And it seems not matter that the UK does not have it. In not one single European jurisdiction has there been a quantifiable reduction in vulnerable road user casualty numbers as a consequence of PL.
The theory it sounds great, but in practice it often penalises the blameless while not actually making the roads any safer, so why would the UK bother?
We have enough bother over here with fake-cash-for-crash pedestrian and cyclist scammers, so why would the UK want to hand them a meal ticket with no tangible benefit for law abiding road users of any category?
I've heard that claim before, but I'm not sure how you measure it: I doubt it would change driver behaviour overnight, but as new drivers are taught and learn to drive in the new legal structure, it alters behaviour over the long term. As I said above, it's a very long time since a driver passed uncomfortably close to me while cycling. It's normal for drivers to leave a 2m gap, which makes a massive difference in perceived safety, and makes "punishment passes" for riding in the primary position rare. Last time I was in York on a bike I had more close passes in a week than in the previous 2 years. It also makes "shared space" streets much safer: drivers still tend to assume you'll move out of the way, but they do at least wait for you to do so. Equally, my impression is that drivers are much more aware of pedestrian crossings.
Rules for truck/bus drivers are much stricter, and they are generally much more aware of cyclists than in the UK.
I haven't heard of cash for crash scams happening here. It may be harder to pull here, because of our different legal code and a couple of layers of insurance that don't exist in the UK. Also, the police have to be called for even smallish accidents, especially involving a pedestrian, otherwise it's a hit & run.
I don't see it penalising vulnerable users here: it gives us an extra (albeit rather thin) layer of protection.
What it doesn't do, is protect me if I'm being stupid: if I run across a busy road and a car hits me, I'll be considered at fault. If a child runs into the road, then the driver can argue that the legal guardian is responsible for the child, as happened when a car hit my son. The driver failed, specifically because it was a shared space street where he should have been driving at 7km/h (4mph), (he was way over), my wife had two kids and was distracted by the other child, and most importantly the driver thought that because we were immigrants he could get away with driving off, The lawyers had a field day with that. If the collision had taken place on a normal road, then his argument would have been much stronger; it's not a black and white rule.
