[Closed] Presumed Liability? Please Make It So...

The UK has/will always be several steps behind the big EU countries.
Step in the right direction though.

Presumed guilty until proven innocent?

Presumed guilty until proven innocent?

Just like cyclists currently?

Q. How would strict liability work in practice?

A. It establishes a hierarchical structure to identify responsibility in the event of a road traffic accident, bringing certainty to the legal process. Where a cyclist is injured by a motorised vehicle, strict liability shall ensure that they automatically receive compensation. Likewise, where a pedestrian is injured by a motorised vehicle or bicycle, strict liability shall ensure they automatically receive compensation.

[I]Presumed guilty until proven innocent? [/I]

Maybe, but it's the law when you drive in Continental Europe, and I've never heard anyone complain - neither resident (when we lived in Germany) nor holiday maker.

http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki/dutch-cycle-because-strict-liability-made-everybody-drive-safely-and-play-nice

That the rest of Europe has already done this is a clear indication that's it's the right path. It's terribly sad that the UK is the only major member not to do so. Malta, Ireland, Cyprus... it reads like the 'poor relative' list of Europe....UK...oh.

The motoring lobby will complain that it's not [i]always[/i] the fault of the driver - which is true - but the effect of such a law will be to make motorists [i]more aware of and much more careful [/i] around cyclists. How can that possibly be a bad thing?

I see it as broadly analagous to the steam gives way to sail principles in maritime transport and powered aircraft give way to unpowered aircraft in aviation. Having said that - by itself it is unlikley to make that much of a difference according to Hembrow

http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/search/label/strict%20liability

I assume if they bring it in we'll* all end up paying for it through increased car insurance premiums as compensation claims are put in against drivers

we'll = those that drive

I assume if they bring it in we'll* all end up paying for it through increased car insurance premiums as compensation claims are put in against drivers

Presumed guilty until proven innocent?

this is why we will never get it.

People don't get the distinction between criminal and civil law.

BoardinBob - Member

we'll = those that drive

which is most people on here isn't it?

(it is)

which is most people on here isn't it?

(it is)

Safety guard before some bearded hippy pointed out they don't drive or own a car

Have beard, don't have car 🙂

I haven't the stats but is insurance more in Euro land than the UK to cover all these fallacious insurance claims? I'm sure I recall the UK 'leading the way' in fraudulent whiplash claims so can't imagine* European premiums being any higher...

*blatant speculation

It's about behaviour int it? We need to move from 'cyclists are expendable scum' to 'I'm gonna get fined/do time if I squish that expendable scum' which seems to be the current situation. Just how many have we had over the past few months. How many more before something is done about it?

tomhoward - Member

Have beard, don't have car

i also, have a beard, but no car...

(i use my girlfriend's when she lets me)

Presumed guilty until proven innocent?

this is why we will never get it.

People don't get the distinction between criminal and civil law.

Death by dangerous driving is a crime

Death by dangerous driving is a crime

And is completely irrelevant when discussing whether drivers should by default have (civil) liability for crashing into cyclists.

Presumed guilty until proven innocent?

"Liable", not "guilty".

We already use presumed liability in the case where a car is struck from behind by another car. The rear car is [i]presumed liable[/i] by insurers unless they can demonstrate otherwise (e.g. front car reversed into them etc).

That's all we are talking about really and it would be a massive step-forward for cyclist's rights in the UK - though I suspect it will lead to fresh calls for compulsory Cycling Insurance etc.

That's all we are talking about really and it would be a massive step-forward for cyclist's rights in the UK - though I suspect it will lead to fresh calls for compulsory Cycling Insurance etc.

Would that be bad thing?

Not IMO. A lot of people may be covered anyway by their household insurance.

Would that be bad thing?

Possibly not in itself - but it opens a big ol' can of worms.

What age do you require insurance from? Does my 3 year old need insurance for her balance bike? Presumably it would apply off-road as well, such as on shared use paths and mountain bike trail centres?

If you are insuring vehicles then shouldn't they be subject to some kind of road-worthiness MOT-style check?

And how do you police the insurance and identify the bikes it applies to? They'll need registration plates, cyclist licenses..

boblo - Member

Would that be bad thing?

importantly, what would be the point?

Or... If you want to ride a bicycle on a public road and are above the age of responsibility, you need 3rd party insurance. Simple no? Why does it have to be complicated?

We want equal 'rights', with comes some responsibility (behaviour, liability, responsibility, insurance etc). We can't have it both ways.

Okay so how do you enforce that boblo?

How do you identify the bikes that are insured?

And what do you do when the insurance companies say: [i]"Right well we're not going to give you insurance unless you wear a helmet.. and a high-viz vest.. and your bike has two functioning brakes.. and suitable rear-view mirrors.. and the legally required pedal-reflectors.. and spoke reflectors.. and a bell.."[/i]

It's personal insurance not the vehicle. The default is you must be insured if over the age of responsibility.

It's personal insurance not the vehicle.

Not equal to cars then, but okay.

So one of the ways that police check the compulsory insurance of cars is by running the numberplates through ANPR.

How would they be able to enforce compulsory insurance for cyclists?

i also, have a beard, but no car...

(i use my girlfriend's when she lets me)

is your own beard so disappointing and un-impressive that you have to use hers?

I'm all for presumed liability, it will help to change the mindset hopefully. At the moment it is obvious that being involved in (even fatal) incidents with cyclists as a driver will rarely get you prosecuted or punished in any way, presumed liability would turn that on its head and help remind drivers that they have a responsiblity and duty of care to vulnerable road users, even if they don't feel it morally, it would be enshrined in law.

I am sure there are currently more cases of cyclists being hit and drivers getting away with it than there would be of cyclists claiming fraudulently against drivers. There would still be process in place to deal with cases where the driver genuinely isn't at fault.

Oh I don't know, it's all just too complicated. I was going to go on to resolve the Arab/Israeli situation having sorted this, I'll be late now... I'm a lover not a fighter etc 🙂

Can't [i]you[/i] just decide? <sigh> 🙂

Funny thing us, most? (many?) of us have 3rd party insurance anyway so it's a bit of a moot point int it?

Oh I don't know, it's all just too complicated

Which neatly answers the "Would that be bad thing?" question 😀

It wouldn't be a bad thing - but it brings way too many issues in terms of enforcement, paperwork and legalities.

Funny thing us, most? (many?) of us have 3rd party insurance anyway so it's a bit of a moot point int it?

It'd be one less thing for motorists to bleat on about which would definitely be good - though I suspect they'd fall back on the old "road tax" fallacy.

It'd be one less thing for motorists to bleat on about which would definitely be good - though I suspect they'd fall back on the old "road tax" fallacy.

I know all the usual counters to that etc, but was wondering Graham, have you seen any stats/study anywhere with genuine figures for % of bicycles owners that own cars, vs % of people that own cars and car owners that don't own bicycles?

It's not something I've come across at any point but I'm sure the figures are out there, If i recall it's soemthing like ~45% of the population own or have access to a bicycle, but I'm specifically thinking abotu how many of those 45 also have a car.

would be nice to have some kind of actual proof the cyclists are more/euqally as likely to pay VED as any other random bod on the street.

[edit]

have done a little diggin, ~75% of *households* own or have access to a car
~45% of population have access to or own a bicycle

still looking for definittive evidence but that is looking very much like the majority of bicycle owners are likely to own/have access to a car and therefore pay VED* as I'm sure it's not an either/or situation.

*no that that means diddly given how roads are funded and £0 VED etc but could be useful in combating some of the normal ill-informed ramblings you hear at work/pub etc.

Motorists whinging about cyclists usually has no basis in logic.

The ABD guy on newsnight the other night said there cyclists were a tiny minority and that there were also far too many cyclists.

Don't think that if we 'just' have compulsory insurance then it'll all go away. They'll moan for not having road tax (i know), or not having an MOT, or not having a helmet, or not having airbags, or for being slow and getting in the way, or for being too fast and being hard to overtake...

Edit to address the post above: 80% of British Cycling members own a car, so cyclists are more likely to have a car than non-cyclists.

Well, "British cycling member" isn't quite the same as "cyclist", but...

Not sure that's the best way to counter it - but yeah I've certainly seen figures that say that cyclists are more likely to own a car than non-cyclists (which makes sense as cycling is still a disposable-income hobby in the UK). I'll see if I can locate them.

Not sure that's the best way to counter it

totally agree, but then rational argument and education also seems to fall on deaf ears a lot of the time 🙁

just looking for even more ammunition to add to my already [s]highly persuasive[/s] annoyingly busybody like arguments with friends/family/colleagues/random people forced to listen

Back on topic... The point of insurance was raised up there ^ in the context of presumed liability. If this were a condition (or part of 'the answer')' I wouldn't have an issue with it. Presumed liability however would probably take a generation to sink in as drink driving did so there are no quick fixes.

As for the 'I pay tax' cobblers, well so do I. Cars, motorbikes etc and look at me, I'm not using them so who inhabits the moral high ground? It's a moronic argument unfortunately peddled by morons so there's little point in carrying it on with them...

Here's a useful Hansard quote from Norman Baker (Secretary of State for Transport):

Ian Austin: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his estimate is of the proportion of cyclists that own cars. [53988]

Norman Baker: Some 83% of the cyclists participating in the National Travel Survey in 2008 and 2009 were resident in a household with access to a car or van.

The equivalent overall figure for all survey respondents in Great Britain was 82%.

-- Source: [url= http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110509/text/110509w0001.htm#subhd_39 ]Hansard,Monday 9 May 2011[/url]

That do?

[url= http://www.libdems.org.uk/education_detail.aspx?title=Liberal_Democrats_back_plans_to_scrap_university_tuition_fees___&pPK=b5043fc9-2719-489a-9e0b-532ef2b05906 ]Good old Lib Dem trustworthy policies[/url]

Errrm 8 out of 10 that responded preffered Whiskers. However, only 0.0001% responded 🙁

just looking for even more ammunition to add to my already [s]highly persuasive[/s] annoyingly busybody like arguments with friends/family/colleagues/random people forced to listen

In that case may I commend http://ipayroadtax.com 😀

amedias: I also like to roll out [url= http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation/content/downloadables/fuel%20for%20thought%20-%20ifs%20observation%20piece.pdf ]the "The road ahead for motoring taxes?" report (PDF) from the Institute of Fiscal Studies, which they produced for the RAC Foundation[/url] which states:

Road use generates costs which are borne by wider society instead of the motorist. These 'externalities' mean that in the absence of taxation or pricing, there is an inefficiently high level of road use. Taxes can help bring private demands into line with the socially desirable level.

Or as Carlton summarises it:
[img] [/img]

http://ipayroadtax.com/no-such-thing-as-road-tax/when-will-drivers-start-paying-the-full-costs-of-motoring/

yeah, ipayroad tax is always my first point of call/direction 😉