Mark Cavendish says motorists should be presumed liable in incidents where cyclists are injured or killed

I've posted a petition on the HM Government E-Petiton web site entitled "Presumed Liability (Road Traffic Incident)". In essence it's requesting the government to consider incorporating into law the principle that a party operating a vehicle is presumed to be the responsible party in the event of a collision with a more vulnerable road user.

I consider that this is a very cost effective method to get people to understand their responsibiltes when using the roads and other shared facilities thereby helping to create a culture of caution.

If you feel you can support me in this, please sign the petition.

Feel free to pass this message on to whoever you feel will be supportive.

Wishing you all Safe and Happy Cycling
Posh

Great Mark C you've picked up on my efforts to use the term presumed liability rather that strict liability.

It really is easy to explain - just take the analogies between a gun and a motor vehicle.

If a gun kills, injures, or damages something then there is no question in the public's mind that the person who owns the gun carries a liability that a dangerous piece of machinery for which they are responsible has been involved in an incident. Likewise the user of the gun carries a presumed liability - they know the use of a gun can have unwanted damaging effects, and even if the damaged people or objects are no supposed to be in the line of fire, there is still that presumed liability on the persons who own and use the gun.

Motor vehicles are equally dangerous and so a presumption or duty of care exists when those motor vehicles are used - even if the pedestrian steps out without looking - you are in charge of equipment that can kill so you carry that responsibility to use it appropriately.

It is dangerous on british roads - for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. Everyone is in such a rush - even at weekends, and take risks that they don't need to. Kind of getting fed up with it. Had fun today in my car holding up a driver in a MPV that was driving too fast. Gave him a nice sarcastic wave to let him know I did it on purpose!

As I understand it a scheme of presumed liability would mean that the onus (and much of the work) to prove liability in an incident would fall not upon the more vulnerable and injured who are attempting to pick up their lives as it does right now, but upon the person who is more likely to cause the injury, and who could typically leave such an incident with not a mark on them.

Two years ago a friend of mine was injured whilst out cycling. He was hit by a driver who pulled out of a side road without looking in the direction of my friend.

My friend's collarbone was broken in several places. In the system we have in this country he was the one (whilst recovering from his injuries) that then had to pursue the driver (or the driver's insurers) to prove that the driver was liable and therefore be able to claim compensation for his damaged bicycle and his injuries.

To me it just seems a little unfair that the more vulnerable party not only has to deal with their injuries but also has to deal with making a claim, whilst the operator of the more lethal piece of machinery just has to sit back and sign a few forms when they drop through his letter box.

Typically the driver would also come out of the incident without a scratch (in my friend's case there was barely a mark on the car) and apart from a minor inconvenience, would be able to get on with his life as before, unlike my friend who spent many months off the bike, suffered several operations and is still receiving physiotherapy today.

Mark Cavendish is definitely a world champion whilst Mike Penning is just a joke - and he has the nerve to call himself Road Safety minister!

Its been a long time coming that someone like so should say something like so, next should be Bradley Wiggins.

And for all those defending Penning - go away and drive your cars,

Can't wait to see how some of the papers are going to pillory cav over this I expect one certain paper to start questioning his mental health etc...

“Making a motorist automatically at fault for an accident with a cyclist, unless he or she can prove otherwise, would be unfair where someone is driving entirely responsibly — or when there is an accident where no one is to blame,” he explained.

I'm trying to imagine such a scenario, and having a difficult time with it ... something where both cyclist and driver are operating their vehicles entirely responsibly but still causing a collision. I can think of lots of stupid/irresponsible riding scenarios, and lots of stupid/irresponsible driving scenarios ... but, a collision between car & bike where someone wasn't clearly responsible/negligent?

Let's not forget that strict liability as applied in the Netherlands with respect to road collisions, is a civil law provision, not a criminal one. It is applied when working out damages and compensation liability, not criminal responsibility. A point even Cav may not have grasped!
http://ukcyclerules.com/2010/11/16/strict-liability-and-legal-protection...

http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/carlisle-death-crash-bus-driver-cleare...

Don't know if this link will work but here's another one to add to the list!

talk about stating the obvious, what an idiot!

Although it is good to see high profile cyclists campaigning for safety on our roads, strict liability is a bit of red herring, we need to be campaigning for Sustainable Safety http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2012/01/campaign-for-sustainable-sa...

Mike Penning's comment remind me of this paper on Blaming Children For Child Pedestrian Injuries, it is worth reading as it explains a lot.

I strongly recommend that everyone should lobby their MPs on this issue (here was my first attempt), the only way we are going to see change is by applying pressure on the politicians.

Good for Cav. "exceptions are the UK", and its ex European colonies. would be a more revealing way of putting it as the Republic of Ireland, Malta and Cyprus most likely have the the same law as the UK because they haven't got around to changing a law they inherited from when they were a UK colony.

It works for the Cloggies, doesn't it? They've done all the hard work, now we can just copy and implement their policies.

Gosh, second time in two days Cav's said something I agree with.

He's got my green jersey already.

Of course it's not just about cyclist's, we have a motor vehicle culture in this country which effectively denies safe access to many of our public highways, by all vulnerable users, whether on wheels on foot or horseback. Muppets like Penning are part of the problem, to link his name to road safety is a joke.

Good for Cav. It's great that he's using his fame like this to try and push a result. I wonder if he can't get Lord Sugar on board as the more 'establishment' figures the better. It's a pretty reasonable idea - which I fear will be twisted by the press and presented as another attack on the precious motorist. Mr Penning is just stating the standard position on this: protect the status quo, do nothing to lose votes and kick it into the long grass. Hopefully we can get a head of steam through local MPs and push it further. I'll certainly send it to mine.

I can see both sides of this, if only because in the absence of witnesses or obvious physical evidence, it's extremely difficult to show that one party is at fault.

On a ride a couple of weeks ago, I was nearly wiped out twice by adult men tootling along on mountain bikes on the pavement, with hoods up, both of whom appeared to assume that because they couldn't hear an engine behind them, the road must be clear, and pulled a hard right, straight out into the road in front of me. What if I had been driving one of these new silent electric cars? No extra noise, but I might have flattened them, and probably couldn't prove my case.

Also, along the lines of the law of unintended consequences, I think this risks making the wreckless/inconsiderate proportion of cyclists even more so, which would harm public perception even more.

That said, his sentiment is spot on, it would be great for more road users to be thinking about us. I always wonder why the 'think bike - think biker' campaign has to be limited to motorcycles in terms of it's message.

It's worth pointing out that there's a difference between liability and fault. The proposed system sets up presumed liability (in otherwords, an obligation to pay for damage) rather than presumed fault. It's important because it means no presumption of criminal offences and no presumption of blame - it's just about insurance costs.

But that's why it will never get implemented here - british drivers are so sensitive about any cost implication or 'tax on drivers' that there would never be political support for it.