Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Presumed liability Road traffic act

https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/57804

If you think presumed liability will further enhance vulnerable road users safety, then sign the above petition. 100k signatures required

If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.

Add new comment

7 comments

Avatar
jacknorell | 9 years ago
0 likes

3wheelsgood: You're simply wrong about how this works.

In fact, we already have this principle with rear-end shunts, the following vehicle is presumed liable.

Also, most of Europe has this, and it works pretty well.

Avatar
3wheelsgood | 9 years ago
0 likes

No, this is not a good idea. The implication here is that This proposal would have all sorts of consequences and where would it stop? MTB vs Roadbike? Large person vs smaller? High IQ vs low IQ? Just because someone comes off second best in an incident does not preclude the possibility that they may have caused it to happen. Any legal process which relies on presumption, rather than evidence, is demonstrably flawed. The presumption of innocence is firmly enshrined in law and it would be tragic if we allowed any erosion of this, the most fundamental, tenet of our system.
There is no case for making cyclists a special case. However, I look forward to a clear and well-defined list of ''hazardous vehicles'' with an appropriate hierarchy of hazard which will, of course, tell all us muppets who to avoid and help to reduce insurance premiums, provide a safer travelling environment, resolve global conflict and end world poverty, hunger and disease.

Avatar
CXR94Di2 replied to 3wheelsgood | 9 years ago
0 likes
3wheelsgood wrote:

No, this is not a good idea. The implication here is that This proposal would have all sorts of consequences and where would it stop? MTB vs Roadbike? Large person vs smaller? High IQ vs low IQ? Just because someone comes off second best in an incident does not preclude the possibility that they may have caused it to happen. Any legal process which relies on presumption, rather than evidence, is demonstrably flawed. The presumption of innocence is firmly enshrined in law and it would be tragic if we allowed any erosion of this, the most fundamental, tenet of our system.
There is no case for making cyclists a special case. However, I look forward to a clear and well-defined list of ''hazardous vehicles'' with an appropriate hierarchy of hazard which will, of course, tell all us muppets who to avoid and help to reduce insurance premiums, provide a safer travelling environment, resolve global conflict and end world poverty, hunger and disease.

I disagree, at this stage presumed liability is a principle, details of legislation will be decided later

I doubt any vulnerable road user (cyclist for example) would voluntary offer themselves for injury against a vehicle. , knowing full well that the merest small impact could lead to death.

If presumed liability was placed into the road traffic act, drivers would be overly cautious and less inclined to take risks. If however a reckless cyclist made a silly maneuver then the driver would not be liable for the accident. It is making drivers think first about being more cautious when they come up on a vulnerable road user.

Avatar
Sidi 700c replied to 3wheelsgood | 9 years ago
0 likes
3wheelsgood wrote:

No, this is not a good idea. The implication here is that This proposal would have all sorts of consequences and where would it stop? MTB vs Roadbike? Large person vs smaller? High IQ vs low IQ? Just because someone comes off second best in an incident does not preclude the possibility that they may have caused it to happen. Any legal process which relies on presumption, rather than evidence, is demonstrably flawed. The presumption of innocence is firmly enshrined in law and it would be tragic if we allowed any erosion of this, the most fundamental, tenet of our system.
There is no case for making cyclists a special case. However, I look forward to a clear and well-defined list of ''hazardous vehicles'' with an appropriate hierarchy of hazard which will, of course, tell all us muppets who to avoid and help to reduce insurance premiums, provide a safer travelling environment, resolve global conflict and end world poverty, hunger and disease.

Hold on a second. Even the police will admit that up to %90 of all RTC's here in the UK that involve a car and a cyclist will be caused by the car so i see nothing wrong with this at all.

Avatar
Cyclosis | 9 years ago
0 likes

Yup, this is excellent, I've already signed and I'd encourage anyone who cares about road safety (not just cycling) to do the same.

Avatar
Marauder | 9 years ago
0 likes

Signed up thanks

Avatar
Bob's Bikes | 9 years ago
0 likes

Great idea can't believe more people haven't signed up.

Latest Comments