Law firm launches campaign for 'strict liability' in Scotland in cases involving cyclists

Naysayers, I'd not worry too much - the mail and the rest of the tabloids will scream "WHAT HAPPENED TO INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY" bang on about the "War on the Motorist" and this won't have cats chance of getting into law.

Wouldn't have too many issues with this in principle. Often the PI payment made to the claimant is dwarfed by legal fees. The more vulnerable road user has a great deal more interest in enuring their personal safety in their road behaviour, so is a reasonable assumption.

However, in practice, the insurance industry do need to toughen up on causation. There's too many medical reports flying around signed by rentadocs with "soft tissue injury" and "mental trauma" from claimants - even the odd cyclist who needs to read Rule 5 again - who suddenly discover they've been injured two years eleven months and three weeks after the accident. Legislation may be afoot here, so watch this space.

The solicitors and introducer firms do feel like they're lining up the shots to the end of the bar in the last chance saloon, they're hammering the phone lines like crazy cold calling people to make PI claims. The adverts for no win no fee claim firms on daytime telly don't help either. Especially when they're shown on a huge widescreen television in the lobby of large insurance companies. Ahem.

Dashboard and helmet cams would be handy too. May well be cost effective even in the medium term for the insurance companies to dole these out for free with every renewal. In the long term is a no brainer.

All responsible road users should welcome this proposal. All cyclists should surely welcome it. It will make it more likely that vulnerable road users who are injured by at fault motorists will receive fair compensation. If the motorist can show he is not at fault the presumption is rebutted, so it is not unfair to innocent motorists.

If motorists really think that they will have to show that they were not at fault if they hit a cyclist, they are much more likely to drive carefully around cyclists. It may thus help a gradual shift in attitudes similar to legislation on drink driving.

There is a lot of misinformation about the "compensation culture". If a motorist injures someone, that motorist's insurers will try to reduce the pay out by any argument they can. The first argument will be about whose fault it was and in what proportion (which is where this propsal can help the vulnerable road user).

The next argument will be about the amount of the loss. You will be dependent on the strength of your evidence, whether you can afford to lose (and oay the insurer's legal costs) and your own lawyer's negotiating skills. Because of that negotiating process, in a normal claim (not fraudulent or exaggerated) the compensation received will nearly always be less than the actual loss and will never make up for the damage to your health and your cycling.

Mmmmm....I wonder??

While I do agree that the concept does seem sound but the devil is going to be in the detail and I'm really not too sure with our current compensation culture it would not be open to some form of abuse.

Also I do wonder what will be said with regard to what the cyclist is wearing, we all know the arguments that we have seen on levels of compensation being paid out dependant on if the cyclist was wearing a lid, hi-viz clothing etc so how would this be reflected in this proposed legislation??

So in conclusion, I need to see more before I am convinced of the benefits but I do agree with the concept.

It works fine all over Europe, saves time, lowers lawyer fees, and so reduces car insurance costs. The only issue is voter ignorance.

Can't help thinking their will be unintended consequences of this one.

1. Driver resentment of cyclists
2. Over-confident cyclists
3. Compensation-hunting (idiot contrives situation to force accident then blames other party - appreciate this already happens, but with presumed liability, surely it would be easier - just walk out in front of a bike then claim the cyclist was going too fast for the road)

How about "no fault" insurance for bicycles and cars. Saves a lot on lawyers fees, and would protect cyclists who on average take the blame when the true cause is not able to be determined.

Agree with paulmcmillan, it doesn't mean the driver is liable, just that the driver should explain why it is not their fault. (And "he came through a red light" should be enough). I once heard a Dutch guy describe strict liability like this - a car driver hits a cyclist who swerved out to miss a drain cover. Liable? Absolutely, because they saw the cyclist ahead, the driver should be aware that cyclists need room because they react to road hazards unpredictably, so the driver should have allowed more room, or waited to overtake; the driver would have to prove that the cyclists action was unreasonable to avoid being at fault. Exactly the same applies if you replace 'cyclist' with 'pedestrian with dog on shared use path' and 'driver' with 'cyclist'. Dogs do strange things, you know that, so anticipate and allow for it. It doesn't mean someone can get away with stupid actions, but does shift the emphasis in favour of the more vulnerable user.

Anything that might make drivers think a bit more carefully about how they drive can only be a good thing.

It's not about automatically making the driver liable. Thats not what is going on. The onus would shift on to them to prove that it was not their fault (rather than as it currently stands for the cyclist to prove that the driver is at fault). In your example it would be relatively easy for the driver to prove that the cyclist was at fault, as they cycled through a red light.

@mrmo - To clarify my post - the situations I described were idiot moments I had whilst riding a bike, _not_ whilst driving a car.

I _cycled_ through a red light unintentionally through lack of attention. I wanted to highlight that, had I collided with a car, the driver would be presumed to be liable.

That just seems wrong to me.

It works fine all over Europe, but it's just there in the background, not something people think about much. On a practical level, it obviously makes things easier for victims, but in terms of actually preventing accidents, sending out a message to drivers that cyclists want special treatment might not be great PR.

I think there are lots of reasons why drivers in Denmark and the Netherlands and Germany are careful around cyclists. Driver training, culture, more people mixing modes to get around, fewer people absolutely reliant on cars, perhaps.

But purely in terms of regulations, here are two German rules that I like.

1) Speed limits that kick in when the road is wet

2) The section on speed in the StVO (general road traffic regulations) has a sentence saying that drivers must moderate their speed and be ready to brake if they can see children or old people. (This leads to some signage clutter - lots of signs alerting drivers that they are close to schools, nurseries, old people's homes etc.)

I find German drivers pretty good around cyclists, but I'm not convinced strict liability is the biggest influence making them so.

@neildmosss, might i suggest that driving through a red light is the problem, do you honestly think it is OK, that you just happened to not be paying attention?

As i just mentioned you have no right to the road, pedestrians, cyclists and horses do. yet your the one who is in the most dangerous vehicle and by your own statement driving without due care and attention.

what people have to remember is you have no right to drive, you do so under licence. Licences tend to come with rules that, IME seem to be forgotten as soon as the test is passed. If we can at least make people think, make people remember that the roads do not exist for the sole benefit of cars then that is IMO progress.

No-one should ever have to prove their innocence.

I've had my "idiot" moments in the saddle which demonstrate to me that this is a very poor idea.

I recently day-dreamed my way through a red light (with fortuitous absence of vehicles going through the green light).

I once turned right across a car which was behind my right shoulder because I just followed the vehicle in front, not noticing the "straight on" exit of the junction. I gouged out paintwork on wing and bonnet and ended on the floor. The idea that the driver of that car should have been presumed liable is as idiotic as my manoeuvre.

I think this idea generates a perception that cyclists are an "untouchable" with rights over and above other road users. That will breed resentment in some drivers, and unwarranted confidence in some cyclists, and I think that is not a good mix.

I don't understand how else one can go about making sure the roads are safe, if you drive a two ton piece of metal on the roads you clearly should be responsible for any potential damage it could do. Same goes for cyclists, one should be prepared that there might be pedestrians/dogs around the corner on a cycle path and take it a bit core cautiously there. makes perfect sense to me.

2 things:
1. Sidesaddle - it would benefit the Lawyers, so we can't say it benefits no-one...
2. I assume would also apply to say a cyclist who knocks over a pedestrian crossing the road without looking...

I think it would be workable - it works fine in places like France. However, I expect our lawmakers will exert their usual level of competence on the lawmaking process and make the usual hash of it. Also bear in mind that our local Scottish lawmakers are a step or two down from even the Westminster based eejits.

Doesn't seem right... presumed guilty unless proven innocent. Obviously something needs to be done re: the pathetic laws but this doesn't seem right.

definitly in favour of this, everyone is responsible for their actions, they also have a duty of care to those around them, and this means the stronger looking out for the weaker.

I forgot "society doesn't exist anymore"

No. We are all members of the public and we all have a duty to act responsibly. Otherwise it's a lawyers feeding frenzy which benefits no-one.