"Sir Graham said cyclists were often to blame for collisions with cars."

[Svendo]

Semantics.

Nothing wrong with that, semantics being the study of meaning. And that is what we're discussing, the meaning, and implications of, 'presumed liability'. To state an argument is unworthy because it's '[mere] semantics' is, I think, a logical fallacy. It's surely just a veiled version of 'drivel' or 'bollocks', which may be the case but is in no way established by the statement.

Except when I use it; then it's a rigorous and conclusive argument.

 

[Dan B]

Or they decide it is uneconomic to buy insurance.

Some may, but ANPR will get them eventually.

Car ownership is in decline already among the young

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

I think all this argument about Presumed Liability making drivers more careful is pointless because there is no way to prove it one way or the other; there are too many confounding factors in those countries that have it for any reliable analysis to be carried out.
However, that is a red herring anyway. It is simply a matter of natural justice: anyone who brings a piece of dangerous machinery into a public space should be expected to bear responsibility for the consequences when it all goes wrong. That is what insurance is for, and Presumed Liability will help to ensure that is the case.
It's a sick society where someone whose body is smashed up by a motor vehicle then has to prove it was the driver's immediate fault before they can get any help in dealing with the consequences ... truly sick.

 

[2Loose]

I've seen many newish drivers think that their car should lord it over any non-car drivers, purely based on the idea that car is king and they have earned the right to threaten or endanger non-drivers, pure arrogance. If they thought that peds and cyclists had equal rights, then I would expect some of them to drive differently. As it stands, even some incidents examined by the police (not all) get the 'just a cyclist, probably rlj'd' etc. without any thought or proper understanding of the event.

If presumed liability was in place, then a percentage of those drivers would behave differently. Not all, but some. Every little helps. It would eventually go some way to improving the standing of cyclists in the eyes of the public and perhaps make some understand how potentially vulnerable we are.

However, when I was last in Cambridge I hadn't even got the end of Station Road (200m walk) before I had counted 14 riders with no lights and 6 pavement cyclists, so I can kind of understand Sir Graham's comments!

Nothing would ever beat more coppers and enforcement, but that is unlikely.
.

 

[Stephen C]

I would say that in Cambridge the cyclists are far worse than the cars, it seems that red lights mean nothing to most cyclists.