• MY sympathy goes out to the family and many friends of Nahid Islam (Cyclist was killed day before 16th birthday, June 8).

Time and time again we see the same verdict: the motorist was not doing anything unlawful and therefore cannot be held responsible for the death of a pedestrian or cyclist.

But as a motorist, whose featherlight touch or turn of an accelerator propels a deadly mass of metal forward with great speed and acceleration, should we not always be responsible for our driving?

The Highway Code (Rule 146) states that we need to adapt our driving to the appropriate condition of road and, in particular, to anticipate what cyclists might do. It also points out (Rule 147) that such cyclists may be inexperienced.

The coroner concluded that the motorbike rider was likely to be travelling at 20mph and “couldn’t avoid collision”. But perhaps the collision could have been avoided if the biker was doing 15mph. Or 10mph. Or whatever lesser speed was necessary to anticipate a sudden manoeuvre by the child on a bicycle in front of him.

Your report clearly shows the motorbike rider was hugely regretful about what happened, and I suspect genuinely feels that the incident could not have been avoided. But such carnage will continue for as long as we have a culture which fails to place true responsibility for safe driving – with the driver.

In many other countries throughout the world, such a culture is embedded by appropriate liability laws which firmly places responsibility for such incidents with the motorist unless there is very clear evidence to the contrary.

Roadpeace, a charity dedicated to helping road collision victims, are tirelessly campaigning to change the law in this regard. Are we going to sit back and read the same story in the press over and over again? Or are we going to say “enough is enough” and demand an end to these pointless deaths.

www.roadpeace.org

DR GREG CARSON, NW5