[Closed] Presumed Liability campaign in Scotland

Bump

Signed and shared

Signed and shared too. I've lost a couple of close friends in needless accidents. I think this is a worthwhile step to make all road users more aware of their liabilities.

Signed. To be honest I'm not 100% convinced that strict or even presumed liability are entirely fair, but given the status quo regarding cyclist injuries and deaths I'm in favour of trying anything that might increase cyclist safety, so signed.

I'm in favour of trying anything that might increase cyclist safety, so signed.

as they said

Terrible idea, the amount of dim witted wigo wannabes ****ting about the roads is ridiculous.

My only substantial fear with it is whether the number of fail to stops / give details as a proportion of total cyclist / pedestrian accidents will rise. Knowing you are about to be on the receiving end of a fault claim may motivate a few more to speed off (it's already a fairly significant issue from what I can glean).

Whether it will improve the accident rate or not I am sceptical about. It's to me more about getting the right outcome from insurers and the courts when it goes wrong. Other measures are needed to get to the actual accident rate.

There might be a lot af wiggo wannabes about, but I'm still vulnerable to crap driving.

Terrible idea, the amount of dim witted wigo wannabes ****ting about the roads is ridiculous.

Yeah!
Getting in the way of all those clarksonites! How very dare they use a bicycle on the roads their taxes paid for, and not expect to be mown down by some aging, myopic lord of the highways...

I will say this though, everyone banging on about how strict liability would "improve safety" is sort of wrong, it provides a better mechanism for reparations after an incident, but actually doesn't change much on the road. as a measure for reducing RTI's involving motor vehicles and bicycles it relies on motorists joining the dots and choosing to improve their driving and attitudes based on the possibility of financial loss...

I don't know how many British drivers would actually make that connection when the red mist descends over them...

Ultimately I am in favour of bringing it in as a cyclist and a driver.

I'm in favour of trying anything that might increase cyclist safety, so signed.

Don't feed the troll

Signed Paul.

Yep, signed.

My only substantial fear with it is whether the number of fail to stops / give details as a proportion of total cyclist / pedestrian accidents will rise. Knowing you are about to be on the receiving end of a fault claim may motivate a few more to speed off (it's already a fairly significant issue from what I can glean).

Doesn't failure to stop move things from the civil (insurance claim) to the criminal (prosecution), though?

I'm not convinced presumed liability is the best way to deal with crap driving/riding standards, on the basis that it tackles the symptom rather than the cause.

Have a crash, hand it to your insurers, premium goes up a bit, carry on.

Properly enforce traffic laws, whack people with points, ban them, jail them, that may bring it home to people that poor driving is socially unacceptable.

Who could possibly object to laws that protect the most vulnerable?

It doesn't protect them, it helps them get compensation after they have been hurt.

I'm not totally against it, I'm just not sure that it is the best way of improving driving standards.

I'm not convinced presumed liability is the best way to deal with crap driving/riding standards, on the basis that it tackles the symptom rather than the cause.

Neither am I. But anything that works towards improving the culture of road safety gets my vote.

I don't believe there is a magic bullet that will make the roads safe. But if steps like this are taken, continuously and methodically in time things will (hopefully) improve.

Signed.

deev - You're a tit.

The wiggowannabes are way, way outnumbered by the Colin McRae wannabes.

I don't think anyone is pretending this legislation is all that's needed MCTD.

We have it in Belgium (as I understand) and it does appear to make a difference how drivers behave. Under normal circumstances a vehicle coming in from your right (left in the UK) would have priority and would absolutely take it even when it is risky. However on a bike it is noticeable that cars will back off and let you through instead

Doesn't failure to stop move things from the civil (insurance claim) to the criminal (prosecution), though?

It certainly does but only if the police find the culprit! Also the civil process still continues in parallel. Ie the victim's right to claim for losses remains regardless of what the cps does or doesn't do.

Given the number of failures to stop reported round here lately I don't believe people fear the criminal consequences of that offence probably because they believe the odds of getting caught are limited vs
a highly probable major hike in insurance premium for clouting another road user if they stop and exchange details.

I also wonder (off topic) how many fail to stop incidents are connected with drivers being on the phone at or close to the point of collision. Easy thing to check when the police show up.

We have it in Belgium (as I understand) and it does appear to make a difference how drivers behave.

Do you think that's all it is though?

I rather suspect there are some cultural and other factors at work too.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty....

Anything that improves road safety is a good thing but this isnt that. If this goes ahead.. I can see calls for mandatory tests before cyclists are allowed on the road.. That would probably go a longer way to help road safety.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty....

Bear in mind that we're talking civil standards of proof here (ie. Balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt), and it's not unreasonable to assume the less vulnerable road user is at fault in a collision; if a cyclist runs a red light and gets hit, then clearly that would change the balance of probabilities.

This is the system used in most of the rest of Europe, too.

Plus it will have no effect on the 'innocent until proven guilty' principle of the criminal justice system.

I've twice had a cyclist ride into my front wing, one lept off a pavement without looking and another ran a red lights and didnt see my grey car. One waited for the cops, the other tried to ride off (failed). I cycle myself obviously but presumed liability is ridiculous given the dreadful road manners of a good deal of cyclists.

I've twice had a cyclist ride into my front wing, one lept off a pavement without looking and another ran a red lights and didnt see my grey car.

Both of which would shift liability towards the cyclist, especially the RLJ.

To be clear, presumed liability is not the same as the driver being liable no matter what.

Signed.

I think it's a good thing especially with the amount of kids on bikes.

Too many drivers come far too close. Then if they hit the cyclist, they wail "It was an accident". No it bloody wasn't, it was a high probability.