Cyclist starts strict liability petition - calling for drivers to prove they weren't at fault in a collision

Done

Dazwan. Presumed Liability already exists within insurance groups. If you shunt somebody it is a foregone conclusion that the rear car takes the fall. The heavy vehicles etc that tailgate you when driving are bullies and know you do not want to get bogged down in the nightmare that is an insurance claim and that you are going to get out of the way. This levels the playing field by making it easier for the vulnerable to be recompensed for damages and financial loss when hit by a vehicle. It also makes it much easier for a victims family to gain compensation where at the moment some have to wait years and nearly always prove to the insurance company that the driver was at fault.

Can we stop seeing this as purely a car vs bike law, it also helps to protect cars from vans and HGVs who do their own fair share of throwing their weight around and expecting everyone else to just get out of the way.

Why not sell it to car drivers by reminding them that it will hopefully stop vans, HGVs and busses from just pulling out into traffic, tailgating and other fear tactics they use on other road users as they know cars will come off worse in a collision. anything that might stop Navaras and Transit vans from trying to drive 1" off my bumper just because I choose to stick to the speed limit is only a good thing in my mind.

Don't agree with it. Fundamentally wrong imo.

Fair to assume that if a bike and car collide that the cyclist probably did everything to avoid it.

However people on foot often when approached from the rear often move in front of your without warning, esp with headphones on if they haven't heard your bell or shout. And as for dogs...

Fair to assume that if a bike and car collide that the cyclist probably did everything to avoid it.

However people on foot often when approached from the rear often move in front of your without warning, esp with headphones on if they haven't heard your bell or shout. And as for dogs...

Fair to assume that if a bike and car collide that the cyclist probably did everything to avoid it.

However people on foot often when approached from the rear often move in front of your without warning, esp with headphones on if they haven't heard your bell or shout. And as for dogs...

"I'm still not sure, we are going to strictly liable for running into pedestrians wearing earphones staring at a screen I assume?"

I would be surprised. If someone walks across the road in a state of oblivion they might have to bear some of the responsibility. But I guess it does put more responsibility on cyclists to watch out for them.

I've signed!

So a case starts off. Your client chose to expose himself by, being unprotected, to mix, mingle, compete with and generally be in the path of large, heavy, essential, and complex moving machinery operated by complete strangers of varying ability and mental capacity. And the court rules that, by definition of his chosen activity, the cyclist is already 80% liable?

I'm going to sign it, but I think it would stand a better chance if it was re-worded in the 'Seattle style', to use 'person who cycles' rather than 'cyclist' etc...

Wait a minute. I question: 'If you choose to use 1 ton of metal' We do not 'choose' to run cars or to depend on them, we all depend on them; even cyclists.

Without drivers and walkers society would collapse totally. And that especially includes the private car. All forms of transport is now based around the private motor car making all the links and connections. On the other hand, cycling is pure choice and something society doesn't need or depend on at all. It's really no good cyclists being upset about that reality.

Surely, if cyclists are demanding such a liability to be imposed on its essential infrastructure, society is entitled to ask do we need cyclists? The answer is pretty self evident; it's no we don't.

If road cycling were suggested now as a new invention, with unprotected humans mingling with all these one ton machines, we would call out the men in white coats.

I say all this as a cyclist. The fact is, that the vast majority of people who have ever cycled are like me. No Lycra, no spandex, no shorts and lightweight racers: just a nice sedate upright roadster European style and we demand nothing.

Either cycle or don't cycle but don't moan and make people ask: 'Why do we need them anyway?' And don't respond that drivers are not entitled to do that. They have every right to ask it.

I'll sign but there is no chance of this ever happening in this country any political party at even thinks about this will be savaged by the all powerful daily fail.

Strict Liabilty operates in several areas of English law, not just on the road (though the presumption that the driver behind in a rear-ender is liable is one). It is simply the removal of the need to prove intent (mens rea) when one is shown to have been negligent. So the defence of 'I was blinded by the sun' (in other words, 'I didn't mean to kill him, it was an accident, guv') would not stand, as the requirement to drive in accordance with the conditions would determine that, by definition, the driver was at fault. That presumption would remove insurance companies' prevarication at paying out, and their attempts to reduce payment. Well, they'd probably still try it on, but their chances of success would be less! To me, this is the major advantage - you won't stop the killing, but you will ensure that the victims get paid.

I'm still not sure, we are going to strictly liable for running into pedestrians wearing earphones staring at a screen I assume?

Does it really say 'The fear is great visa versa'. I hate illiteracy in official documentation. I lose faith in the author.

Great idea, I'm off to sign it now.

The Criminal Law is a very expensive way to deal with all but the most serious or culpable matters. Introducing presumed liablity followed by a program of educational flyers from insurance companies etc is probably a good thing and may have, as suggested above some impact on some drivers behavior. it wont be a panacea. But then nothing ever is. I would like to see it accompanied by a safe passing rule/law which i think will give presumed liability even more weight. But it will certainly make it easier to claim against drivers in most cases.

There is a very important tenet of British law, that of presumed innocence.

Well, for starters, there's no such thing as "British law"....

The presumed, or strict liability, laws would not change the principle of innocent until proved guilty in Scottish or English criminal law. As explained in the article, they would put the burden of proof on the driver (or cyclist, in cyclist vs pedestrian collisions) for civil cases.

I think this is a very good idea. The prospect of taking a financial hit through increased insurance if judged to be at fault is one of the few things that might make dangerous or careless drivers think twice.

Well, I'm not a lawyer, so had assumed presumption of innocence would apply equally to civil law as well as criminal law. I stand corrected.