,neither are all drivers. Ive had many a set to on here with so called drivers wanting to know how to get off with speeding fines etc. But not all drivers are the same. Ive had 1 speeding fine in 19 years of driving (82 on a motorway) so I fail to see how its rich to play the persecuted driver card when I can be totally innocent yet get the blame. I obey all highway code and road signs so,yes,ill play the persecuted driver card and its TOTALLY justified since,in your own words,some cyclists are no angels. And THOSE cyclists,as ive already stated,are the ones who will cause the problems with these proposals

The trouble I have with scenarios is that you can put whatever you want, will it happen? Possibly, I just don’t see many people on a bike willing to take on a truck in the hope of getting a few quid, the chances are you’d get nothing but squashed and even scammers wouldn’t view that as a decent return.
As I said earlier, we already have presumed guilty in the case of a vehicle running in to the back of another, regardless of any other evidence. In the absence of any evidence they don’t blame the truck driver, that’s just wrong I’m afraid. They don’t blame anyone until a full investigation has been carried out, then they will act accordingly. The driver of the vehicle involved in the death of the cyclist in London the other week wasn’t, and hasn’t been charged with anything. It just suits some peoples agenda to say how truckers are being picked on again when it’s plainly not the case.
I’m not proving any point by saying cyclists would remain quiet, you’ve just stated it nullifies your insurance if you admit liability at the scene, why would you expect anyone to admit anything?
You would think that in countries where they have presumed guilt that it would have an effect on the driving standards, in fact studies in Holland have shown that most drivers aren’t even aware of it let alone drive differently because of it. That’s because, as has been pointed out, it’s just used as an insurance liability scheme not as a means of getting criminal convictions.

37

BillyHunt:
The trouble I have with scenarios is that you can put whatever you want, will it happen? Possibly, I just don’t see many people on a bike willing to take on a truck in the hope of getting a few quid, the chances are you’d get nothing but squashed and even scammers wouldn’t view that as a decent return.

So some of the scenarios I said might possibly happen? Number 3 is extreme but possible. Numbers 1 and 2 are very possible. So Im still not seeing how you can be so forceful in your assesment that presumed guilt is a good thing. What im saying is EVERY party is innocent till proven otherwise

BillyHunt:
As I said earlier, we already have presumed guilty in the case of a vehicle running in to the back of another, regardless of any other evidence.

Thats different. Rarely is it easy to convince anyone you are blameless for not leaving enough stopping room. there are so many variables for other types of collisions,including those involving cyclists,then its not really similar in terms of workability

BillyHunt:
They don’t blame anyone until a full investigation has been carried out, then they will act accordingly.

But lack of any evidence proving one thing or another and one party gets the blame and classified as guilty. How can you not see the problem?

BillyHunt:
I’m not proving any point by saying cyclists would remain quiet, you’ve just stated it nullifies your insurance if you admit liability at the scene, why would you expect anyone to admit anything?

Yes you are. How can you not see it? If there is no cctv,no dash cam and no eye witnesses then the only evidence that a driver is innocent is for the cyclist to admit blame. Whether they want to or not,by saying nothing then the innocent party gets hit with everything. The proposals actually encourage silence especially in the absense of insurance (which not every cyclist has)

BillyHunt:
You would think that in countries where they have presumed guilt that it would have an effect on the driving standards, in fact studies in Holland have shown that most drivers aren’t even aware of it let alone drive differently because of it. That’s because, as has been pointed out, it’s just used as an insurance liability scheme not as a means of getting criminal convictions.

Not sure what your getting at here.
BTW just to clarify,Im not looking to get into an argument and fall out with you. Unlike roaduser66 you can at least put forward a reasonable case,even if I dont agree with what your saying.

38

As I understand it, from my Dutch mate, it’s more about a sense of responsibility than anything else. A kind of the strong looking out for the weak type thing - the more killing power you’re in charge of, the greater your responsibility toward other road users.

Also, over there, cyclists aren’t seen as scum of the road, which has got to help ease tensions! :laughing:

39

The-Snowman:

BillyHunt:
The trouble I have with scenarios is that you can put whatever you want, will it happen? Possibly, I just don’t see many people on a bike willing to take on a truck in the hope of getting a few quid, the chances are you’d get nothing but squashed and even scammers wouldn’t view that as a decent return.

So some of the scenarios I said might possibly happen? Number 3 is extreme but possible. Numbers 1 and 2 are very possible. So Im still not seeing how you can be so forceful in your assesment that presumed guilt is a good thing. What im saying is EVERY party is innocent till proven otherwise
ok, my point here is that you could substitute car for cycle and get the same result, you appear to be saying that only the cyclist would lie to get away with it, whereas the car driver would admit they were in the wrong.

BillyHunt:
As I said earlier, we already have presumed guilty in the case of a vehicle running in to the back of another, regardless of any other evidence.

Thats different. Rarely is it easy to convince anyone you are blameless for not leaving enough stopping room. there are so many variables for other types of collisions,including those involving cyclists,then its not really similar in terms of workability
but it’s not different, if you run into the back of anything for any reason it’s your fault. At least with presumed guilty it’s only presumed until the facts are established then blame is apportioned.

BillyHunt:
They don’t blame anyone until a full investigation has been carried out, then they will act accordingly.

But lack of any evidence proving one thing or another and one party gets the blame and classified as guilty. How can you not see the problem?
because if there is no evidence the cps cannot do anything to anyone, it’s not fair but that’s the system. They simply cannot apportion blame to any party where evidence does not exist, it wouldn’t stand up in court even if it got that far. Think about it, its like them saying to you “we have no evidence to prove who was at fault, but you are taller than him so we are charging you”

BillyHunt:
I’m not proving any point by saying cyclists would remain quiet, you’ve just stated it nullifies your insurance if you admit liability at the scene, why would you expect anyone to admit anything?

Yes you are. How can you not see it? If there is no cctv,no dash cam and no eye witnesses then the only evidence that a driver is innocent is for the cyclist to admit blame. Whether they want to or not,by saying nothing then the innocent party gets hit with everything. The proposals actually encourage silence especially in the absense of insurance (which not every cyclist has)
i cannot see it because I know from experience it’s simply not true. As I’ve stated above, no evidence means the case does not go forward.

BillyHunt:
You would think that in countries where they have presumed guilt that it would have an effect on the driving standards, in fact studies in Holland have shown that most drivers aren’t even aware of it let alone drive differently because of it. That’s because, as has been pointed out, it’s just used as an insurance liability scheme not as a means of getting criminal convictions.

Not sure what your getting at here.
BTW just to clarify,Im not looking to get into an argument and fall out with you. Unlike roaduser66 you can at least put forward a reasonable case,even if I dont agree with what your saying.

all I’m saying here is that if, and I don’t think it will, it came here it wouldn’t make people drive any differently. Drivers seem to think they will have to change the way they drive, and in plenty cases they should, but all it does is make them more aware of their responsibilities.

40

BillyHunt:
ok, my point here is that you could substitute car for cycle and get the same result, you appear to be saying that only the cyclist would lie to get away with it, whereas the car driver would admit they were in the wrong.

Thats not what im saying. I think we have crossed wires. Car/van/bus/lorry drivers lie as well in order to try and get away with things. Thats undisputed. But in this proposal then its in the cyclists best interests to stay quiet. If they are deemed innocent and the driver guilty then why would they say anything? For their part it would be stupid to do so. Keeping quiet works for them,even if they know they are guilty. Thats why im saying its unworkable to have one party deemed guilty till proven otherwise. Not because its cyclists. ANY road user cant be given free innocence over another

BillyHunt:
but it’s not different, if you run into the back of anything for any reason it’s your fault. At least with presumed guilty it’s only presumed until the facts are established then blame is apportioned.

Am I missing something? Without facts to the contrary then the lorry driver gets the blame automatically. Have I misunderstood what this proposal is? The way I read it was that uness evidence points otherwise then the lorry driver is automatically to blame

BillyHunt:
They don’t blame anyone until a full investigation has been carried out, then they will act accordingly.

After said investigation,if there is no evidence to back up lorry drivers claim that,for instance,cyclist pulled out of side road then its classed as driver at fault. Unless im mistaken(See above) then im at a loss as to what it is you cant see is wrong with presumed guilt.

BillyHunt:
because if there is no evidence the cps cannot do anything to anyone, it’s not fair but that’s the system. They simply cannot apportion blame to any party where evidence does not exist, it wouldn’t stand up in court even if it got that far. Think about it, its like them saying to you “we have no evidence to prove who was at fault, but you are taller than him so we are charging you”

Well exactly. So why is saying the lorry driver id guilty UNLESS he can prove otherwise a good thing? Your giving one set of road users carte blanche and that is all wrong.

BillyHunt:
I cannot see it because I know from experience it’s simply not true. As I’ve stated above, no evidence means the case does not go forward.

You keep talking about CPS and cases going to court. I think your at the other end of the scale from what im talking about. Im not meaning deaths or paralysis,im more talking about bumps and minor stuff. Is the proposal different for high end stuff? Have I misread? Because your right,without hard evidence saying otherwise,its unworkable to blame one party automatically. Which is what im saying. But if ive misinterpreted and for serious stuff then other evidence is still a must rather than presumed guilt then thats why I cant see why your so for it. But I still dont agree presumed guilt is EVER workable. To me,it’ll breed more hatred for cyclists. Its human nature to push the limits and if some cyclists see they have presumed innocense then they will push even more their disregard for the road and highways.

BillyHunt:
all I’m saying here is that if, and I don’t think it will, it came here it wouldn’t make people drive any differently. Drivers seem to think they will have to change the way they drive, and in plenty cases they should, but all it does is make them more aware of their responsibilities.

Yes. Plenty drivers need to be more aware of their responsibilities. But when you have some cyclists who think it acceptable to ignore red lights,go the wrong way up one way streets,go round a roundabout the wrong way and all manner of other road laws they choose to ignore,is allowing them LESS responsibility really the best way forward?