humptygocart said:
.i'd hate to be 'presumed wrong' because a trained cyclist had the same momentarty lapse of concentration and caused an accident for which i'd be automatically blamed just because i was the driver.
You would not be automatically blamed for anything.
The public ignorance about the proposal can only partly be explained by the media's crass misrepresentation of what the plans entail.
Indeed, the proposal is really a means to level the playing field, a way of taking back what practically amounts to a presumption of error on the part of a pedestrian or cyclist at present.
So to introduce a scheme whereby you get free third party insurance in return for a short, paid course in cycling skills, alongside presumption of fault for motorists, would be a simple enough scheme that
should make everyone happy, while being entirely cost effective because the actual risk posed by cyclists to others (and the damage done) is small enough such that the insurance would cost next to nothing to implement.
Of course, out on the roads the last thing most motorists want is well trained, assertive cyclists correctly claiming road space rather than hugging the gutter...