- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Justice (Lonpicman, Wikimedia Commons)Cyclist starts strict liability petition - calling for drivers to prove they weren't at fault in a collision
A cyclist has begun a petition calling for a strict, or presumed liability law in England.
Sam Savage, a cyclist, has begun the campaign through the 38 Degrees site, saying that: “This law will help make Britain's roads safer for cyclists by increasing the awareness and caution of motorists.
“It will say to motorists 'if you choose to use one ton of metal that can move at some speed to transport yourself, then you need to be extremely careful in every manoeuvre you take'.”
Strict liability is an oft-debated topic at road.cc, with a movement in Scotland in particular to bring in the law.
Recently we reported how relatives of two cyclists killed on Scotland’s roads have added their voices to the campaign calling on the Scottish Government to bring in presumed liability under the country’s civil law for road traffic incidents including those in which a bike rider is the victim.
The system, which operates in all but five member states of the European Union, provides for a presumption of liability on for example a motorist involved in a collision with a more vulnerable road user such as a cyclist, unless the latter can be shown to have been at fault.
In the absence of such a system under Scots law, the families of Andrew McNicoll, who died in Edinburgh in January 2012 following a collision with a lorry, and Sally Low, who lost her life after a collision with a car in Moray last year, have to show the driver was at fault in the civil cases they have brought.
The petition in full reads:
Dear Department for Transport,
Please pass a strict liability law between motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.
It would mean that motorists are presumed to be at fault in civil actions after an accident with a cyclist or pedestrian, unless they can prove they were not to blame. It would also mean that cyclists would be presumed to be at fault for accidents involving pedestrians.
It would NOT mean motorists are criminally liable, it would just be for the purposes of compensation.
We are only one of a very small number of countries across Europe (Romania, Cyprus, Malta and Ireland) that do not have this law.
In accidents where a cyclist was killed or badly hurt the cyclist was presumed to have committed an offence in just 6% of cases [1], the vehicle driver was assumed to have done so 56% of the time. Although Boris got this massively wrong, this disparity is just common sense because motorists have no fear of injury or death if they collide with a cyclist. The fear is great visa versa, therefore there will be a disparity in the caution used and who causes the accidents.
This law will help make Britain's roads safer for cyclists by increasing the awareness and caution of motorists. It will say to motorists 'if you choose to use one ton of metal that can move at some speed to transport yourself, then you need to be extremely careful in every manoeuvre you take'.
It’s a law that appears popular with road.cc readers; just this week we reported how concerns about the danger from traffic are often cited as the reason adults are reluctant to cycle. Road safety charity Brake says that safety concerns deter children and teenagers from cycling too — and their parents from letting them.
Brake surveyed 1,301 11-17 year olds in secondary schools and colleges across the UK, finding almost half (47%) said parental worries were preventing them from starting cycling or cycling more.
Brake also found:
- Two in five (38%) 11-17 year olds cite a lack of safe routes as a barrier to cycling
- Four in ten (41%) think traffic in their area is too fast for the safety of people on foot and bike
The law could potentially be used in cases such as that of a driver who hit and killed a 73-year-old cyclist but walked free from Ipswich Crown Court after being found not guilty of causing death by careless driving.
Retired planning officer Colin Crowther was hit by the car being driven by 29-year-old Sam Burrows on January 16, 2014. Mr Crowther hit the car's kerbside windscreen, rolled over the car and landed on the ground.
Mr Burrows said he had been blinded by the sun "without warning" and then heard a bang as his car hit Mr Crowther.
He denied causing death by careless driving and was unanimously found not guilty by a jury after a three-day trial.
Latest Comments
- Freddy56 1 hour 59 min ago
The reflective nature of the fabric structure, in in a 2 layer sealed fabric-means moisture cannot pass thru, The breathability claim is lies.......
- HoarseMann 3 hours 11 min ago
Driver injured after car flips onto its roof https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0g9rpp8x9o
- mark1a 3 hours 29 min ago
I don't think he wants to talk about it...
- Rendel Harris 3 hours 59 min ago
Ach, dinnae fret...
- Matt Page 4 hours 7 min ago
The Prevelo Alpha Three on the main feature image is 20".
- eburtthebike 4 hours 18 min ago
£100 bonus.
- chrisonabike 4 hours 26 min ago
To be fair if this is our usual revenant they've got form in rewriting history...
- chrisonabike 4 hours 28 min ago
"At the going down of the sun, and in the morning, we will remember them ... we have to because some numpty destroyed the roll of names"....
- hawkinspeter 6 hours 33 min ago
Looks like some Barton Hill residents don't want the Liverpool Neighbourhood or at least not Marsh Lane to be a no-through-road:...
Add new comment
69 comments
Ok, so a lot of people are saying that we should be launching a petition that is better worded. Given that there is a lot of knowledge / experience / skills on here, why don't we put together a well worded one which people could submit or use as the basis of a submission if they wanted to. It could address all the perceived failings of this one, for a start. If someone is researching to submit that sort of petition, then they might well come here and start off on a good footing.
Just a suggestion.
An Alternative would be to remove driver air bags and seat belt and have a 6 inch steel spike sticking out of the steering wheel. That might change to way some of the arseholes would drive.
This is news? Here in Scotland the Road Share campaign has been running for a year and is starting to gain political traction.
At present, the UK is out of step with Europe as one of only five EU countries (along with Cyprus, Malta, Romania and Ireland) that does not operate some form of strict liability regime for vulnerable road users. Strict liability is already established in other areas of UK law.
So where is the problem? Why do so many our politicians look to Romania as a beacon of freedom and democracy in this issue?
It may thin their numbers a little, but I doubt it would change the behaviour of many.
Its not that long ago we didn't have a legal requirement for seatbelts, airbags didn't exist and some steering wheels may as well have been a spike as old steering wheels left a lot to be desired in terms of safety (I'm sure there are many on here remember those "glory days" of motoring).
Sadly people still drove like idiots regardless of the inherent dangers.
I think there's a prevailing "it'll never happen to me" attitude in society which means there will always be people who drive dangerously as they live under the mistaken belief that they are somehow better drivers than the thousands who kill themselves and others on our roads every year.
Strict liability makes things cheaper not more expensive. There is less to haggle or argue over.
We can only encourage more people to ride if they feel safe doing so and are protected where necessary by segregated routes, where not absolutely necessary, by non segregated bike lanes, carefully planned traffic management, enforced speed restrictions, and all this amidst a step change in responsibility on the roads, something strict liability may encourage.
Nice idea which would be great if it was simple but there are problems, mostly with pedestrians. I have come across this with the use of bullbars on my Landrover. I cannot remember where I got this information but I recall that something like 95%+ of all collisions between cars and pedestrians were the result of pedestrian stupidity. Why penalise the car driver for some one else's stupidity? Of course there will be exceptions such as drivers not stopping on zebra crossings but idiots with head phones stepping out etc must bear a share of the responsibility. The number of riders I see every day without lights, riding the wrong way up one way streets and not looking as they pavement hop beggars belief. Surely it is not fair to automatically blame the driver if some dimwit dressed in black with a hood up, headphones in and no lights pulls into the traffic from his gateway without looking.
Get my drift?
Once again, it's not about fault. It's about liability for damages. Civil liability.
However, if as a driver, you can prove it was not your fault then you would not be liable.
Is this not the point though? I want strict liability to make drivers thinks about who they are sharing the road space with. I want them to be looking for cycling ninjas and giving ordinary cyclists room in case they do something studity or just unexpected. I want drivers to slow down as they approach kids on the pavement in case one or all step out onto the road. I want strict liability to force drivers into thinking while they're behind the wheel, not just 'auto-piloting' it to work.
I would imagine that in reality, the resulting increase in insurance premiums will just cause drivers to think about how much extra they're having to pay the insurance companies without any regard for the underlying reasons.
If you want drivers to drive with more consideration for more vulnerable road users, cause more of them or their immediate family to ride a bike / walk. Then their awareness will improve.
Countries which have Strict Liability actually have *lower* premiums.
You can't just 'cause' more of their family to ride/walk. Why do you think they aren't riding/walking now? Create a safe environment for them, and maybe they will.
A law change like this won't do that by itself, but it is rightly shifting responsibility and burden from the vulnerable to the more powerful.
yes, we get your drift, but I think you are completely wrong. The Highway Code is completely explicit about being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear. The onus should be on you, the driver, to ensure that you avoid the collisions - sometimes that will require driving slowly and defensively. Well, good.
Exactly right. After only a few generations of private motoring being prevalent we seem to have developed this ridiculous notion of a "right to go fast without concern for others whatsoever".
The roads aren't a freaking video game, it's all very real and physical with lots and lots of vulnerable meat and bone things ambling about ("other people") who for whatever reason may or may not behave in a way we can anticipate. And when they don't that still doesn't give you the right to mow them down just because you want to save 10 seconds or just hate slowing down in general.
FFS ... you're operating a dangerous machine which supposedly you're able to be in control of. Grow the fuck up and act like it.
What the hell have you got bullbars on your vehicle for? I sincerely hope that you only use this vehicle for off road or rural driving only. Studies have proven that a pedestrian/cyclist is more likely to be killed when hit by a vehicle with these things due to their design being rigid and not absorbing the impact. That combined with the height of a Land Rover make it one of the most inappropriate vehicles to be used in our cities. As a cyclist I dread any type of 4x4 behind me as I am never going to be able to roll off the bonnet.
I totally support the concept but the 'petition' is poorly worded and badly explained.
If this is going to happen it needs to be made a top priority by a coalition of transport groups - the wider the better. They would need to lobby and do some effective PR with high-profile spokespeople, human-interest case studies and some economic research to explain the pros and cons.
It's a good idea - it's what insurance is designed to do, but that needs to be explained.
I've been very lucky that the person who hit me has accepted full liability and also pled guilty to the charge of driving without due care and attention.
I did have witnesses, but she went as far as keep chasing the police to come out.
In fact the police was the only let down taking 17 days to come and see me and not keeping me informed of what was happening in the case.
Just to reiterate:
Liability ≠ Fault.
Liability is about who foots the bill, not who is criminally responsible.
This law makes so much sense. Pity the petition isn't worded better.
The campaigns really need to do better so sell/explain this idea to the masses, and I think it's better to start with the benefit to pedestrians (i.e. everyone).
I would sign but for the fact that Sam Savage doesn't understand the difference between criminal and civil law concepts = Fail. So I won't be signing as his petition is muddled.
On a positive note the cc author Sarah Barth has this time correctly understood the legal concepts. Well done.
On the face of it this appears to be a good thing however I have a question.
I am involved in a collision with a cyclist or pedestrian and am found not guilty in court.
In the meantime I have been penalised by my insurance company by way of an increased premium for something that has been proved to not be my fault. It does not seem very fair.
Will there be any mechanisms in place to stop this?
Obviously if I am found to be at fault I will take whatever is coming my way.
You premium would go up regardless of fault or not. It's about statistical probability of you being involved in another collision, and stats show that risk of payout increases for insurance companies if you have been involved in an RTC, even if not your fault.
It's tough luck.
But think of it the other way around; you have your legs shattered by a driver while walking on a deserted country road. There are no witnesses. It's your word against theirs. You have to wait years, and go to court to get compensation, and you still may lose.
Meanwhile, you are off work, can't pay your mortgage, and lose your home.
With presumed liability, you automatically get the payout, as the liability is with the party with more power, and greater responsibility.
Ok I should have included pedestrian as well.
However if in that case I am found to be innocent by a court and in the meantime have had an increased premium it does not seem to be very fair.
It could almost be construed as fining the innocent.
Two different things. Even though you may be found not guilty of a driving offence by your 12 peers. The insurance company may choose to payout. It may possibly though be a reduced compensation based on the outcome of your trial. Mind you, if you have protected no claims this may go someway to alleviate the pain of an increase in premium.
Ehhh? Most driving offences are heard in the magistrates courts so no jury or 12 peers as you put it.
You are very muddled in your response.
The standard of proof is lower for civil than criminal cases - on the balance of probability as opposed to beyond all reasonable doubt for criminal cases. A finding of guilt in a criminal court is prima facae evidence of negligence for any civil case brought by a claimant against a defendant and their insurer so liability will not be in issue. In a criminal case it is the defendant that is on trial not the claimant and in a civil case it is for the claimant to establish the defendant was negligent. No reason why compensation should be reduced unless the claimant contributed negligently to their injuries/damage to property.
If as the driver you were not at fault and are subsequently found not to be liable, then your NCD will not be affected and your premium should not rise as a result. It might still increase for other reasons but not this.
I have signed it but the legislative body of the UK is Parliament and not a civil service department like Department of Transport. Furthermore I think the criminal law should be the target of any change and not the civil law, as changing the evidential burden in civil law would only result in increased insurance premiums for everyone as insurance companies pass on the higher costs from paying more injured cyclist claims, it wouldn't hit the pocket of the driver who actually caused or contributed to the incident. It would be far more effective for criminal courts to hand down prison sentences or driving bans to change driver behaviour.
The idea is that it will result in fewer crashes as drivers take more care not to be involved in collisions with cyclists and pedestrians.
Appreciate that you signed it despite doubts.
As they do (or should I say don't) already ? Dream on. The point is that liability has to be proved, rather than disproved as in the civil case proposed. The current situation is that it's actually difficult for a more vulnerable road user to successfully claim, and this is in part to address that.
As far as insurance increasing for everyone - I suspect fraudulent whiplash claims dwarf anything that's likely to result from the proposed change.
'Fair to assume that if a bike and car collide that the cyclist probably did everything to avoid it. '
in the two bike vs car incidents I've had, one was entirely my fault and I did nothing to avoid it, because I stupidly had my eyes off the road for a moment.
n=1 and all that, but just goes to show that it really isn't fair to assume that.
I did absolutely nothing to avoid my accident either. Didn't even have time to brake between seeing the car and landing on its bonnet...
Yeah, good luck with that.
Excuse me of this has been mentioned but the greatest obstacle this suggestion will face is the insurance companies and governments who work with them to reduce the cost of insurance keep everyone and his dog in a car.
Because It won't be Dave in his white van paying the cost of an incident it will be his insurer and subsequently all people who pay insurance.
So I can't see it happening whilst we have politician so deeply embedded in the interest of businesses.
Plenty of evidence to suggest it will reduce premiums, and reduce cost to insurance companies, as it avoids them going to court and cases are quickly settled.
Pages