Strict Liability Law - Drivers to be auto blamed for all accidents with cyclists

Richie · 15 Apr 2013 at 22:07

Stumbled across this belter on BBC News -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22155209

A group (Campaign for Strict Liability) are wanting to get this law passed at least in Scotland to begin with.

Personally I think its wrong. A driver is presumed guilty and has to prove their innocence by proving the guilt of the cyclist instead. That just turns the whole "Innocent until proven guilty" aspect of law on its head.

They say it will reduce accidents. I will leave this quote from the Campaign for Strict Liability:

Supporters of the Campaign for Strict Liability say it would greatly reduce the time it takes for accident victims to win compensation.

So is it to reduce accidents or just to get compensation? :confused:

Janesy B · 15 Apr 2013 at 22:09

This is just madness, opens the door for yet more insurance fraud and makes cyclists think that they are not accountable to their own actions. AWESOME.

Murf · 15 Apr 2013 at 22:11

Works for Holland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_the_Netherlands

Jono8 · 15 Apr 2013 at 22:11

Haha, this cannot be serious.

and i thought i couldnt hate cyclists on our roads even more....

Scougar · 15 Apr 2013 at 22:12

I use a cycle almost every day, but I completely disagree with this.

Don't get all the 'cyclist hate' though?

Rroff · 15 Apr 2013 at 22:13

Very bad and backwards idea, making penalties for drivers that are guilty in incidents involving cyclists harsher tho wouldn't go amiss.

[FnG]magnolia · 15 Apr 2013 at 22:17

The problem is that we only remember the idiotic cyclists because that is literally every single one of them.

Participant · 15 Apr 2013 at 22:19

Jono8 said:
and i thought i couldnt hate cyclists on our roads even more....

You hate all cyclists even more, just because a law is being discussed that most cyclists would probably disagree with anyway?

CaptainRAVE · 15 Apr 2013 at 22:20

What amazes me with cyclists is how few you see wearing a helmet - especially considering how crazy they are on the roads.

Tom_ed1987 · 15 Apr 2013 at 22:21

Is there any current assumed liability law between vehicles and pedestrians?

Either way I think this is stupid, and will achieve nothing apart from to further enhance the 'us and them' mentality between cyclists and drivers.

growse · 15 Apr 2013 at 22:23

CaptainRAVE said:
What amazes me with cyclists is how few you see wearing a helmet - especially considering how crazy they are on the roads.

Because a helmet's going to save you from being crushed by a lorry/hit by a car/punched in the face by an irate driver.

And because all cyclists are 'crazy'.

Wolfman Jack · 15 Apr 2013 at 22:23

Scougar said:
Don't get all the 'cyclist hate' though?

Lets see....typically the majority of cyclists (particularly in oxford) have no respect for the highway code and road regulations.....Rarely do they stop at red lights, or indicate intent when at junctions. I've even seen them power across a zebra crossing when pedestrians are walking across...

growse · 15 Apr 2013 at 22:25

Wolfman Jack said:
Lets see....typically the majority of cyclists (particularly in oxford) have no respect for the highway code and road regulations.....Rarely do they stop at red lights, or indicate intent when at junctions. I've even seen them power across a zebra crossing when pedestrians are walking across...

Wow, completely non-cherry picked, non-biased multiple observational, massive sample and non-generalised data here folks. Expect to see this a lot more!

Fwiw, I don't cycle. I motorbike through London and the *vast majority* of cyclists I encounter are both sane *and* courteous. Go figure.

CaptainRAVE · 15 Apr 2013 at 22:26

growse said:
Because a helmet's going to save you from being crushed by a lorry/hit by a car/punched in the face by an irate driver.

And because all cyclists are 'crazy'.

It can only help though, certainly better to wear one than not to. Having had my life saved by one, it always sends a shudder down my spine when I see someone not wearing one.

Mr Blonde · 15 Apr 2013 at 22:27

[FnG]magnolia;24124857 said:
The problem is that we only remember the idiotic cyclists because that is literally every single one of them.

Are you saying that every cyclist is idiotic or just the ones that we remember!?

CaptainRAVE said:
What amazes me with cyclists is how few you see wearing a helmet - especially considering how crazy they are on the roads.

I'm out on my bike every day in London and I'd say 95% plus have helmets on.

growse · 15 Apr 2013 at 22:28

CaptainRAVE said:
It can only help though, certainly better to wear one than not to. Having had my life saved by one, it always sends a shudder down my spine when I see someone not wearing one.

I agree it's "better than nothing", but so is not cycling in the first place. Or even leaving the house.

What irks me is the massive fixation on cyclists and helmets, as if those wearing them are somehow invincible and those who don't are 'crazy'.

One More Solo · 15 Apr 2013 at 22:28

Complete waste of time, might as well close this now and reread the countless other cyclist/driver argument threads.

Burnsy2023 · 15 Apr 2013 at 22:28

CaptainRAVE said:
What amazes me with cyclists is how few you see wearing a helmet - especially considering how crazy they are on the roads.

Indeed, should be compulsory.

growse said:
Because a helmet's going to save you from being crushed by a lorry/hit by a car/punched in the face by an irate driver.

And because all cyclists are 'crazy'.

It'll save you from serious injury a lot of the time, just like a motorcyclist would.

Mr Joshua · 15 Apr 2013 at 22:28

Janesy B said:
This is just madness, opens the door for yet more insurance fraud

From a quick glance at the article this is exactly what sprung to mind.

growse · 15 Apr 2013 at 22:30

Burnsy2023 said:
It'll save you from serious injury a lot of the time, just like a motorcyclist would.

A motorcycle helmet is built and tested to slightly different standards to a cycle helmet though. And the sorts of impacts it's trying to deal with are rather different. The purist in me is uncomfortable with the disconnect between a motorbike helmet being compulsory whereas any other protective clothing isn't. Generally, we pass safety laws to protect other people - e.g. seatbelts stop car occupants becoming missiles - the absence of a bike helmet (either motorized or not) isn't going to affect the risk of injury to any other person other than the wearer.

Also, if you follow that argument through, why not mandate helmets for pedestrians? There's a lot of pedestrian injuries on the roads every year, surely they'd be better off with helmets?

*another edit* finally - see holland for the complete disconnect between cycle helmet use and injury rate.