- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Scottish Parliament Bike Stands (copyright Simon MacMichael).jpgScottish Road Share campaign steers presumed liability law towards Parliament
Cycling campaign group, Road Share, is drawing on expertise from organisations including CTC, Scottish Cycling and Pedal on Parliament as it steps up its campaign for Scotland to adopt a law of presumed liability against motorists involved in collisions with people on bikes.
Road Share’s Campaign for Stricter Liability is targeting the introduction of liability laws that would deem motorists automatically liable in incidents with cyclists, unless it can be proved that the cyclist was at fault.
As it stands, the UK is one of only five EU countries that do not have a presumed liability law in place, which are based on a hierarchy of road users, with the most vulnerable afforded the greatest protection.
Under the system there is a presumption of liability against a lorry driver involved in a collision with a car, for example, or against a cyclist involved in an incident with a pedestrian.
A petition calling for a change in Scottish liability legislation has been active since April last year and has attracted 5,500 signatures.
In order to focus its efforts on lobbying the Scottish Parliament for the legislation, Road Share has set up a steering committee.
The committee has been tasked with analysing the benefits of civil law reform on road safety while also lobbying MSPs for a Member’s Bill for presumed liability in traffic collisions to Holyrood in the near future.
According to Glasgow-based newspaper The Herald, the steering committee is made up of 14 individuals from a number of key cycling organisations, including CTC, Scottish Cycling, Cycle Law Scotland and Pedal on Parliament which is coincidentally due to hold its third annual ride to Holyrood in Ediburgh this weekend to call for cycling-friendly Scottish roads.
Under the principle of presumed liability that Road Share wants to see introduced, in a collision between a car and a cyclist, the driver would be deemed liable and must pay full damages if the collision was unintentional by both parties and the cyclist cannot be proved to have been at fault in some way.
Similar laws operate in the majority of European countries, including in the Netherlands since the early 1990s.
Road Share references the continental cycling experience in a Q&A on its website where it cites strict liability laws as one of the contributing factors to the positive cycling culture in countries such as Belgium and the Netherlands.
It says: “Those of us who have cycled on the continent know that there is a very different relationship between motor vehicles and cyclists, one based on respect that was brought about in part by stricter liability.”
The campaign’s steering committee is to be chaired by national cycling charity CTC councillor Dr Chris Oliver, while other prominent Scottish cycling supporting councillors Frank McAveety and Jim Orr are due to join him.
The founder of Cycle Law Scotland, Brenda Mitchell, who established the Road Share campaign last year, spoke to The Herald about the formation of the steering committee.
She said: "I am very pleased to see representatives from a number of different key organisations come together to work on this very important campaign."
You can keep up with Road Share's progress via its Facebook and Twitter feeds.
Latest Comments
- quiff 7 min 55 sec ago
I think there are also hazard perception videos now. One of them was linked on here a while back, and lots of us scored badly because our cycling...
- chrisonabike 15 min 8 sec ago
Wow! This could be the birth of the Unsubscribe movement! (Or is it de-platforming?)...
- chrisonabike 20 min 44 sec ago
Don't fear the reaper! Fear the actuary.
- mark1a 1 hour 44 min ago
Just checked the codes on the back of my licence (only passed a standard car test in 1988) and can drive a car up to 3500kg with any weight of...
- Cyclo1964 1 hour 45 min ago
Bar - humbug 😉
- Wingguy 2 hours 1 min ago
It certainly arrived several years too late... but it would have failed anyway, the lever feel and performance of the whole system was just awful....
- David9694 2 hours 8 min ago
I thought it amusing that there was a car parked in the opening when Google passed. Anyway, I refer you to the official list of Driver Free Passes ...
- wycombewheeler 2 hours 16 min ago
I made the mistake of attending the police station to report a crime, and they just told me to do it over the phone.
- Hirsute 2 hours 18 min ago
I need more training to prevent 48mph passes into oncoming traffic.
- Zermattjohn 2 hours 21 min ago
Saturation flow, that's what you need to refer to. Get the mayor to call TfL traffic engineers and ask what it means. He'll have his tiny mind...
Add new comment
49 comments
Hells teeth! Those London pedestrians are going to get even worse!
In 1982 Lord Denning stated that:
Thirty two years on this state of injustice remains on our roads, it is time for change!
Having rode a lot in Spain where it's is already law trust me it works.No cars or hgv's come near.Infact they give way on roundabouts when they have right of way and never come close when passing.It feels strange at first but safe.Only ex pats (brits) come close.They pass close and sure enough the GB badge is on the back.Also they always look too old to be driving the ex pats that is!!
Spain has a few other laws in addition to Presumed Liability and one is that a peloton of cyclists is treated as one vehicle. So if the front of the peloton gets onto a roundabout or through a junction, the rest of it is legally entitled to follow, even if the lights change or there is another vehicle coming round the roundabout that (in the UK) would have right of way.
Very similar to an articulated lorry driving through a junction.
I'm fairly sure Spain also has a 1.5m minimum passing law (anyone care to back me up on that?). It also has a very strong culture of cycling so chances are even if the driver doesn't actually cycle, they'll still be very proud of the Vuelta, Indurain, Contador etc.
Presumed Liability in the UK would be probably the single biggest Good Thing for any politician to do for cycling.
They might have half a chance of getting this through in Scotland. However in England the daily mail and sun reads would take to the street in revolution if this idea came anywhere near becoming law.
No political party would go aware near this idea because of the right wing media.
[[[[[ Daily Mail and The Sun readers revolting? How very dare you!
P.R.
Do you know, this is the first time I've actually seen "Strict Liability" explained in a way which actually makes sense to me?
I've previously been flatly opposed to the idea, believing it to take away the presumption of innocence. Now, I'm more comfortable with the concept.
So to check: Is this a valid breakdown from a cyclist's perspective:
Collide with a pedestrian?
No evidence to back you up?
Pay up.
If so, I think it would now be a very foolish cyclist who does not, at the very least, take out third-party insurance. We're strictly liable.
The bicycle has been around for over 130 year and all that time there has never been a requirement for cyclists to have insurance. Motorist have been legal required to have third party insurance since 1903, seven years after the first pedestrian was killed by a car. The reason that cyclists are not, and have not ever been, required to have third party insurance is because they do very little harm to other.
In the event that Presumed Liability becomes law, I see no reason why I would need to go out and get third party insurance, because I ride with care and attention, and therefore don't pose a threat to pedestrians. This such a law would have no negative consequence for me because I do not ride in a reckless manner. Only the reckless have anything to fear from Presumed Liability.
No. The liable have everything to fear from the reckless.
One witness-less incident with the witless and you are worth less.
Except the experience of all countries with strict liability doesn't show this. At all.
Regardless of what the Daily Fail says.
I believe most of us will already have liability insurance through our Home Buildings & Contents insurance. I'm covered within the UK on mine.
As a regular cyclist and occasional driver, I'm very much for this type of legislation to be implemented (across the whole of the UK please!!). Two things spring to mind:
Isn't hierarchical presumed liability similar to the way that if there is a collision of one vehicle into the back of another, it is understood that it is always the following vehicles fault, "should have left sufficient braking distance" (unless it can be shown the front vehicle did something reckless).
- Aren't most drivers aware of this?
- Can't this be given as a example of how it would work that they would understand?
Failing better driver education, can't the campaign to get the law just focus on 2 aspects: a) When a lorry hits a car it's presumed the lorries fault, b) When a cyclist hits a pedestrian, it's presumed the cyclists fault. Those 2 should get the car drivers cheering the new law on (before the fully grasp the Car to Cyclists relationship :-p )
D :>
@dgcorp
No change there then!
Anyhow, I have heard good arguments saying that this won't make any difference. I'd still like to see it written in stone though because there is still far too much victim blaming going on.
This move it long over due, I have written a number of posts about Strict Liability and I fully support this move.
Good blog, this bit I especially liked:
Because it's not about who is to blame after the fact, it is about deterring bad driving in the first place.
I imagine UK insurers wouldnt be keen on this change.
Insurers should be jumping at this. Most of their costs are incurred from going to court, and Presumed Liability would drastically reduce the likelihood of a case getting that far.
Mmmm not sure about that, If most of the costs were from courts they could avoid those now by accepting liability without dispute.
Whilst you would hope driver behaviour changed and claims were minimal there'll be some additional costs and those will be borne by insurers firstly and premium payers in the end.
Don't get me wrong I agree in principle with the idea but I wonder if the campaigners have sort a view from motor insurers.
Most cases don't go to court - insurers will settle out of court after dragging their feet for as long as possible.
What Presumed Liability will help with is helping vulnerable road users be compensated quickly and fairly for their injuries and losses. At the minute you can have people waiting years for a resolution to their case, which is entirely unfair.
Pages