A cyclist has begun a petition calling for a strict, or presumed liability law in England.
Sam Savage, a cyclist, has begun the campaign through the 38 Degrees site, saying that: “This law will help make Britain's roads safer for cyclists by increasing the awareness and caution of motorists.
“It will say to motorists 'if you choose to use one ton of metal that can move at some speed to transport yourself, then you need to be extremely careful in every manoeuvre you take'.”
Strict liability is an oft-debated topic at road.cc, with a movement in Scotland in particular to bring in the law.
Recently we reported how relatives of two cyclists killed on Scotland’s roads have added their voices to the campaign calling on the Scottish Government to bring in presumed liability under the country’s civil law for road traffic incidents including those in which a bike rider is the victim.
The system, which operates in all but five member states of the European Union, provides for a presumption of liability on for example a motorist involved in a collision with a more vulnerable road user such as a cyclist, unless the latter can be shown to have been at fault.
In the absence of such a system under Scots law, the families of Andrew McNicoll, who died in Edinburgh in January 2012 following a collision with a lorry, and Sally Low, who lost her life after a collision with a car in Moray last year, have to show the driver was at fault in the civil cases they have brought.
The petition in full reads:
Dear Department for Transport,
Please pass a strict liability law between motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.
It would mean that motorists are presumed to be at fault in civil actions after an accident with a cyclist or pedestrian, unless they can prove they were not to blame. It would also mean that cyclists would be presumed to be at fault for accidents involving pedestrians.
It would NOT mean motorists are criminally liable, it would just be for the purposes of compensation.
We are only one of a very small number of countries across Europe (Romania, Cyprus, Malta and Ireland) that do not have this law.
In accidents where a cyclist was killed or badly hurt the cyclist was presumed to have committed an offence in just 6% of cases [1], the vehicle driver was assumed to have done so 56% of the time. Although Boris got this massively wrong, this disparity is just common sense because motorists have no fear of injury or death if they collide with a cyclist. The fear is great visa versa, therefore there will be a disparity in the caution used and who causes the accidents.
This law will help make Britain's roads safer for cyclists by increasing the awareness and caution of motorists. It will say to motorists 'if you choose to use one ton of metal that can move at some speed to transport yourself, then you need to be extremely careful in every manoeuvre you take'.
It’s a law that appears popular with road.cc readers; just this week we reported how concerns about the danger from traffic are often cited as the reason adults are reluctant to cycle. Road safety charity Brake says that safety concerns deter children and teenagers from cycling too — and their parents from letting them.
Brake surveyed 1,301 11-17 year olds in secondary schools and colleges across the UK, finding almost half (47%) said parental worries were preventing them from starting cycling or cycling more.
Brake also found:
- Two in five (38%) 11-17 year olds cite a lack of safe routes as a barrier to cycling
- Four in ten (41%) think traffic in their area is too fast for the safety of people on foot and bike
The law could potentially be used in cases such as that of a driver who hit and killed a 73-year-old cyclist but walked free from Ipswich Crown Court after being found not guilty of causing death by careless driving.
Retired planning officer Colin Crowther was hit by the car being driven by 29-year-old Sam Burrows on January 16, 2014. Mr Crowther hit the car's kerbside windscreen, rolled over the car and landed on the ground.
Mr Burrows said he had been blinded by the sun "without warning" and then heard a bang as his car hit Mr Crowther.
He denied causing death by careless driving and was unanimously found not guilty by a jury after a three-day trial.
69 thoughts on “Cyclist starts strict liability petition – calling for drivers to prove they weren’t at fault in a collision”
“Mr Burrows said he had been
“Mr Burrows said he had been blinded by the sun “without warning” ”
Indeed, that sun just mugged him. Because no-one ever thought the sun might be bright before. He should have been jailed just for that statement – shows a determined lack of nous when driving, not careless, but actually dangerous attitude…
This is a great idea. I know
This is a great idea. I know at least one cyclist who was forced to accept reduced compensation and left out of pocket after being hit by a driver who disputed liability. As things stand, unless you have witnesses it’s all too easy for the driver’s insurer to try it on.
But let’s also be realistic. The UK already has strict liability for collisions involving an impact from behind. Is that widely known, and does it make drivers on motorways observe stopping distances?
Most countries in the EU have strict liability. Do they all have the same rates of cycling as the Netherlands or Denmark?
Would the thought of a more straightforward insurance claim be enough to persuade you to let your child cycle to school unaccompanied?
Let’s campaign for strict liability, but let’s not blow this up into something that it blatantly isn’t.
Signed
Signed
There is a very important
There is a very important tenet of British law, that of presumed innocence.
As both a driver and a keen cyclist, neither party should be assumed guilty of wrong doing automatically. Guilt should only be established through due process.
I also speak as someone who spent a night in A&E in December following being thrown off my bike and knocked unconscious by a car that hadn’t seen me.
leewalton wrote:There is a
Do give over with the ancient laws of England stuff. If you drive into the back of another car you will be presumed liable for insurance purposes. This is just an extension of that.
leewalton wrote:There is a
You are confusing criminal and civil. When charged with a criminal offence there is a presumption of innocence until guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt. The petition, poorly worded as it is, does not address criminal liability but civil liability where no resumption of “innocence” applies. The only issue is one of responsibility ( not “guilt”) for the thing complained of. Like being knocked off your bike. A rebuttable presumption of responsibility when you hit a more vulnerable user such as a cyclist or pedestrian does not imply guilt in a criminal sense, but the factual circumstances may satisfy the charging standards for a particular offence and lead to prosecution as well.
leewalton wrote:There is a
There is also a thing called a dictionary. Why not look up the difference between liable and culpable.
sfichele wrote:leewalton
As sharp as your cutting wit may be, I believed that one does tend to imply the other. But again, I’m not a lawyer.
Innocent until guilty is a
Innocent until guilty is a tenet of criminal law.
Presumed liability applies only in civil law, where ‘innocent until guilty’ has never applied.
Well, I’m not a lawyer, so
Well, I’m not a lawyer, so had assumed presumption of innocence would apply equally to civil law as well as criminal law. I stand corrected.
There is a very important
Well, for starters, there’s no such thing as “British law”….
The presumed, or strict liability, laws would not change the principle of innocent until proved guilty in Scottish or English criminal law. As explained in the article, they would put the burden of proof on the driver (or cyclist, in cyclist vs pedestrian collisions) for civil cases.
I think this is a very good idea. The prospect of taking a financial hit through increased insurance if judged to be at fault is one of the few things that might make dangerous or careless drivers think twice.
Scotland may have presumed
Scotland may have presumed liability first, which would help the English campaigns
CXR94Di2 wrote:Scotland may
I seriously doubt we will. The SNP are just as scared of losing the moton vote as the other three tory parties, so unless we somehow manage to elect a green government, it will be killing as usual up here.
CXR94Di2 wrote:Scotland may
Not going to happen even with the high profile campaign. Keith Brown before the reshuffle had stated that there is no evidence that strict or should we say presumed liability was a factor in reducing collisions throughout the EU. I would assume that this is the party line. They also make a lot of bluster in regards to money being invested in cycling but this would seem to be more pitched at leisure cyclists rather than serious commuters (my 30mile round commute has no cycling provision whatsoever). The SNP no longer need to pander to the Greens with empty promises of provisions for cycling and sustainable transport as they hold the majority within Holyrood. They would much rather spend millions in duelling roads with no cycle provision and build bridges 🙁 On a more local govt level. Glasgow City Council voted against a blanket 20mph for the city regardless of the fact that the avg speed is probably well below that.
giff77 wrote:On a more local
More accurately, GCC tried to block a petition calling for 20mph limits but have since had to allow it. The petition closes on 7 March 2015, so please take a minute to sign it if it’s something you’d like to see.
You must be a Glasgow resident.
https://www.glasgowconsult.co.uk/KMS/epetitions.aspx
Thanks.
Glasgow Cyclist wrote:giff77
Thanks for setting me right. I missed the bit. Been on nightshift so have missed out on a lot. Sadly I can’t sign as I’m in Renfreshire. It is something I would like to see and may encourage me into the city more regularly.
The Criminal Law is a very
The Criminal Law is a very expensive way to deal with all but the most serious or culpable matters. Introducing presumed liablity followed by a program of educational flyers from insurance companies etc is probably a good thing and may have, as suggested above some impact on some drivers behavior. it wont be a panacea. But then nothing ever is. I would like to see it accompanied by a safe passing rule/law which i think will give presumed liability even more weight. But it will certainly make it easier to claim against drivers in most cases.
Great idea, I’m off to sign
Great idea, I’m off to sign it now.
Does it really say ‘The fear
Does it really say ‘The fear is great visa versa’. I hate illiteracy in official documentation. I lose faith in the author.
I’m still not sure, we are
I’m still not sure, we are going to strictly liable for running into pedestrians wearing earphones staring at a screen I assume?
Strict Liabilty operates in
Strict Liabilty operates in several areas of English law, not just on the road (though the presumption that the driver behind in a rear-ender is liable is one). It is simply the removal of the need to prove intent (mens rea) when one is shown to have been negligent. So the defence of ‘I was blinded by the sun’ (in other words, ‘I didn’t mean to kill him, it was an accident, guv’) would not stand, as the requirement to drive in accordance with the conditions would determine that, by definition, the driver was at fault. That presumption would remove insurance companies’ prevarication at paying out, and their attempts to reduce payment. Well, they’d probably still try it on, but their chances of success would be less! To me, this is the major advantage – you won’t stop the killing, but you will ensure that the victims get paid.
Civil and criminal
Civil and criminal proceedings are completely separate. Civil courts don’t hear “defences” and they don’t consider “mens rea”. None of this would affect criminal proceedings. Stop muddying the water.
I’ll sign but there is no
I’ll sign but there is no chance of this ever happening in this country any political party at even thinks about this will be savaged by the all powerful daily fail.
Wait a minute. I question:
Wait a minute. I question: ‘If you choose to use 1 ton of metal’ We do not ‘choose’ to run cars or to depend on them, we all depend on them; even cyclists.
Without drivers and walkers society would collapse totally. And that especially includes the private car. All forms of transport is now based around the private motor car making all the links and connections. On the other hand, cycling is pure choice and something society doesn’t need or depend on at all. It’s really no good cyclists being upset about that reality.
Surely, if cyclists are demanding such a liability to be imposed on its essential infrastructure, society is entitled to ask do we need cyclists? The answer is pretty self evident; it’s no we don’t.
If road cycling were suggested now as a new invention, with unprotected humans mingling with all these one ton machines, we would call out the men in white coats.
I say all this as a cyclist. The fact is, that the vast majority of people who have ever cycled are like me. No Lycra, no spandex, no shorts and lightweight racers: just a nice sedate upright roadster European style and we demand nothing.
Either cycle or don’t cycle but don’t moan and make people ask: ‘Why do we need them anyway?’ And don’t respond that drivers are not entitled to do that. They have every right to ask it.
I’m going to sign it, but I
I’m going to sign it, but I think it would stand a better chance if it was re-worded in the ‘Seattle style’, to use ‘person who cycles’ rather than ‘cyclist’ etc…
So a case starts off. Your
So a case starts off. Your client chose to expose himself by, being unprotected, to mix, mingle, compete with and generally be in the path of large, heavy, essential, and complex moving machinery operated by complete strangers of varying ability and mental capacity. And the court rules that, by definition of his chosen activity, the cyclist is already 80% liable? :H
I’ve signed!
I’ve signed!
“I’m still not sure, we are
“I’m still not sure, we are going to strictly liable for running into pedestrians wearing earphones staring at a screen I assume?”
I would be surprised. If someone walks across the road in a state of oblivion they might have to bear some of the responsibility. But I guess it does put more responsibility on cyclists to watch out for them.
Fair to assume that if a bike
Fair to assume that if a bike and car collide that the cyclist probably did everything to avoid it.
However people on foot often when approached from the rear often move in front of your without warning, esp with headphones on if they haven’t heard your bell or shout. And as for dogs…
Fair to assume that if a bike
Fair to assume that if a bike and car collide that the cyclist probably did everything to avoid it.
However people on foot often when approached from the rear often move in front of your without warning, esp with headphones on if they haven’t heard your bell or shout. And as for dogs…
Fair to assume that if a bike
Fair to assume that if a bike and car collide that the cyclist probably did everything to avoid it.
However people on foot often when approached from the rear often move in front of your without warning, esp with headphones on if they haven’t heard your bell or shout. And as for dogs…
Don’t agree with it.
Don’t agree with it. Fundamentally wrong imo.
Eebijeebi wrote:Don’t agree
So is it ‘fundamentally wrong’ that if you drive into the back of another car you are held to be at fault?
oldstrath wrote:Eebijeebi
Unless the other car reverses it’s very hard to not be a fault to rear end someone.
Imo it’s fundamentally wrong that one road user is guilty until proven innocent just because of type. i.e in the absence of any other evidence one is automatically to blame? I see that as total bollox.
Eebijeebi wrote:oldstrath
Unless the other car reverses it’s very hard to not be a fault to rear end someone.
Imo it’s fundamentally wrong that one road user is guilty until proven innocent just because of type. i.e in the absence of any other evidence one is automatically to blame? I see that as total bollox.— Eebijeebi
IMHO it is obscene that a vulnerable road user or their family cannot receive appropriate compensation and have to fight for years and go through the trauma of trying to prove to the insurance company that their client was in the wrong even when police evidence shows the driver is guilty and has been prosecuted accordingly. Years ago I was caught up in a hit and run. The other driver was caught and successfully charged with various offences. Meanwhile. I didn’t get a penny out of the insurance company. Now that’s bollix
The moment you choose to take
The moment you choose to take a motor vehicle onto the road you accept responsibility for that vehicle and any damage it may cause. A motor vehicle/cyclist collision is assymmetrical. A car driver brings most of the danger yet suffers a tiny fraction of the injuries. A cyclist brings very little danger, yet suffers most of the injuries.
Is it just, is it fair, that in a no fault collision where a car driver brings 95% of the danger, a cyclist can end up with 95% of the penalty? Clearly not. What this legislation proposes is that, by choosing to take your car on the road you accept the liability for the damage, unless you can demonstrate that it was clearly the fault of the other party.
if you own a dog then you are already familiar with this concept. Your dog bites someone and you are liable unless you can prove that the incident was the result of deliberate and intentional provocation.
I’ve lived in Norway – the method works. I’ve travelled in the Netherlands – it works there too.
The sooner the better for everyone.
Can we stop seeing this as
Can we stop seeing this as purely a car vs bike law, it also helps to protect cars from vans and HGVs who do their own fair share of throwing their weight around and expecting everyone else to just get out of the way.
Why not sell it to car drivers by reminding them that it will hopefully stop vans, HGVs and busses from just pulling out into traffic, tailgating and other fear tactics they use on other road users as they know cars will come off worse in a collision. anything that might stop Navaras and Transit vans from trying to drive 1″ off my bumper just because I choose to stick to the speed limit is only a good thing in my mind.
Dazwan. Presumed Liability
Dazwan. Presumed Liability already exists within insurance groups. If you shunt somebody it is a foregone conclusion that the rear car takes the fall. The heavy vehicles etc that tailgate you when driving are bullies and know you do not want to get bogged down in the nightmare that is an insurance claim and that you are going to get out of the way. This levels the playing field by making it easier for the vulnerable to be recompensed for damages and financial loss when hit by a vehicle. It also makes it much easier for a victims family to gain compensation where at the moment some have to wait years and nearly always prove to the insurance company that the driver was at fault.
Done
Done
Excuse me of this has been
Excuse me of this has been mentioned but the greatest obstacle this suggestion will face is the insurance companies and governments who work with them to reduce the cost of insurance keep everyone and his dog in a car.
Because It won’t be Dave in his white van paying the cost of an incident it will be his insurer and subsequently all people who pay insurance.
So I can’t see it happening whilst we have politician so deeply embedded in the interest of businesses.
IanW1968 wrote:Excuse me of
Plenty of evidence to suggest it will reduce premiums, and reduce cost to insurance companies, as it avoids them going to court and cases are quickly settled.
Yeah, good luck with that.
Yeah, good luck with that.
‘Fair to assume that if a
‘Fair to assume that if a bike and car collide that the cyclist probably did everything to avoid it. ‘
in the two bike vs car incidents I’ve had, one was entirely my fault and I did nothing to avoid it, because I stupidly had my eyes off the road for a moment.
n=1 and all that, but just goes to show that it really isn’t fair to assume that.
andyp wrote:’Fair to assume
I did absolutely nothing to avoid my accident either. Didn’t even have time to brake between seeing the car and landing on its bonnet…
I have signed it but the
I have signed it but the legislative body of the UK is Parliament and not a civil service department like Department of Transport. Furthermore I think the criminal law should be the target of any change and not the civil law, as changing the evidential burden in civil law would only result in increased insurance premiums for everyone as insurance companies pass on the higher costs from paying more injured cyclist claims, it wouldn’t hit the pocket of the driver who actually caused or contributed to the incident. It would be far more effective for criminal courts to hand down prison sentences or driving bans to change driver behaviour.
rliu wrote:…changing the
The idea is that it will result in fewer crashes as drivers take more care not to be involved in collisions with cyclists and pedestrians.
Appreciate that you signed it despite doubts.
rliu wrote:It would be far
As they do (or should I say don’t) already ? Dream on. The point is that liability has to be proved, rather than disproved as in the civil case proposed. The current situation is that it’s actually difficult for a more vulnerable road user to successfully claim, and this is in part to address that.
As far as insurance increasing for everyone – I suspect fraudulent whiplash claims dwarf anything that’s likely to result from the proposed change.
On the face of it this
On the face of it this appears to be a good thing however I have a question.
I am involved in a collision with a cyclist or pedestrian and am found not guilty in court.
In the meantime I have been penalised by my insurance company by way of an increased premium for something that has been proved to not be my fault. It does not seem very fair.
Will there be any mechanisms in place to stop this?
Obviously if I am found to be at fault I will take whatever is coming my way.
freespirit1 wrote:On the face
You premium would go up regardless of fault or not. It’s about statistical probability of you being involved in another collision, and stats show that risk of payout increases for insurance companies if you have been involved in an RTC, even if not your fault.
It’s tough luck.
But think of it the other way around; you have your legs shattered by a driver while walking on a deserted country road. There are no witnesses. It’s your word against theirs. You have to wait years, and go to court to get compensation, and you still may lose.
Meanwhile, you are off work, can’t pay your mortgage, and lose your home.
With presumed liability, you automatically get the payout, as the liability is with the party with more power, and greater responsibility.
Cyclosis wrote:freespirit1
You premium would go up regardless of fault or not. It’s about statistical probability of you being involved in another collision, and stats show that risk of payout increases for insurance companies if you have been involved in an RTC, even if not your fault.
It’s tough luck.
But think of it the other way around; you have your legs shattered by a driver while walking on a deserted country road. There are no witnesses. It’s your word against theirs. You have to wait years, and go to court to get compensation, and you still may lose.
Meanwhile, you are off work, can’t pay your mortgage, and lose your home.
With presumed liability, you automatically get the payout, as the liability is with the party with more power, and greater responsibility.— freespirit1
Ok I should have included pedestrian as well.
However if in that case I am found to be innocent by a court and in the meantime have had an increased premium it does not seem to be very fair.
It could almost be construed as fining the innocent.
freespirit1 wrote:On the face
Two different things. Even though you may be found not guilty of a driving offence by your 12 peers. The insurance company may choose to payout. It may possibly though be a reduced compensation based on the outcome of your trial. Mind you, if you have protected no claims this may go someway to alleviate the pain of an increase in premium.
giff77 wrote:freespirit1
Two different things. Even though you may be found not guilty of a driving offence by your 12 peers. The insurance company may choose to payout. It may possibly though be a reduced compensation based on the outcome of your trial. Mind you, if you have protected no claims this may go someway to alleviate the pain of an increase in premium.— freespirit1
Ehhh? Most driving offences are heard in the magistrates courts so no jury or 12 peers as you put it.
You are very muddled in your response.
The standard of proof is lower for civil than criminal cases – on the balance of probability as opposed to beyond all reasonable doubt for criminal cases. A finding of guilt in a criminal court is prima facae evidence of negligence for any civil case brought by a claimant against a defendant and their insurer so liability will not be in issue. In a criminal case it is the defendant that is on trial not the claimant and in a civil case it is for the claimant to establish the defendant was negligent. No reason why compensation should be reduced unless the claimant contributed negligently to their injuries/damage to property.
If as the driver you were not at fault and are subsequently found not to be liable, then your NCD will not be affected and your premium should not rise as a result. It might still increase for other reasons but not this.
I would sign but for the fact
I would sign but for the fact that Sam Savage doesn’t understand the difference between criminal and civil law concepts = Fail. So I won’t be signing as his petition is muddled.
On a positive note the cc author Sarah Barth has this time correctly understood the legal concepts. Well done. =D>
Just to reiterate:
Liability
Just to reiterate:
Liability ≠ Fault.
Liability is about who foots the bill, not who is criminally responsible.
This law makes so much sense. Pity the petition isn’t worded better.
The campaigns really need to do better so sell/explain this idea to the masses, and I think it’s better to start with the benefit to pedestrians (i.e. everyone).
I’ve been very lucky that the
I’ve been very lucky that the person who hit me has accepted full liability and also pled guilty to the charge of driving without due care and attention.
I did have witnesses, but she went as far as keep chasing the police to come out.
In fact the police was the only let down taking 17 days to come and see me and not keeping me informed of what was happening in the case.
I totally support the concept
I totally support the concept but the ‘petition’ is poorly worded and badly explained.
If this is going to happen it needs to be made a top priority by a coalition of transport groups – the wider the better. They would need to lobby and do some effective PR with high-profile spokespeople, human-interest case studies and some economic research to explain the pros and cons.
It’s a good idea – it’s what insurance is designed to do, but that needs to be explained.
Nice idea which would be
Nice idea which would be great if it was simple but there are problems, mostly with pedestrians. I have come across this with the use of bullbars on my Landrover. I cannot remember where I got this information but I recall that something like 95%+ of all collisions between cars and pedestrians were the result of pedestrian stupidity. Why penalise the car driver for some one else’s stupidity? Of course there will be exceptions such as drivers not stopping on zebra crossings but idiots with head phones stepping out etc must bear a share of the responsibility. The number of riders I see every day without lights, riding the wrong way up one way streets and not looking as they pavement hop beggars belief. Surely it is not fair to automatically blame the driver if some dimwit dressed in black with a hood up, headphones in and no lights pulls into the traffic from his gateway without looking.
Get my drift?
mattsccm wrote:Nice idea
Once again, it’s not about fault. It’s about liability for damages. Civil liability.
However, if as a driver, you can prove it was not your fault then you would not be liable.
mattsccm wrote:Nice idea
Is this not the point though? I want strict liability to make drivers thinks about who they are sharing the road space with. I want them to be looking for cycling ninjas and giving ordinary cyclists room in case they do something studity or just unexpected. I want drivers to slow down as they approach kids on the pavement in case one or all step out onto the road. I want strict liability to force drivers into thinking while they’re behind the wheel, not just ‘auto-piloting’ it to work.
adscrim wrote:I want strict
I would imagine that in reality, the resulting increase in insurance premiums will just cause drivers to think about how much extra they’re having to pay the insurance companies without any regard for the underlying reasons.
If you want drivers to drive with more consideration for more vulnerable road users, cause more of them or their immediate family to ride a bike / walk. Then their awareness will improve.
leewalton wrote:adscrim
Countries which have Strict Liability actually have *lower* premiums.
You can’t just ’cause’ more of their family to ride/walk. Why do you think they aren’t riding/walking now? Create a safe environment for them, and maybe they will.
A law change like this won’t do that by itself, but it is rightly shifting responsibility and burden from the vulnerable to the more powerful.
mattsccm wrote:Nice idea
yes, we get your drift, but I think you are completely wrong. The Highway Code is completely explicit about being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear. The onus should be on you, the driver, to ensure that you avoid the collisions – sometimes that will require driving slowly and defensively. Well, good.
oldstrath wrote:
yes, we get
Exactly right. After only a few generations of private motoring being prevalent we seem to have developed this ridiculous notion of a “right to go fast without concern for others whatsoever”.
The roads aren’t a freaking video game, it’s all very real and physical with lots and lots of vulnerable meat and bone things ambling about (“other people”) who for whatever reason may or may not behave in a way we can anticipate. And when they don’t that still doesn’t give you the right to mow them down just because you want to save 10 seconds or just hate slowing down in general.
FFS … you’re operating a dangerous machine which supposedly you’re able to be in control of. Grow the fuck up and act like it.
mattsccm wrote:Nice idea
What the hell have you got bullbars on your vehicle for? I sincerely hope that you only use this vehicle for off road or rural driving only. Studies have proven that a pedestrian/cyclist is more likely to be killed when hit by a vehicle with these things due to their design being rigid and not absorbing the impact. That combined with the height of a Land Rover make it one of the most inappropriate vehicles to be used in our cities. As a cyclist I dread any type of 4×4 behind me as I am never going to be able to roll off the bonnet. ~X( ~X( ~X(
Strict liability makes things
Strict liability makes things cheaper not more expensive. There is less to haggle or argue over.
We can only encourage more people to ride if they feel safe doing so and are protected where necessary by segregated routes, where not absolutely necessary, by non segregated bike lanes, carefully planned traffic management, enforced speed restrictions, and all this amidst a step change in responsibility on the roads, something strict liability may encourage.
Ok, so a lot of people are
Ok, so a lot of people are saying that we should be launching a petition that is better worded. Given that there is a lot of knowledge / experience / skills on here, why don’t we put together a well worded one which people could submit or use as the basis of a submission if they wanted to. It could address all the perceived failings of this one, for a start. If someone is researching to submit that sort of petition, then they might well come here and start off on a good footing.
Just a suggestion.
An Alternative would be to
An Alternative would be to remove driver air bags and seat belt and have a 6 inch steel spike sticking out of the steering wheel. That might change to way some of the arseholes would drive.
Housecathst wrote:An
It may thin their numbers a little, but I doubt it would change the behaviour of many.
Its not that long ago we didn’t have a legal requirement for seatbelts, airbags didn’t exist and some steering wheels may as well have been a spike as old steering wheels left a lot to be desired in terms of safety (I’m sure there are many on here remember those “glory days” of motoring).
Sadly people still drove like idiots regardless of the inherent dangers.
I think there’s a prevailing “it’ll never happen to me” attitude in society which means there will always be people who drive dangerously as they live under the mistaken belief that they are somehow better drivers than the thousands who kill themselves and others on our roads every year.
This is news? Here in
This is news? Here in Scotland the Road Share campaign has been running for a year and is starting to gain political traction.
At present, the UK is out of step with Europe as one of only five EU countries (along with Cyprus, Malta, Romania and Ireland) that does not operate some form of strict liability regime for vulnerable road users. Strict liability is already established in other areas of UK law.
So where is the problem? Why do so many our politicians look to Romania as a beacon of freedom and democracy in this issue?