Petition asks government for drivers to be "presumed liable" for cyclist collisions

Wheelywheelygood wrote:

Please tell me how a motorist who hits a cyclist at night who has no lights or reflectors even fitted to their bike . or who rides the wrong way down a one way street holding a coffee in one hand  or who cuts across a road from one pavement to another is liable for the accident. I often wonder when someone buys a cycle why they appear to have their brain removed at the same time 

Well, you'd know, writing nonsense like that.

You really need to wake up and read what it says. If it's that blatenley obvious that it's the cyclists fault then you shouldn't have any problems proving otherwise should. I have 7 Bikes, I don't wear black gear at night, I have excellent light's and abide by the highway code. Oh I forgot I have insurance as well so are you going to claim I have had my brain removed? Only evidence of that is you.

Well one way would be for the driver to fit a dash cam in the same way as cyclists do at the moment. The only difference is that the cyclist's footage would show it wasn't their fault they were killed by the motorist ignoring the highway code whereas the motorist's footage would save themselves some money.

I have never ridden into a pedestrian

I have - and mostly when it's been their fault. But I've never injured one or been injured by one.

What I won't put up with is presumed liability for a dog whose owner fails to control it.

I have. Put him in hospital.
But what's that got to do with the price of fish?

Under presumed liability if a pedestrian steps into your way on a shared path and you hurt him, you'd be liable without camera's or an eye witness.

Secret_squirrel wrote:

I have. Put him in hospital.
But what's that got to do with the price of fish?

Under presumed liability if a pedestrian steps into your way on a shared path and you hurt him, you'd be liable without camera's or an eye witness.

Under presumed liability you're LIABLE because you're on a bicycle and the pedestrian is not.

Please learn the difference between liability and guilt.

Where do they mention guilt? They previously wrote

"A strict interpretation of the heirarchy of road users could presume scootists, cyclists and horse riders are liable for pedestrian collisions.  "

Secret_squirrel wrote:

Under presumed liability if a pedestrian steps into your way on a shared path and you hurt him, you'd be liable without camera's or an eye witness.

Shurely you stop at "you'd be liable". I haven't checked the details yet but surely cameras and witnesses only come in if there is a dispute? If everyone just says sorry - as now, no further action. If someone brings a civil claim and one party accepts liability, same as now.

If a cyclist just rides off then it's up to the police / claimant presumably to show a) they were injured and b) it was indeed *that* person who cycled into them? Which presumably involves some evidence (witnesses, video) which would be avaliable to both sides? Or at least if it clearly shows something counter to a claim the other party can challenge.

This is all far more likely to affect a driver (and their insurance company) I'd have thought? (Easier identification - well, of the vehicle... - greater likelihood of more serious harm done etc.)

IIRC there are articles discussing this in NL (there may be other places that implement this? )

Of course I'm not a lawyer so can only guess what the UK legislators and courts might make of this!

It should be possible to check the figures out for NL where the have (civil) presumed liability, no?

As you say it doesn't necessarily work brilliantly when we're still in the land of "shared space" (if you're lucky - and usually inadequate width). As opposed to counties which have separate spaces - in fact networks - for walking, cycling and driving.

On the other hand cyclists are still expected to mix with drivers at speeds of 30mph and up * - so if it was really applied then those are the people who should really be worried about bills.

* In fact they're not really "expected" to do so. Nobody is really thinking about them because there are so few, because these road designs are clearly saying "this is only safe and convenient for drivers"

It also needs some better communication from DVSA about the changes.
Very few drivers seem to know about them or care to follow them.

Of course they don't and even if they did they would ignore them because "entitled cyclists". Everyone knows the speed limit yet a huge proportion of people ignore it in residential areas where its most dangerous for pedestrians.

Yesterday I was driving up little residential side road which is a 20 and has cars on both sides of the road so its a single lane. A woman came absolutely flying at me around a corner in her massive wank panzer going at 40 I would suggest. The kicker? She had her kids in the back. Sums up peoples attitudes. They don't think of anyone but themselves. Even when they should have a very obvious reminder right in front of them of why they shouldn't be speeding. 

Its OK because her kids are safe in her 3 tonne lump of metal. 

Still only 2 in Morecambe and Lunesdale, and 1 in Bridlington and the Wolds- the other end of the Way of the Roses (a fine route). Sign harder, cyclists!

I don't know about that, this seems like too perfect an ammunition in the culture wars for any self respecting politician to ignore.

God yes. They will have a field day with this.