May be Scotland only but could be the start of respect on the roads for cyclists in the UK.

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/pass-a-member-s-bill-for-strict-liability-between-motorists-cyclists-and-pedestrians

About time!

Bumpity bump

Signed

Does this suggest that motorists are always liable for accidents involving cyclists, even if the cyclist is negligent?

I nearly hit someone a few years ago when I was pulling out from a t junction to turn right. He was riding on an unlit road, wearing dark clothing and no lights. As I was at 90 degrees to him my headlights did not light him up. If this bills passes, would I be automatically liable in that case if I had hit him?

would I be automatically liable in that case if I had hit him?

Not as I understand it. Unless you did it deliberately 😀

If he was riding as described then it should be deliberate…………

Personally, I think the term “strict liability” isn’t necessarily the best as it causes the confusion described above – imo the term “presumed liability” is more helpful as it describes it better – i.e. that if a bike and motor vehicle come together, the liabilty is presumed to lie with the driver of the motor vehicle, unless and until it is proved to be otherwise.

I wonder if there is a petition somewhere to say that Mountain Rescue Teams should be exempt?

Not sure what to make of this really. I think I see as much bad cycling as I do bad driving, and having crashed into a car when on a bike in a controversial role reversal, I’m not sure it is always correct to blame the driver.

Not sure what to make of this really. I think I see as much bad cycling as I do bad driving

It’s pretty simple really in that the consequences of bad driving are potentially much greater than that of bad cycling. Anything that makes drivers more conscious of cyclists, and encourages them to treat them with more care, is a good thing IMO.

I nearly hit someone a few years ago when I was pulling out from a t junction to turn right. He was riding on an unlit road, wearing dark clothing and no lights. As I was at 90 degrees to him my headlights did not light him up. If this bills passes, would I be automatically liable in that case if I had hit him?

This is civil liability only, so it would only kick in if the cyclist claimed against you for personal injury or damage to his bike. Assuming you have car insurance (which is required by law) your insurer would take care of it.

If there was evidence that he was negligent (e.g. a statement from police or ambulance crew saying no lights, dark clothing, etc) that could still be used to challenge any civil claim.

This law would also apply to injuries caused by cyclists to pedestrians by the way.

Does this suggest that motorists are always liable for accidents involving cyclists, even if the cyclist is negligent?

No, what this proposes (and what similar laws in much of the rest of Europe do) is move the burden of proof from the current situation where the cyclist has to prove the driver was driving negligently, to one where the assumption is that the driver was negligent unless they can prove otherwise – this is much the same as the current situation if you eg. drive into the back of another car, and contrary to some reporting which makes out that the driver will always be held responsible. Presumed liability is a better name for it than strict liability.

This law would also apply to injuries caused by cyclists to pedestrians by the way.

Exactly – I’ve used the words ‘cyclist’ and ‘driver’ for brevity, instead of ‘more vulnerable road user’ and ‘less vulnerable road user’, but the idea is that it will encourage people to be more careful round cyclists/horse riders/pedestrians etc.

They should bring this in here along with enforcement of policing of bad cycling, particularly in London.

They should have police cyclists, possibly even plain clothed, recruited from the ranks of enthusiastic cyclists/messengers to chase down the ‘perps’, rather than the current lot who are just picked from the ranks and probably would have difficulty chasing anything down.

that would open up another job opportunity for some people on here maybe.

As an example of why this law is needed:

Mate got knocked off his bike last year after driver pulls out in front of him. Broken arm, trashed bike, trashed Gore jacket.

Claims against car driver for damage to his stuff, lost earnings, taxi fares, etc.

Car driver’s insurers turn round and say “there weren’t any witnesses, and our driver says the cyclist wasn’t riding safely”.

Mate’s insurers say “OK, rather than fight an unwinnable court battle, we’ll split the damages down the middle”.

Result: mate is out of pocket and extremely pissed off.

They should bring this in here along with enforcement of policing of bad cycling, particularly in London.

It’s got nothing to do with policing. Go away and read this.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Civil_Law_vs_Criminal_Law

TBF, he did say “along with”.

Can’t make my mind up about the whole concept. Cant see how it’ll improve the respect cyclists get from motorists, the exact opposite I would have thought. Many motorists will see it as cyclists shirking responsibility for their own actions and poor riding. Someone else milking them and their insurance ( they’ll quickly ppint out most cyclists don’t have any).

We need more awareness-raising campaigns (the one for motorbikes highlighting that they are people, with names, is good) explaining the truth about “road tax”, reminding drivers that it’s NOT OK to run cyclists off the road, in fact it’s assault with a deadly weapon, or attempted murder (well, it should be so-called anyway), more police on the beat, on foot, in cars, on bikes to catch miscreants (motorists and cyclists).

I reckon a high-profile campaign by the police to prosecute pavement riders, no-lights riders, red light jumpers would work much better to improve driver tolerance and acceptance than some (more) legislation.

Also, the other week I very nearly had some kid as a bonnet badge and it was TOTALLY his fault. Stupid cocky little **** had the nerve to give me the finger too… Oh, I can just see it now in Court, his parents telling the Magistrate how their model child would never ride on the pavement, while letting a sad little tear slide down their cheeks, and painting me as some child-murdering 4×4-driving maniac…

No thanks. I would rather the cause of an accident be investigated correctly and the guilty party then prosecuted.

craigxxl, well said.

Can’t make my mind up about the whole concept. Cant see how it’ll improve the respect cyclists get from motorists, the exact opposite I would have thought. Many motorists will see it as cyclists shirking responsibility for their own actions and poor riding.

The only thing motorists in this country respect is things that might end up costing them money. Couldn’t give a flying **** how motorists might see it, as long as it makes them take more care around cyclists (which I think it would).

I would rather the cause of an accident be investigated correctly and the guilty party then prosecuted.

I would rather there not be an accident in the first place, thanks all the same. Especially if it involves a squishy and vulnerable human being versus a ton and a half of metal.

motorists dont even respect each other round where i live.

Also, the other week I very nearly had some kid as a bonnet badge and it was TOTALLY his fault. Stupid cocky little **** had the nerve to give me the finger too… Oh, I can just see it now in Court, his parents telling the Magistrate how their model child would never ride on the pavement, while letting a sad little tear slide down their cheeks, and painting me as some child-murdering 4×4-driving maniac…

How did you nearly hit someone on the pavement whilst in your 4×4?

Probably mounted the pavement because she was far too busy to wait for someone in front to park their car. Then the bloody kid got in the way and she almost smudged her lipstick.

How did you nearly hit someone on the pavement whilst in your 4×4?

He was coming out of the bookies…

No thanks. I would rather the cause of an accident be investigated correctly and the guilty party then prosecuted.

All of this can still happen with the strict liability law in place, all that changes is the default position.

Aha, I knew you’d jump on me – there’s nothing like learning the facts first..

I was waiting at a side road, indicating to turn left into Ware High Street. Lots of traffic. Handbrake on, check right, check left, check down both sides, check right, check left, down both sides … repeat … finally, a gap in the traffic, handbrake off, foot coming off clutch, check left, right, down sides … foot off clutch a bit more … kid zooms across in front of the car from left to right and continued along the pavement, swerving round people. Idiot.

Bloody good job my car is relatively slow, and bloody good job I check, check and check some more. The young lads round these parts would’ve nipped out sharpish into a much smaller gap than I am content to wait for. Kid would’ve been history (or geography* actually).

*Thank you, Sir Terry (Pratchett)

I would rather there not be an accident in the first place, thanks all the same. Especially if it involves a squishy and vulnerable human being versus a ton and a half of metal.

Me too. Accidents do happen and will continue to but hopefully with less cost to life. If an accident happens it should be innocent until proven guilty.

All of this can still happen with the strict liability law in place, all that changes is the default position

Why should there be a default position against one of the parties until the facts say otherwise?

Because it will encourage drivers to take more care around cyclists in the first place?

craigxxl – Member

Why should there be a default position against one of the parties until the facts say otherwise?

if you drive into the back of another car, it might not be your fault, but you’ll need a solid explanation to avoid liability.

this would be sort-of the same.

if you drive into the back of someone, it might not be your fault, but you’ll need a solid explanation to avoid liability.

this would be sort-of the same.

and that is why we have crash for cash con artists. Luckily that system only works for insurance and this guy is going to prison

Because it will encourage drivers to take more care around cyclists in the first place?

Will it discourage cyclist from riding recklessly or would it encourage some? Would you like a pedestrian blaming you because they stepped into the road without looking taking you to court and claiming damages on top of the cost of you repairing your own bike due to that being default position?
I’d rather the education route was mandatory for respecting other road users rather than the blame game enforced

I’d rather the education route was mandatory for respecting other road users

Righto fella. Let me know when that happens then. #cloudcuckooland

In the meantime, strict liability is something that might actually make a difference.

craigxxl – Member

Would you like a pedestrian blaming you because they stepped into the road without looking taking you to court and claiming damages on top of the cost of you repairing your own bike due to that being default position?

assumed liability would not be a license to step into the path of traffic.

I’m not sure I want to be held liable if some pillock cycles into me without any witnesses, to be honest.

Because it will encourage drivers to take more care around cyclists in the first place?

Well in Dreamy land, maybe, but I doubt that will end up being the case in Scotland. I think it would build even more resentment. Given that many motorists seem to WANT to hate cyclists, can you not imagine how their reasoning will go?

craigxxl – nothing in this proposed legislation stops that.

It proposes that liability is automatically assumed by one party which is wrong.

Why should there be a default position against one of the parties until the facts say otherwise?

someone runs into the back of you chances are you didn’t reverse into them so it’s the other driver who should prove he wasn’t at fault. I assume you are OK with this presumption?

Car and cyclist end up in a crash, now most cyclists don’t want to ride into a car and are generally careful of this due to the fairly dire consequences. Drivers less so, little in the way of consequences if they hit a soft squishy object, more blind spots, more speed, etc etc.

Strict liability assumes the cyclist would not drive into a car so car driver is presumed at fault unless proven otherwise.
edit

It proposes that liability is automatically assumed by one party which is wrong.

as is already the case in rear end shunts as per my first point, don’t see many people moaning about that, common sense innit, there will be exceptions but as a general rule it’s a reasonable one.

someone runs into the back of you chances are you didn’t reverse into them so it’s the other driver who should prove he wasn’t at fault. I assume you are OK with this presumption?

Car changes lane in front of you even though there isn’t space for it do so causing you to collide. Is it your fault?

Car and cyclist end up in a crash, now most cyclists don’t want to ride into a car and are fairly careful of this due to the fairly dire consequences. Drivers less so, little in the way of consequences if they hit a soft squishy object, more blind spots, more speed, etc etc.

So you are stating that car drivers on the flipside of that statement are homicidal maniacs? How many cyclist do you see looking, indicating and then manoeuvring so that other road users know they are doing? Not many but it’s the car drivers fault if a cyclist turns in front of them without indicating their intentions.