Not really, but if he attracts 750k petition signers;
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/strict-liability-law-for-motorists

Signed

Should really be just strict liability, not just strict liability for motorists.

Would then address cyclists on pavements, RLJs, etc, and placate a lot of people that harp on about those things.

Should really be just strict liability, not just strict liability for motorists.

Would then address cyclists on pavements, RLJs, etc, and placate a lot of people that harp on about those things.

+1
Not signed

FWIW Signed

Signed as I expect that Strict Liability will apply to all users on the highway.

Not signed.

Not sighed as it’s not the official petitions site, so therefore is useless.

I’ve not signed because as Rob says its absolutely pointless, plus he deserved sacking a long time ago but better late than never.

Should really be just strict liability, not just strict liability for motorists.

You didn’t read it did you?

For the hard of thinking and terminally lazy:

It would mean that motorists are presumed to be at fault in civil actions after an accident with a cyclist or pedestrian, unless they can prove they were not to blame. It would also mean that cyclists would be presumed to be at fault for accidents involving pedestrians.

Also, not about Clarkson.

For what its worth 38 degrees is pretty influential in its own way so the fact that its not the ‘official’ petitions site doesn’t really matter. 38 degrees is more about getting individual MPs to support a cause then about getting parliament to have a faux debate with a predetermined outcome.

Just sign the **** thing!

Nope, Still not signing the ******* Thing.

I read it the first time and have no faith in the Individual MP’s nor 38 Degrees being “pretty influential” (In your view)

Just for the record, Ive clattered more pedestrians whilst riding my bike than i have been clattered by motorists, so its kind of counter productive for me anyway.

cumberlanddan – Member
For the hard of thinking and terminally lazy:

It would mean that motorists are presumed to be at fault in civil actions after an accident with a cyclist or pedestrian, unless they can prove they were not to blame. It would also mean that cyclists would be presumed to be at fault for accidents involving pedestrians.

That’s a ludicrous notion. Assume someone is at fault before any evidence is considered? Why should a cyclist be assumed to be at fault if a pedestrian walks out in front of him, and be forced to prove otherwise?

For the hard of thinking and terminally lazy

I guess I’m included in that statement as I didn’t sign it. I can not put my name to system that presumes guilt until proven innocent. Regardless of driving my car or riding my bike I would not like to treated as guilty in the event of an accident if cyclist cut across the path of my car or a pedestrian stepped out in front of my bike. Without witnesses of what actually happened I wouldn’t to be prejudged to quilty.

honourablegeorge:

Its not an assumption its a presumption i.e. the burden of proof falls to the larger vehicle, the one least at risk, because they are more likely to have been more casual about their actions.

The point is you are not “guilty”, but you do have to show that you weren’t negligent as opposed to the pedestrian having to show that you were; for cases with a bike and car/lorry i’d hope you could see the logic in this stance.

Its actually a fairly subtle change but it should make things better and more predictable for everyone.

You didn’t read it did you?

title is still wrong…

squoglybob:

Why does it matter whether its my view or not. If you don’t like the principal don’t sign it. If you think the principal is sound then support it however you can.

You might appreciate it if you ever were clattered by a truck too.

craigxxl:
Its not a criminal charge. There is a very good reason for the presumption of ‘guilt’ (for want of a better word) being on the part of the larger vehicle. How about if you got twatted on a country lane by a truck but there were no witnesses? 50:50 seem right to you does it?

I understand what’s being proposed. I just fundamentally disagree with the concept.

Assuming/presuming that someone is at fault isn’t right, whatever way you dress it up.

There is a very good reason for the presumption of ‘guilt’ (for want of a better word) being on the part of the larger vehicle.

What’s the reason?

Thanks, i’m not signing it, i said that initially but you Assumed / Presumed that i ***** Should.

If i get Clattered by a truck then so be it, If i dont its a bonus,

Yes the title is wrong.

I just fundamentally disagree with the concept.

concept is good – it installs a greater degree of care in the driver of the larger vehicle.

You only have got to cycle in European countries that operate it to see the effects.

It will encourage the use of dash/helmet cams though.

honourablegeorge:

To help you out i’ll read the petition for you again:
In accidents where a cyclist was killed or badly hurt the cyclist was presumed to have committed an offence in just 6% of cases [1], the vehicle driver was assumed to have done so 56% of the time. Although Boris got this massively wrong, this disparity is just common sense because motorists have no fear of injury or death if they collide with a cyclist. The fear is great visa versa, therefore there will be a disparity in the caution used and who causes the accidents.

So, that gives you the reason and the rationale behind it.

Presuming is exactly the right thing to do and exactly what you would do in most other circumstances. Cat shit all over the floor – must have been the cat. You cant prove it empirically though the odds are massively in your favour, and where there is evidence to the contrary, you adjust your verdict.

Picture the scene, solo cyclist on an isolated country lane hit by a car and killed. The only witness is the driver “he swerved into me”. It is incredibly unlikely that said driver did nothing wrong and was completely faultless however as it stands he ‘gets away with it’ because there is no proof either way, and he knows it. If the stats are right, 100% of drivers in this situation suffer no meaningful consequence even though only 6% of the cyclists do anything wrong. That seem right to you?

With this law the driver has to be more careful. Its about changing attitudes over the long term.

Its not a criminal charge. There is a very good reason for the presumption of ‘guilt’ (for want of a better word) being on the part of the larger vehicle. How about if you got twatted on a country lane by a truck but there were no witnesses? 50:50 seem right to you does it?

Regardless of whichever way you word it I wouldn’t want to assumed, presumed or have to proof I wasn’t at fault in any way. I would like all the facts to be looked at fairly and the outcome on those investigations. The assumed liability is great for insurance companies but not those involved.

Assuming/presuming that someone is at fault isn’t right, whatever way you dress it up.

It doesn’t assume/presume guilt it presumes liability. If you are in charge of a vehicle that is sharing space with other more vulnerable users then it is not their responsibility to keep out of your way it is your responsibility not to hit them. If you do hit them then the onus is on you to show that you couldn’t have avoided the collision. That’s all there is to it.

Presuming is exactly the right thing to do and exactly what you would do in most other circumstances. Cat shit all over the floor – must have been the cat. You cant prove it empirically though the odds are massively in your favour, and where there is evidence to the contrary, you adjust your verdict.

Not quite the same as pedestrian walks out in front of your bike. Pedestrian suffers bruising and you a broken collar bone. To add to your injuries you are also presumed at fault. Without witnesses or a proper investigation your liable.

roverpig got it more correct than what I did!

I don’t see how any sane person can argue against that as a principle.

Badly written and incoherent as that is, if those figures were right, the cyclist is at fault 6% of the time, the car is at fault 56% of the time, that leaves the remaining 38% of cases blamed on the car driver for no good reason.

Putting the responsibility on someone based on no evidence is not “exactly the right thing to do”.

You go on to say that it’s “incredibly unlikely that said driver did nothing wrong and was completely faultless”? The numbers you quote suggest it’s not his fault 44% of the time.

You can’t base a legal system on that kind of presumption. It’s like deciding assault cases basing on who’s tallest, or presuming the man is guilty in a rape case because most rapists are male. Sure, the current system doesn’t get it right often enough, but taking people’s rights away isn’t the way to fix it

I don’t see how any sane person can argue against that as a principle.

Until you are on the receiving end of it when it wasn’t your fault.

Craig EXACTLY that

roverpig – Member

It doesn’t assume/presume guilt it presumes liability. If you are in charge of a vehicle that is sharing space with other more vulnerable users then it is not their responsibility to keep out of your way

I didn’t say guilt, I said “at fault”. Pointless semantics aside, why is it not a pedestrian’s responsibility to keep out of the way of a cyclist? Or a cyclist’s responsibility to ride carefully?

You can’t put all the responsibility on one side. Shared space, shared responsibility

Until you are on the receiving end of it when it wasn’t your fault.

That happens all the time with insurance. If a car crashes into you and you cannot prove they were the cause of it, you end up with something like a 50/50 split.

This law says that the insurance of the driver of the vehicle has to pickup the tab unless it’s proven they’re not at fault. It is implemented across Europe and works well.

honourablegeorge – Member

You can’t put all the responsibility on one side.

Nobody wants to.

Is this one of those things where you look at something that works well abroad but then say “It couldn’t work here in britain”, for no apparent reason? You don’t need to hypothesise about the outcomes of strict liability, they’re well proven.

Not signed. Bad proposal.

honourablegeorge – Member
Badly written and incoherent as that is, if those figures were right, the cyclist is at fault 6% of the time, the car is at fault 56% of the time, that leaves the remaining 38% of cases blamed on the car driver for no good reason.

Putting the responsibility on someone based on no evidence is not “exactly the right thing to do”.

You go on to say that it’s “incredibly unlikely that said driver did nothing wrong and was completely faultless”? The numbers you quote suggest it’s not his fault 44% of the time.

Wrong. 44% of the time its just that the driver couldn’t be proven to be at fault. I would imagine that a very significant number of those are simply incidents with no witnesses therefore no proof.

The current system says so long as there are no witnesses do what you want. The proposed change says that you have to be able to demonstrate that you were acting responsibly and not endangering other road users.

What rights are being taken away exactly? The criminal court would still need proof in the same way as now so no one is going to jail for ‘something they didn’t do’.

If you speed past a camera and it doesn’t go off, it doesn’t mean you weren’t breaking the law.

Your rapist analogy is a very long way off the mark.

A more accurate example would be someone pushing a piano down a pavement. If his piano crashes into an old lady (its always an old lady), the presumption of guilt/liability/whatever falls to the man with the piano to show he was acting safely. Its not up to the old lady to prove that she didn’t leap in front of him for a laugh.

You really ***** should you know……..

Personally, i think this proposal is Sound: IF you are the kind of person who has never been involved in an accident but has seen thousands in their rear view mirror.

Gets on very expensive bike, owns the road, gets knocked off and of course its not your fault, lets look at who’s liable?

Its not my fault i ride this road on my way to work Every day at 08:30 EVERY ONE knows that……

I didn’t say guilt, I said “at fault”. Pointless semantics aside, why is it not a pedestrian’s responsibility to keep out of the way of a cyclist? Or a cyclist’s responsibility to ride carefully?

Because the more vulnerable road user already has an incentive to avoid a collision (as they will come off worse in almost all cases). Therefore, it makes sense to make it the responsibility of the less vulnerable user to avoid the collision. The problem is that we currently have a very asymmetric situation where as a driver I get all the advantages of going faster and taking less care (e.g. I get to my destination quicker), but pretty much all the risks are carried by the more vulnerable users around me. This sort of presumption seeks to redress some of that.

However, I’ve long since given up having these debates online, so I’ll leave you to it.

Its well argued roverpig and well stated.

I’m not quite sure what you mean by your post squoglybob. I think you’re trying to say that if you ride an expensive bike you’re automatically a ****? Am I right?

Gets on very expensive bike, owns the road, gets knocked off and of course its not your fault, lets look at who’s liable?

Its not my fault i ride this road on my way to work Every day at 08:30 EVERY ONE knows that…..

Wuh? 😕

Dan

I’m not saying that at all, Its just that from my Experience “Where i live” there are two types of Bike rider, the Kids that ride through the parks and football field and travel to and from one to the other at weekends, school holidays etc riding Mostly on the Pavement.

As a bike rider, Motorist, dog walker, Parent I have to say that i do not condone this at all, rightly or wrongly kids riding on pavements is fine by me and my own Son does this. Incomming………

Secondly, Grown ups, i.e. NOT Kids. those who buy their own bikes, mine wasnt cheap and neither are any of the people who i ride with. Infact i dont know any one who has a bike that cost less than a Grand.
Again rightly or wrongly i dont ride with folk who have a £50 EMMELLE kerb Smasher from the 1990’s so what i’m acually saying is ALL bikes are expensive, No doubt you know every one with a 20 year old Halfords Special.

there are two types of Bike rider

Unless where you live only has two bike riders. I suspect this statement is bull****

Bails: I get that, reading it back, 😳

A bad or two bad analogys, What i meant was “Its never my fault” in that a car driver of a certain brand, does no wrong but creates a trail of destruction to which their is no blame,

A bike rider “Likening it to an Expensive brand of motor vehicle” gets knocked off and none of the destruction is his fault.

Still probably reads wrong but in my head i get it.

AND i dont drive an Audi either, oooops