[Closed] E-petition for strict liability on drivers

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?

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 [b]presumed[/b] 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

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.

[b]It's got nothing to do with policing[/b]. 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 ****er 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 4x4-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.

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

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 4x4-driving maniac...

How did you nearly hit someone on the pavement whilst in your 4x4?

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 4x4?

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 [u]not[/u] 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 [url= http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle-news--general-news/biker-killing-10mph-motorway-driver-gets-20-months/23242.html ]and this guy is going to prison[/url]

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

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?

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 [i]unless proven otherwise[/i].
edit

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

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 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.

don't see many people moaning about that

Isn't that exactly what craigxxl did moan about? You might not agree with his stance but it seems pretty clear to me.

I'm not sure I want to be held liable if some pillock cycles

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?

So you are stating that car drivers on the flipside of that statement are homicidal maniacs?

See some shoddy behaviour from cyclists weaving in and out from the kerb to pass parked cars then pull straight back in to the gutter, bad practice yeah and it seems to come as a complete surprise to some following drivers (where did you think the cyclist was going to go?) I also see some truly shocking bahviour from car drivers, all anecdotal of course. Care to supply the stats KSI stats for cyclists caused by drivers vs ksi for driver caused by cyclists?

Nice sweeping statement. Funny enough I don't have the same views as you state when I'm driving and I don't know any one who drives with those opinions either.
Being a cyclist and motorbike rider I look out for those people when I'm driving even when I used to drive an HGV. I also look out for people on the path who I think may not have seen me. Until they acknowledge me then I assume they haven't.

of course not, but there are plenty of careless ones. Even those who aren't "bad drivers"* seem to have little idea of what safe passing distance is. Fact is there are **** all repercussions for drivers in an accident involving a cyclist so no great car is given by a significant portion. minor shunt = little to no damage to car but potentially significant damage to cyclist. Kill a cyclist chances are you'll drive away form court.

Agree with you but why make all drivers liable for the minority. It should be up to the facts to prove liability than merely assume it otherwise people go to prison for things they didn't do. We're not a backwards country so why act like one.

If a driver gives you plenty of space acknowledge them for doing so. Bet next time they come across another cyclist they'll do the same again. Blame them for everything and you'll get the opposite reaction.

Isn't that exactly what craigxxl did moan about? You might not agree with his stance but it seems pretty clear to me.

otherwise people go to prison for things they didn't do.

If a driver gives you plenty of space acknowledge them for doing so.

this is exactly why it's necessary. Cyclists are not regarded as human beings by most motorists, just "pillocks" who are delaying them/getting in their way/etc

Wtf? Are you suggesting that I consider all cyclists to be pillocks? A pillock is a pillock regardless of transport, obviously. Put one on a bike he is just as likley to do pillocky things as he is in a car.

Pillocks on bikes DO exist. Of course they do. If one rides into me as I drive somewhere, I don't want to be held at fault automatically. How is that fair?

It's not quite the same as rear ending someone as one of your responsibilities as a driver is to be far enough away from the car in front to cope with anything. As the driver in front you cannot take any responsibility for what happens behind you so it can't be your fault. As a cyclist, I CAN and MUST take responsibility for riding safely, just as I must as a driver. We are BOTH under obligation.

Pillocks on bikes DO exist. Of course they do. If one rides into me as I drive somewhere, I don't want to be held at fault automatically. How is that fair?

If a driver gives you plenty of space acknowledge them for doing so. Bet next time they come across another cyclist they'll do the same again. Blame them for everything and you'll get the opposite reaction.

If one rides into me as I drive somewhere, I don't want to be held at fault automatically. How is that fair?

Provided you can prove they were riding like a pillock, then they will be liable, eg. someone rides througha red light and gets hit, has no lights on at night etc. etc.

All that is being asked for is a [b]presumption[/b] that, where a more vulnerable road user is hit by a less vulnerable one, the liability will lie with the latter, and it will be up to the latter to prove the former was at fault. Why is this such a big problem in the UK, when it seems to work fine in much of the rest of Europe?

wah wah. In case you haven't noticed, life ain't fair. Personally I couldn't give a **** about you being slightly inconvenienced if the law also means another cyclist somewhere else avoids being hit and injured/killed.

Hang on - you want me to accept being indicted for something I haven't done? Cos I'm not. Slightly inconvenienced? I could be bankrupted ffs. And if you think this is going to actually stop people from being knocked off their bikes you are living in dreamland.

it will be up to the latter to prove the former was at fault.

So how am I going to do that?

Reinforce the notion that cyclists are guests on the roads and only allowed there if they bow and scrape.

Well no, it's courtesy. I thank shop assitants for serving me politely, I thank call centre workers for dealing with me politely. I don't do this to try and get them to serve me, my money does that. I just do it because I'm nice. Likewise saying hi to walkers I pass.

Woah zilog did you just ninja edit out a quote from me then?

yeah, way to go. Reinforce the notion that cyclists are guests on the roads and only allowed there if they bow and scrape

Hang on - you want me to accept being indicted for something I haven't done? Cos I'm not. Slightly inconvenienced? I could be bankrupted ffs. And if you think this is going to actually stop people from being knocked off their bikes you are living in dreamland.

i can just see it now as the where theres a claim theres blame bottomfeeders are gonna be rich ,rich i tell you

just imagine once its assumed liability theres going to be a whole raft of morons riding into cars for a laugh

Are horseriders insured to ride their horses on roads?

And if you think this is going to actually stop people from being knocked off their bikes you are living in dreamland

its not going to bring about road based peace and harmony but it should make atleast a few drivers think twice before doing stupid manoeuvres around vulnerable road users

A bit like pulling out of a t junction and taking out a motorcyclist? Is that the kind of stupid to which you refer? It happens

Hang on - you want me to accept being indicted for something I haven't done? Cos I'm not. Slightly inconvenienced? I could be bankrupted ffs. And if you think this is going to actually stop people from being knocked off their bikes you are living in dreamland.

Indicted? This is civil law, not criminal. For criminal cases beyond reasonable doubt would still apply. And I'm not sure how a 3rd party claim against your car insurance would bankrupt you.

just imagine once its assumed liability theres going to be a whole raft of morons riding into cars for a laugh

Evidence?

Are horseriders insured to ride their horses on roads?

As with cyclists, some will be, some won't be. If they collide with a pedestrian on their horse, they will be liable under the proposed rules.

Again, can someone explain to me why this system works fine in France/Germany/Holland/Denmark/etc, but why it won't work in the English-speaking EU countries?

Why is this such a big problem in the UK, when it seems to work fine in much of the rest of Europe?

Because this Country's roads turn its users into utter bell-ends.
Donk mentioned earlier that cyclists wouldn't deliberately put themselves in danger, yet I do see road users doing this all the time; putting themselves in more danger just to prove a point.

Couple that with this little nugget of information from the Torygraph;

Whiplash now accounts for 78pc of all personal injury claims in the UK, compared with just 3pc in France.

and it wouldn't surprise me if presumed liability led to people deliberately throwing themselves over the bonnets of unsuspecting motorists. 💡

Indicted? This is civil law, not criminal. For criminal cases beyond reasonable doubt would still apply.

Yes, for civil cases the burden of proof is much less.
Another reason why this is a bad idea.

just imagine once its assumed liability theres going to be a whole raft of morons riding into cars for a laugh

(I would have thought - yes there'll still be some I guess but I don't think strict liability will bring it all about)
Btw I'm talking about purposely causing a crash, the many many opportunist whiplash claims from unintended accidents are just insurance fraudsters, many otherwise law abiding people seem to consider this fair game, I don't.

Whiplash now accounts for 78pc of all personal injury claims in the UK, compared with just 3pc in France.

Again, [url= http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/298630/6mph-the-whiplash-limit ]German law has an answer[/url]:

In Germany the courts take the opposite approach. Insurers will not accept injury claims if evidence shows the collision between two vehicles occurred at speeds below 10kmh or 6.25mph.

Claimants in Germany also have to get two medical opinions to prove they have suffered whiplash.

There is, however, a big difference in risk of life-limiting injury between exaggerating musculoskeletal sprains sustained in a motor vehicle collision and deliberately getting run over, so I don't feel whiplash and presumed liability are exactly comparable.

Evidence?

theres the odd one or two that do it in cars iirc its what puts our premiums up every year this claim culture!!

in fact the new flash you out of a junction scam has just been cottoned onto by the insurers as opposed to the organised lets get someone to run into the back of me crew , which seems to have fallen out of favour

Indicted? This is civil law, not criminal.

Yes, I mean indicted in the non-legal sense but I should have said sued I suppose. And it's a fair point, I'm insured so I'll only face a rise in premiums and possibly points, so not bankruptcy but still far from fair.

What's to stop scrotes riding around quiet places looking for an unsuspecting driver to ride infront of and making a big claim against them? Could be a good living to be made there.

There is, however, a big difference in risk of life-limiting injury between exaggerating musculoskeletal sprains sustained in a motor vehicle collision and deliberately getting run over, so I don't feel whiplash and presumed liability are exactly comparable.

Yet people are so stupid that they will deliberately put themselves in danger to make a point.
Saw a motorist turn right from a minor to major in Cambridge the other day, in front of a cyclist.
Now the cyclist could have slowed down, or could have overtaken the car as it slowed to turn left, but instead the cyclist went with the car into the junction, positioning himself in the ever decreasing gap between the car and the kerb, just so he could bang on the car and give the driver the finger.

Because this Country's roads turn its users into utter bell-ends.
Donk mentioned earlier that cyclists wouldn't deliberately put themselves in danger, yet I do see road users doing this all the time; putting themselves in more danger just to prove a point.

I dont think some cyclists new to it do see themselves in danger

I think and its only my opinion that a lot of the folks on here are seasoned in their use of the roads both as cyclists and drivers, as such they see the danger from both sides , however to some degree cycling profficiency has gone out the window its a case of bob in halford buy a helmet and away you go ,the helmet publicity of it will save your life has just made them ****ing invincible

you couldnt do that on a motorbike and have absolutely no road awareness whatsoever but buy a bike and anyone driving miss daisy can quietly meander along the road till they get hit by a large hardbody object

Of course this is tragic and TBH motorists should drive with consideration that the folk riding bimbling along on their new transportation method it might make sense to educate both parties not just blame one particular set of road users right off the bat

edit, motorbike comment above of course theres the 16-18 yo subset who thrash the bollocks off their 50cc bikes till they meet some kind of demise or take someone else out

Yet people are so stupid that they will deliberately put themselves in danger to make a point.

Drivers not agreeing with strict liability is fair enough you're entitled to your opinion but any cyclist who regularly rides the road who can't see the point once its explained to them...I just find that a bit strange. But hey I keep forgetting 1 shared pastime doesn't make us all alike

are you suggesting drivers don't?

Absolutely not, hence why I used the term "road users" as opposed to just "cyclists". 🙂

Drivers not agreeing with strict liability is fair enough you're entitled to your opinion but any cyclist who regularly rides the road who can't see the point once its explained to them...I just find that a bit strange. But hey I keep forgetting 1 shared pastime doesn't make us all alike

Yes, I can't get my head round this one either. It was also being discussed on the CTC forums (where you;d expect people to be much more pro-presumptive liability) and there was a similar range of opinion.

So far the arguments as to why presumptive liability works in Europe but won't in the UK seem to boil down to 'people will take the piss'. So, can anyone provide any evidence of this in eg. the Netherlands, or is it just English speakers who will abuse the system?

'people will take the piss'

question is would this change have a positive impact on the majority of your everyday user?

That's just a nice why of suggesting that it's ok for innocent motorists to get shafted as long as fewer guilty ones get away with it!

Even the bible is with me on this one. 💡

Even the bible is with me on this one.

The Bible also says 'an eye for an eye' which is why it's no longer the basis of our legal system.

The Bible also says 'an eye for an eye' which is why it's no longer the basis of our legal system.

Are you saying our legal system was based on a fictional work? never knew that, wonder what would happen if it had been based on 50 shades of grey?

Wow, I'm amazed that on a cycling forum there's so many against strict liability. For me it's about changing behaviour to make it safer for all vulnerable road users, cyclists and pedestrians.

If you are in charge of something that can kill or maim others, it's up to you to make sure you don't hit anyone with it. If that means driving more slowly, or not hurtling down pavements on your bike, then so be it.

If you accidentally shot someone who walked out in front of you, I think most peoples reaction would be to blame the person with the gun, not the dead man for not wearing a bullet proof jacket. As far as I'm concerned it's the same with hitting someone with your car or bike.

It will make it safer for us all. That seems like a good thing to me 🙂

[b]Cynic-al[/b] - do you have a copy of the proposed legislation? You speak with conviction about it but I thought it was really just an idea at present. I can't think, off the top of my head, of another situation in Civil law where strict liability applies in Scotland. I may just be being thick but since the burden of proof is only to Balance of Probabilities level, its not [i]that[/i] hard to prove anyway. Where strict liability applies in the Criminal courts it is usually because (i) it should be quite easy to show [i]you[/i] had complied with the requirement and (ii) it would be very difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone had not. Classic example being Motor Insurance.

[b]D0NK or others claiming strict liability applied in read end shunts[/b] - does it? I accept there is certainly a convention amongst insurers. I also think the courts would generally agree but is that based on specific legislation or assessment of the facts of the case? Or does it come from case law rather than legislation.

[b]ratherbeintobago[/b] - "is it just english speakers"... actually our legal systems are based on fundamentally different premises; most continental European countries operate on Inquisitorial Systems where the court is expected to establish facts. Our legal system are adversarial and the court is only making a judgement on which argument is stronger not who is right! So there may be a fundamental reason why it is less appropriate in the UK.

[b]zilog / ScoobysM8[/b] - why will motorist take more care? it won't really hurt them financially their insurers will pay. Since hitting a bike is likely to damage your car anyway its not like they don't already have an incentive to avoid the crash.

Do we need this? Is there actually a body of evidence that suggests that cases which make it to court for civil claims are predominantly found in the motorists favour? I'd be a little surprised at that as with a Balance of Probability claim it is not too hard to build up a picture where its unlikely that a sensible cyclist would have intentionally have put themselves in harms way. The court only needs to decide then if it is [i]more likely[/i] that the cyclist acted irrationally or the driver had (caused) an accident - a good lawyer shouldn't really struggle to present a case that you are a careful and competent cyclist and the most likely cause is the driver - if that is the case. Witnesses etc whilst useful are not essential.

I thought it was being suggested a while back as a Criminal Law proposal? In many ways I am even less comfortable with that - but the "its only civil law" for compensation claims argument is fundamentally flawed.

ScoobysM8 - Member

Wow, I'm amazed that on a cycling forum there's so many against strict liability. For me it's about changing behaviour to make it safer for all vulnerable road users, cyclists and pedestrians.

I'd like the roads to be safer full stop.
I believe the best way of doing this is by changing the attitudes of all road users.
Strict liability may help towards changing the attitudes of some drivers, but it sends the wrong message to cyclists and reinforces the idea that we are not equal on the roads.
Without equality you'll never achieve harmony.

I believe the best way of doing this is by changing the attitudes of all road users.

Strict liability may help towards changing the attitudes of some drivers, but it sends the wrong message to cyclists and reinforces the idea that we are not equal on the roads.

Yup gives anyone on a push bike the right to say you hit me now your liable I'm going to sue your arse and have a 50 50 of the judge siding with me.......oh lordy what have i got to lose

sbob,I totally agree that strict liability on it's own isn't the answer. It's just one step in the right direction, along with things like Boris bikes, better infrastructure etc. All part of the shift in attitudes that is already happening despite motorists protestations. And yes, we are equal, with every right to be on the road. That's the point of the legislation as I see it.
But we are not equal in a collision. We are going to come off worst. So we have to protect the more vulnerable. Pedestrians first, then cyclists, cars last.

zilog / ScoobysM8 - why will motorist take more care? it won't really hurt them financially their insurers will pay. Since hitting a bike is likely to damage your car anyway its not like they don't already have an incentive to avoid the crash.

Sure, it's only going to hurt them financially in terms of their no claims bonus. But anything that moves towards making it socially unacceptable to mow down cyclists and pedestrians is a good thing

Wow, I'm amazed that on a cycling forum there's so many against strict liability. For me it's about changing behaviour to make it safer for all vulnerable road users, cyclists and pedestrians.

I am very much in favour of changing behaviour, I am just not convinced that this is a good way of doing it, or that it will even work.

If you accidentally shot someone who walked out in front of you, I think most peoples reaction would be to blame the person with the gun, not the dead man for not wearing a bullet proof jacket.

It depends on the circumstances as to whether or not the gun-holder was to blame, but in any case driving a car is a necessary part of modern society (as it stands), carrying a gun is not.

But anything that moves towards making it socially unacceptable to mow down cyclists and pedestrians is a good thing

I honestly do not think it is socially acceptable at the moment.

Wow, I'm amazed that on a cycling forum there's so many against strict liability.

Just because I am a cyclist does not mean I am blind to consequences of rules and legislation. I'm not a member of a tribe.

Sure, it's only going to hurt them financially in terms of their no claims bonus. But anything that moves towards making it socially unacceptable to mow down cyclists and pedestrians is a good thing

Are you stating here the legislation means that cyclists will be liable for running into pedestrians

I never figured out why cyclists use the term "ped" with destain like they are a lower group even

I never figured out why cyclists use the term "ped"

Easier to type and say.