I’m reluctant to support this as automatically assuming one party is guilty because they’re bigger/ faster/ more dangerous doesn’t sit comfortably with me.

However, the swaying aspect may be the fact that it will hopefully stop drivers acting like dicks around cyclists, but in addition cyclists will have to stop acting like dicks too. In addition to all the mind boggling driving I see, there’s plenty of horrendous cycling moves including

Riding along the pavement then suddenly veering onto the road or vice versa
Red light jumping and riding through pedestrian crossings
Riding the wrong way down one way streets
No lights or high visibility clothing
Filtering up the inside of lorries, buses etc
etc

So if this law makes EVERYONE behave and follow the road laws, then it’ll be a good thing

People do the scams in cars because it’s relatively low risk (in a KSI sense of the word).

I cut someone up and hit the brakes. The result is a dent in the back of my car and the front of their car. No independent witnesses so it’s decided that at worst it’s 50/50 but likely to be 100% their fault.

I then claim for my whiplash, my 4 mates in the car also claim. The worst case scenario, realistically, is that we all really do have whiplash. But there’s a good chance we’re all fine and are lying about the injuries.

Even with a HGV, I’m unlikely to be seriously hurt. That’s why there were so many ‘brake test’ crashes which led to lots of HGVs having cameras fitted.

On a bike, I decide I want some money so I throw myself infront of a car. The realistic worst case scenario is death or lifelong disability. If I’m very lucky I get away without any injuries but can make a claim by lying (as in the car example).

I have had plenty of opportunities to not avoid a dangerous move by a car while cycling. With the helmet cam as evidence each of those could have meant compensation. Earlier this year, for example, I could have let myself go under the wheels of a HGV. but I didn’t think “just stay here and I’ll be dragged under, then it’s payout time”. I thought “Holy jesus **** I’m going to die unless I move”, so I moved. Being hit by motor vehicles hurts. Being rearended by a car, while you’re inside a car, is much less risky and much less unpleasant.

I should say that I’m also a driver, not some rabid anti-car loon, but I don’t think this will have a significant impact on insurance premiums. 😉

The text of the debate (thrilling!) is available online. It was disappinting to see the debate immediately derailed into “but some people ride bikes on the pavement, so we won’t do anything to help any of them”. Ignoring the fact that if a cyclist hits a ped then the cyclist would be presumed to be liable.

And I think what’s proposed is actually presumed liability, not strict liability. Strict = less vulnerable party is always at fault. presumed = less vulnerable party is presumed to be at fault unless it can be proved otherwise.

And that’s “at fault” in a civil sense. Not “guilty” in a criminal sense. This has nothing to do with criminal proceedings.

This is pretty normal in other countries and they’ve not imploded in a circle of cyclists in a crash for cash scheme.

I don’t see the issue, don’t hit the cyclist and it won’t matter, do hit the cyclist because he’s riding like a tit and I’ll use the camera footage from my roadhawk to prove he was being a tit.

o hit the cyclist because he’s riding like a tit and I’ll use the camera footage from my roadhawk to prove he was being a tit.

Isn’t the point that you see him being a tit and so give him the time and space to be a tit without running him over?

i think the only progress on this thread is some folks do realise some folks drive like tits and blame the others others cycle like tits and blame the others

Isn’t the point that you see him being a tit and so give him the time and space to be a tit without running him over?

Indeed but there may be instances where this isn’t possible. Or else you would never had road accidents either.

Composite pro. Do you understand presumed liability?
The reason why it affects an HGV more is they’re bigger than everything else. So if a car drives into me, I’m at fault until I prove otherwise.

Jeesus wept, there are so many monumental bell-ends on this thread 😐

I think the way this will be seen as potentially unjust is that there’s plenty of poor cycling behaviour about (there’s a cycling forum with a lengthy thread for “today’s worst cycling”, and we all see it most days) which is what will cause controversial incidents, rather than deliberate scamming.

Though ultimately an innocent motorist will be cleared by the courts, assuming there are witnesses of course, he will still have to suffer years of loss of no claims bonus – the claim will have been paid out so I can’t see insurance companies reinstating the bonus (and, on a side issue, I think insuring against loss of no claims bonus should not be permitted as that can’t help improve driving standards generally).

I’m not against the proposal per se but don’t feel it will produce the cycling nirvana that some seem to think it will. There are other, more cultural, reasons why continental cyclists fare better.

Composite pro. Do you understand presumed liability?
The reason why it affects an HGV more is they’re bigger than everything else. So if a car drives into me, I’m at fault until I prove otherwise.

well kind of but im very cynical of it

for example if motorists were told we will fit a black box in everycar to monitor you driving like a tit and therefor have 100 percent proof of who we can apportion blame there would be a public revolt

see that’s what its all about in my opinion finding the easiest way to apportion blame or beat one group of road users with a stick till they perform in a nicer manner and it kind of smacks of hypocrisy when cycling groups are saying education and respect for all

ffs the circus stopped training animals like this a long time ago and even then you didnt educate the animal ,you made it fearfull to do anything else ,its not educationg anyone is it

we covered this last time round bay saying people in europe were more honest and less likely to screw each other over at every opportunity ,

Because, of course, countries like Italy are well
known for their upright attitude to public finances.

see that’s what its all about in my opinion finding the easiest way to apportion blame or beat one group of road users with a stick till they perform in a nicer manner and it kind of smacks of hypocrisy when cycling groups are saying education and respect for all

I think you are forgetting that cars and lorries kill people quite badly, its bloody hard for a cyclist to kill a pedestrian.. (I know it does happen, but its uncommon and quite hard to achieve)

The point is a ton or more of metal is a lethal weapon, and I reckon the law needs to recognise this more explicitly.

In the workplace moving rotating machinery is guarded and heavily regulated for safety, it baffles me that similar levels of safety are not applied on the road. Standing on the kerb, holding my kids hand, waiting to cross, whilst a lorry goes past at 40mph is basically terrifying and unbelievably risky, why is this legal or sensible?

I think the way this will be seen as potentially unjust is that there’s plenty of poor cycling behaviour about

Except that in the grand scheme of things there isn’t. Not compared to the amount of poor driving around, and certainly not if you do a proper risk analysis ie look at the consequences as well. The amount of risk due to poor cycling is incredibly low compared to that from even “careful and considerate” driving (as defined by a court recently).

The fundamental all the antis are missing is that the current presumption of liability is very different to the reality and this measure will go a long way to correcting that. Overall it will be far more fair – what’s not to like about that?