Anybody else listening to this discussion on Radio 2?

[Mile195]

Where a cyclist is involved in a collision with a vehicle, they are talking about amending the law so that the vehicle is automatically assumed guilty of being at fault.

Am I the only one who thinks this is an incredibly bad idea? We all know that there are bad drivers, but equally there are also bad cyclists and it isn't always the drivers fault.

I don't really think a "guilty until proven innocent" assumption is going to help matters. If anything, it'll just drive lead to even more animosity between drivers and cyclists.

Thoughts?..

 

[User169]

Several threads on this in the campaigning section. You need to be careful not to mix up financial liability with criminal innocence/guilt.

Generally, I would say it's right that those who have the potential to do the most damage should shoulder the most responsbility.

http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/strict-liability.128365/

 

[swee'pea99]

Thing is, this isn't some wacko notion that's been dreamt up by a bright-spark bureaucrat in a bunker...this kind of legislation is pretty much de rigeur on the continent, and it exists for the very good reason that it makes drivers very aware of cyclists and very careful around them. As I understand it, judges have a fair amount of discretion in interpreting the law - exonerating a driver when the cyclist has clearly been acting like a total numpty, eg - but the basic legal situation is one that gives drivers a strong vested interest in not viewing cyclists as disposable vermin. I for one am all for it.

 

[Frood42]

I am for presumed liability

 

[Cyclopathic]

Anything that might make drivers a little bit less glib about their responsibilities is good. I approve.

 

[snorri]

If adopted, it will also require some cyclists to take their responsibilites more seriously with regard to pedestrians.
I'm not saying that's a bad thing

 

[Arch]

Where a cyclist is involved in a collision with a vehicle, they are talking about amending the law so that the vehicle is automatically assumed guilty of being at fault.

Am I the only one who thinks this is an incredibly bad idea? We all know that there are bad drivers, but equally there are also bad cyclists and it isn't always the drivers fault.

I don't really think a "guilty until proven innocent" assumption is going to help matters. If anything, it'll just drive lead to even more animosity between drivers and cyclists.

Thoughts?..

I think your misunderstanding of the principle, presumably on the basis of the quality of the debate you've heard about it, sums up the misunderstanding of most people, and therefore why it'll never happen....

 

[Mile195]

I think your misunderstanding of the principle, presumably on the basis of the quality of the debate you've heard about it, sums up the misunderstanding of most people, and therefore why it'll never happen....

True. I don't tend to take anything I hear on the Jeremy Vine show as gospel - it does tend to be a bit sensationalist. I thought it was an interesting talking point though.

 

[screenman]

Bring us in line with other countries, France for instance.

 

[sheddy]

Do we have any updates on the Scotland Campaign ?

 

[Arch]

True. I don't tend to take anything I hear on the Jeremy Vine show as gospel - it does tend to be a bit sensationalist. I thought it was an interesting talking point though.

Yes, and that wasn't a dig at you, I should have said. It's one of those issues that is completely messed up when translated into the black and white of a radio discussion....

 

[Davidc]

Presumed liability works well in most other countries of Europe. Ideally it is hierarchical so it also applies when a 40 tonne truck hits a car, or a cyclist hits a pedestrian. It is liability not responsibility that's at issue.

Strict liability for collisions is however insane, even though it works for other things.

 

[Mile195]

Yes, and that wasn't a dig at you, I should have said. It's one of those issues that is completely messed up when translated into the black and white of a radio discussion....

No offence taken. It was a change to hear them talking about something other than Gas prices really...

Do you have more background on it? I take it the proposed law goes a bit deeper?

 

[snorri]

Some more info here.
Just don't ask me any legal questions

, https://www.facebook.com/campaignforstrictliability

http://www.cycling-accident-compensation.co.uk/strict-liability.aspx

The Lib Dems appear to support the idea.
http://road.cc/content/news/89960-lib-dems-propose-introduction-presumed-liability’

 

[Cyclist33]

Thing is, this isn't some wacko notion that's been dreamt up by a bright-spark bureaucrat in a bunker...this kind of legislation is pretty much de rigeur on the continent, and it exists for the very good reason that it makes drivers very aware of cyclists and very careful around them. As I understand it, judges have a fair amount of discretion in interpreting the law - exonerating a driver when the cyclist has clearly been acting like a total numpty, eg - but the basic legal situation is one that gives drivers a strong vested interest in not viewing cyclists as disposable vermin. I for one am all for it.

"rigueur".