# Petition for presumed liability



## cyberknight (15 Aug 2020)

https://petition.parliament.uk/peti...5lt1Gt62mcgVHHEJfa6JRAsoZAclcCI44DUhmJ_c9OaRI


----------



## Badger_Boom (15 Aug 2020)

cyberknight said:


> https://petition.parliament.uk/peti...5lt1Gt62mcgVHHEJfa6JRAsoZAclcCI44DUhmJ_c9OaRI


I waver massively with this concept. On one hand, I see and hear about so much terrible driving and driver behaviour towards cyclists, let alone sheer carelessness; on the other, on my walk back from the shop ten minutes ago, I watched a guy weave all over the road riding no-hands while texting, narrowly avoiding colliding with a car who by any standard was trying to give him a wide berth.


----------



## HMS_Dave (15 Aug 2020)

Badger_Boom said:


> I waver massively with this concept. On one hand, I see and hear about so much terrible driving and driver behaviour towards cyclists, let alone sheer carelessness; on the other, on my walk back from the shop ten minutes ago, I watched a guy weave all over the road riding no-hands while texting, narrowly avoiding colliding with a car who by any standard was trying to give him a wide berth.


The petition is about the larger vehicle proving they were not at fault, as presumed liability. Just because there is a pillock on a bike in the middle of the road, it doesn't mean its OK for a vehicle behind to mow them down...

There would be evidence even without a camera owing to the particular incident you refer too to either implicate or exonerate the driver such as impact on the vehicle and bike etc... No issues there.


----------



## Drago (15 Aug 2020)

I'm not for it either. The person who is liable should be liable, not automatically someone who drives a car and therefore just happens to (probably) have insurance. Evidence about it's effect on road safety is vague at best.

Best of luck, but not for me.

There are also big obstacles about compatibility with English civil law, which make it impossible to legislate for. The government aren't going to open a mahoosive can of worms by rewriting the law as regards proof or otherwise of liability, which would echo through the legal system for generations, just to enable one piece of niche legislation. Just won't happen.

As an aside, a petition on the subject has been raised perviously and was poo poohed, so why flog a horse that is obviously deceased?


----------



## PeteXXX (15 Aug 2020)

Guilty until proved innocent?


----------



## HMS_Dave (15 Aug 2020)

PeteXXX said:


> Guilty until proved innocent?


I don't think its that simple, it is after all 'presumed'. It just puts greater emphasis on the vehicle most likely to kill other more vulnerable road users and might minimise risk taking, such as overtaking cyclists. joggers and walkers on a blind bend on a country road, accelerating furiously past a vulnerable road users and such. Nothing is a perfect system and neither is presumed liability, but in the grand scheme of things it might reduce deaths...


----------



## Badger_Boom (15 Aug 2020)

Drago said:


> The government aren't going to open a mahoosive can of worms by rewriting the law as regards proof or otherwise of liability, which would echo through the legal system for generations, just to enable one piece of niche legislation. Just won't happen.


They might if the insurance companies think they would make enough out of the change. Think of all those new cycling policies the6 could sell.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (15 Aug 2020)

PeteXXX said:


> Guilty until proved innocent?



That’s a reference to the criminal maxim, presumed liability only applies in the civil case to determine liability. This is a common misunderstanding and is probably the biggest hurdle in gaining public support.

And I don’t think it’s incompatible with laws in England or Scotland, where we already employ this approach on rear end collisions. It’s probably unlikely that it’ll have a measurable effect on driver behaviour but it will make the civil claims element much more straightforward for victims. On that alone it gets my vote.


----------



## Supersuperleeds (15 Aug 2020)

all new vehicles should be fitted with black boxes and front and rear cameras. If you are in an accident and they aren't working you are liable. If you are in an accident and they are working there should be enough evidence to prove liability. No need for massive law changes for this.


----------



## Notafettler (15 Aug 2020)

A new one this, someone has to prove there innocence. Disgusting idea... unless it's me they hit!


----------



## Notafettler (15 Aug 2020)

Supersuperleeds said:


> all new vehicles should be fitted with black boxes and front and rear cameras. If you are in an accident and they aren't working you are liable. If you are in an accident and they are working there should be enough evidence to prove liability. No need for massive law changes for this.


Not sure about black box but one of the Scandinavian countries 99%plus of cars have dashcams. Can't argue with that. Keep hearing police around here asking for dashcam film of accidents.


----------



## Notafettler (15 Aug 2020)

glasgowcyclist said:


> That’s a reference to the criminal maxim, presumed liability only applies in the civil case to determine liability. This is a common misunderstanding and is probably the biggest hurdle in gaining public support.
> 
> And I don’t think it’s incompatible with laws in England or Scotland, where we already employ this approach on rear end collisions. It’s probably unlikely that it’ll have a measurable effect on driver behaviour but it will make the civil claims element much more straightforward for victims. On that alone it gets my vote.


So if a car driver kills a cyclist he has to prove his innocence? Or go to jail? Running into the back of another vehicle is NOT the same thing. More importantly I don't think the rule that if you drive into the back of another vehicle it automatically follows that you have to prove your innocence.


----------



## Slick (15 Aug 2020)

A long way to go as I've signed it and am no 930.


----------



## Slick (15 Aug 2020)

glasgowcyclist said:


> That’s a reference to the criminal maxim, presumed liability only applies in the civil case to determine liability. This is a common misunderstanding and is probably the biggest hurdle in gaining public support.
> 
> And I don’t think it’s incompatible with laws in England or Scotland, where we already employ this approach on rear end collisions. It’s *probably unlikely that it’ll have a measurable effect on driver behaviour* but it will make the civil claims element much more straightforward for victims. On that alone it gets my vote.


If that were true, why is drivers behaviour so different around cyclists in countries that already have it?

In Holland for example, cars were looking out for me and giving way to me even when they had priority.


----------



## Milkfloat (15 Aug 2020)

It seems to work well in almost all of the rest of Europe, I am not sure why we need to be the exception yet again.


----------



## keithmac (15 Aug 2020)

I've seen terrible driving whilst cycling and seen terrible cycling whilst driving. 

You get a scrote riding straight across a road whilst texting and you are presumed guilty if you knock him down by accident, no thanks..


----------



## HMS_Dave (15 Aug 2020)

keithmac said:


> I've seen terrible driving whilst cycling and seen terrible cycling whilst driving.
> 
> You get a scrote riding straight across a road whilst texting and you are presumed guilty if you knock him down by accident, no thanks..


It could well be that you are guilty. You could be fiddling with a touchscreen and avoided the accident, eating a pie, distracted by passengers, on the phone, drunk etc... It's important for motorists to be looking out for all obstacles and potential hazards. Hazard perception being part of obtaining a licence.

I think it highlights really the culture instilled in us that motorists really do think they own the road and struggle with the concept that it is them that kill other road users, overwhelmingly so. There could be a kid farting about on a bike in the road, or an old dear pops out between cars etc, it doesn't mean they deserve to die, nor instantly assumes that they are immediately guilty for doing so...


----------



## matticus (15 Aug 2020)

keithmac said:


> I've seen terrible driving whilst cycling and seen terrible cycling whilst driving.
> 
> You get a scrote riding straight across a road whilst texting and you are presumed guilty if you knock him down by accident, no thanks..


Nope. Read this:
https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/petition-for-presumed-liability.265771/post-6103250


----------



## steveindenmark (15 Aug 2020)

It works very well in Denmark. It does not exonerated careless cycling. What it does plant in the brain of a motorist is that if I am ln collision with a cyclist. It is my fault, until I prove otherwise. These accidents are usually in towns and finding who is at fault is not usually difficult. But it does make drivers especially aware of cyclists and pedestrians.


----------



## PK99 (15 Aug 2020)

Supersuperleeds said:


> *all new vehicles* should be fitted with black boxes and front and rear cameras. If you are in an accident and they aren't working you are liable. If you are in an accident and they are working there should be enough evidence to prove liability. No need for massive law changes for this.



As is often said hereabouts - a bicycle is a vehicle.


----------



## Supersuperleeds (15 Aug 2020)

PK99 said:


> As is often said hereabouts - a bicycle is a vehicle.



Okay all new motor vehicles


----------



## keithmac (15 Aug 2020)

matticus said:


> Nope. Read this:
> https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/petition-for-presumed-liability.265771/post-6103250



I've read the petition, as a person I cycle far more than drive (probably 90% if my travel is by bike) but I've seen enough "bag heads" and idiotic/ antisocial scooter rides to decide the petition is not for me.

Need to get the dashcam wired in tomorrow..


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (15 Aug 2020)

If the petition isn't for you personally, could you still sign it for the benefit of the rest of us.

Thanks


----------



## mjr (15 Aug 2020)

keithmac said:


> You get a scrote riding straight across a road whilst texting and you are presumed guilty if you knock him down by accident, no thanks..





Notafettler said:


> A new one this, someone has to prove there innocence. Disgusting idea... unless it's me they hit!


No, this is about liability, not guilt or innocence.

Motorists are to blame in 85% of collisions with cyclists, so let's start from a fairer default than 50-50.


----------



## Drago (15 Aug 2020)

This is a bit cake and eat it to my mind.

Cyclists are, by and large, against compulsory insurance. Conversely, theyd be happy to benefit from an innocent drivers insurance simply because there was no evidence to substantiate an innocent drivers account.

Despite all but 4 EU countries adopting this, there is no clear reduction in casualties that can be attributed to it. This makes the "_it'll make car drivers more careful_" argument as justification seem a bit hollow. Indeed, only 2 EU countries have a lower per-journey-mile cycling death rate than the UK, so the correlation appears not to exist in reality. Instead, it simply allows some people to make a profit out of their own idiocy and recklessness.

The majority of the bicycle v car collisions are the technical fault of the car drivers - ougaidemof that, penalising drivers who were not at fault does nothing to make the roads safer. I'd sooner see compusory insurance for adult cyclists than PL.

In any case, were bumping our guns. It's incompatible with British law. More chance of my coming out as a commie than PL appearing.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (15 Aug 2020)

What does 'larger' mean? If a chuffin huge cyclist and me have an incident, is it their fault?


----------



## HMS_Dave (15 Aug 2020)

Drago said:


> This is a bit cake and eat it to my mind.
> 
> Cyclists are, by and large, against compulsory insurance. Conversely, theyd be happy to benefit from an innocent drivers insurance simply because there was no evidence to substantiate an innocent drivers account.
> 
> Despite all but 4 EU countries adopting this, there is no clear reduction in casualties that can be attributed to it. This makes the "_it'll make car drivers more careful_" argument as justification seem a bit hollow. Indeed, only 2 EU countries have a lower per-journey-mile cycling death rate than the UK, so the correlation appears not to exist in reality. Instead, simply allows some people to make a profit out of their own idiocy and recklessness.



Duly noted. On the point of presumed liability however isn't just for the benefit of cyclists. It would be for the benefit of users such as cyclists. But you could argue pedestrians would benefit most as they are approximately 4 times more likely to be killed or seriously hurt by a motorist.


----------



## Drago (15 Aug 2020)

steveindenmark said:


> It works very well in Denmark. It does not exonerated careless cycling. What it does plant in the brain of a motorist is that if I am ln collision with a cyclist. It is my fault, until I prove otherwise. These accidents are usually in towns and finding who is at fault is not usually difficult. But it does make drivers especially aware of cyclists and pedestrians.


I'm not sure how you're quantifying any of this Stevie. Following its introduction in Denmark in 1986 there was no reduction in casualties attributable to the new legislation. Ditto Holland when they introduced it in 1990. No evidence there that it's making anyone more aware of anyone else, or if it is then that is not translating to a tangible benefit.



HMS_Dave said:


> Duly noted. On the point of presumed liability however isn't just for the benefit of cyclists. It would be for the benefit of users such as cyclists. But you could argue pedestrians would benefit most as they are approximately 4 times more likely to be killed or seriously hurt by a motorist.



Where's the "benefit" Dave if it isn't making them any safer? There might be a nice cash benefit, so times for people that don't deserve it, but the argument being advanced is one of road safety, and there is little evidence that anyone is benefitting from that as a result.

I'm all for anything than genuinely benefits safety, but only where there is reasonably clear cut and reproduceable evidence that it does indeed contribute to safety.


----------



## mjr (15 Aug 2020)

Drago said:


> The majority of the bicycle v car collisions are the technical fault of the car drivers - ougaidemof that, penalising drivers who were not at fault does nothing to make the roads safer.


I agree with much of what you post but this bit goes too far. While not a safety improvement, it would be better than the current default that penalises a greater number of blameless cyclists and walkers.



> In any case, were bumping our guns. It's incompatible with British law. More chance of my coming out as a commie than PL appearing.


Obviously it doesn't work with current law but I don't see why Parliament couldn't change the law. Incompatible how? It's not like the UK has any base laws that can't be changed. Parliamentary sovereignty, innit?


----------



## Drago (15 Aug 2020)

Parliament could change the manner in which liability is attributed in civil law, not only the burden of proof conventuon, but the evidential, moral and legal principles, but that would then impinge on pretty much every and all aspects of disputes in civil law and would cause incalculable legal disarray. 

There are so many things that can and do contribute to cycling safety it seems daft to expend any thought or effort on something that is not only highly unlikely to improve casualty figures, but is never going to happen. A petition regarding infrastructure or traffic enforcement is far more likely to contribute to safety and far more likely to actually one day materialise, so why waste our time fiddling while Rome burns?


----------



## chriswoody (15 Aug 2020)

Drago said:


> I'm not sure how you're quantifying any of this Stevie. Following its introduction in Denmark in 1986 there was no reduction in casualties attributable to the new legislation. Ditto Holland when they introduced it in 1990. No evidence there that it's making anyone more aware of anyone else, or if it is then that is not translating to a tangible benefit.



I can't speak directly for @steveindenmark, but I do agree wholeheartedly with him. It is impossible to quantify, but if you've spent the amount of time that I have, cycling in a country that has presumed liability, then you will see that on the whole, driver attitudes are completely different. Drivers here do go out of their way to avoid you and I've been amazed at the lengths drivers go to to give cyclist and pedestrians priority. 

Another point that folks here are forgetting is that it also goes the other way, so in the examples above where a young cyclist is riding along paying more attention to their phone than their surroundings, then they are presumed liable when they invariably hit a pedestrian. I really believe in it's efficacy as a road safety measure and is a big part of why cycling here is so much more safer and pleasurable than Britain.


----------



## keithmac (15 Aug 2020)

HMS_Dave said:


> Duly noted. On the point of presumed liability however isn't just for the benefit of cyclists. It would be for the benefit of users such as cyclists. But you could argue pedestrians would benefit most as they are approximately 4 times more likely to be killed or seriously hurt by a motorist.



I'm sure I've mentioned this before, I had to stop in the middle of the road whilst test riding a motorcycle earlier in the year because some numpty stepped straight into the road while staring into their smart-phone. Not even a glance to the side.

Luckily there wasn't anyone behind or it wouldn't have ended as well. Even with the horn and a few choice words they still didn't really understand what could have happend.

Why would I have been liable for that, surely there become a point where you take responsibility for your own well-being and actions?


----------



## HMS_Dave (15 Aug 2020)

Drago said:


> I'm not sure how you're quantifying any of this Stevie. Following its introduction in Denmark in 1986 there was no reduction in casualties attributable to the new legislation. Ditto Holland when they introduced it in 1990. No evidence there that it's making anyone more aware of anyone else, or if it is then that is not translating to a tangible benefit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The idea is driving a change of attitudes towards other users. In this thread alone some of that is on display in my opinion. You certainly can't wrap all road users in air bags and crash bars, Its certainly not perfect and i agree with some of your sentiments, but Chris Boardman has a little piece on it basically echoing this https://road.cc/content/news/chris-boardman-calls-presumed-liability-law-273759


----------



## HMS_Dave (15 Aug 2020)

The point regarding that is that you adapted and stopped and nobody was hurt. But if someone stepped out and you could have reacted because you were distracted but didn't and mowed them down and killed them, who you still think you were'nt liable?


----------



## keithmac (15 Aug 2020)

HMS_Dave said:


> The point regarding that is that you adapted and stopped and nobody was hurt. But if someone stepped out and you could have reacted because you were distracted but didn't and mowed them down and killed them, who you still think you were'nt liable?



Not really, if I'd have done another check to the left at the junction (which I was perfectly entitled to do) it would have likely been a different outcome..


----------



## HMS_Dave (15 Aug 2020)

keithmac said:


> Not really, if I'd have done another check to the left at the junction (which I was perfectly entitled to do) it would have likely been a different outcome..


Yes, you are also entitled to make sure its safe to go ahead.

I pretty much rest my case here...


----------



## boydj (15 Aug 2020)

Having been taken out by cars a couple of times through no fault of my own, I'm all in favour of presumed liability. 

In the first place, it will much simplify claims against a driver and given that it's been shown the drivers are responsible in the vast majority of car v cycle incidents, it will reflect what actually goes on in our roads.

It will lead to a much faster settlement of claims for most incidents.

It probably won't lead to bigger losses for the insurance companies, since they'll be spending a lot less on lawyers fighting cases. The lawyers will be the losers.

It will not stop drivers from fighting a claim where they can show the cyclist has been negligent.

Given that Malta is the only other European country which does not have presumed liability, I have to wonder why we are out of step with the rest of Europe where the roads seem to be less hostile to cyclists than they are in Britain.


----------



## keithmac (15 Aug 2020)

HMS_Dave said:


> Yes, you are also entitled to make sure its safe to go ahead.
> 
> I pretty much rest my case here...



Plenty safe enough for me, not so much for the numpty with the phone..


----------



## classic33 (15 Aug 2020)

PeteXXX said:


> Guilty until proved innocent?


Mixed feelings on this.
End of March 2005 I was t-boned by a car pulling out onto the "major" road. But because I was only on a bike, I was at fault. 

I'd always assumed that vehicles entering a "major" road, had to check there was nothing on the road before pulling out.


----------



## mjr (16 Aug 2020)

Drago said:


> Parliament could change the manner in which liability is attributed in civil law, not only the burden of proof conventuon, but the evidential, moral and legal principles, but that would then impinge on pretty much every and all aspects of disputes in civil law and would cause incalculable legal disarray.


Or they could enact a minimal implementation which simply changes the initial presumption only in road collision damages claims, couldn't they? Or maybe allows the vehicle type to be considered a factor in itself?

How did we end up with it starting from a 50-50 presumption in road collisions anyway? It's bonkers that the mass and typical speed of each vehicle seems to be ignored.


> There are so many things that can and do contribute to cycling safety it seems daft to expend any thought or effort on something that is not only highly unlikely to improve casualty figures, but is never going to happen. A petition regarding infrastructure or traffic enforcement is far more likely to contribute to safety and far more likely to actually one day materialise, so why waste our time fiddling while Rome burns?


I bet that was what the cyclists campaigning for tarmac roads 130ish years ago were told, with minor changes.


----------



## classic33 (16 Aug 2020)

Asphalt surfaces weren't widespread until the 1930s.


----------



## HobbesOnTour (16 Aug 2020)

While it may be a difficult concept to measure and my experience is purely anecdotal and specific to me, the presumed liability in the Netherlands had a huge impact on my driving when I moved there.

I was driving for a decade there before I threw my leg over a bike and got to experience it from other side. 

For me, it's a no brainer for improving bike safety and the perception of bike safety.

I understand fully the abhorrance at the thought of being responsible for an idiot, but NL do things differently too;
When I started commuting I would meet a "light" control within a couple of weeks of the winter clock change. On the spot fine for each missing light. (Weekend night were popular for random controls for lights too).
The use of a phone while riding is now subject to a hefty fine.
Mopeds (brommers) are frequently pulled for violations. 
Try riding on the road when a (compulsory) bike path is available - no bike priority then!! 
In other words, it's not a free for all for cyclists.

Also, schools teach cycling etiquette and many schools do field trips on bikes so responsible cycling is ingrained from a young age, while compulsory driving lessons train drivers how to deal with bikes. 

I don't have access links to them now, but there are stories of traffic lights changing patterns in the rain to facilitate bikes (Rotterdam) and regular reviews of traffic flows all designed to minimise the reason for cyclists to break the law.

Finally, there's the infrastructure which is clear and well maintained making it very clear who has right of way and when.

It's not just one thing that makes a difference - it's a whole package. It's complicated and makes it difficult to measure the success or otherwise of one thing. It should be remembered that the situation in NL developed over decades, often in the face of intense hostility from the car/vehicle lobby. 

Oh, a priority law does not make any but the most foolish careless or adopt a devil may care attitude. The sheer number of bikes means that you always have to be on your toes.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (16 Aug 2020)

Notafettler said:


> So if a car driver kills a cyclist he has to prove his innocence? Or go to jail?



No.



glasgowcyclist said:


> presumed liability only applies in the civil case to determine liability


----------



## PK99 (16 Aug 2020)

mjr said:


> I agree with much of what you post but this bit goes too far. While not a safety improvement, it would be better than the current default that penalises a greater number of blameless cyclists and walkers.
> 
> 
> Obviously* it doesn't work with current law but I don't see why Parliament couldn't change the law. Incompatible how?* It's not like the UK has any base laws that can't be changed. Parliamentary sovereignty, innit?



Negligence, liability and damages come under Common Law/ Tort not statute. Various liabilities have been defined by case law.

That is the major difference between UK and (most) continental law where statute law defines

EDIT:

ie it is not specific laws that are incompatible, but the very system of English Common Law


----------



## keithmac (16 Aug 2020)

classic33 said:


> Mixed feelings on this.
> End of March 2005 I was t-boned by a car pulling out onto the "major" road. But because I was only on a bike, I was at fault.
> 
> I'd always assumed that vehicles entering a "major" road, had to check there was nothing on the road before pulling out.



That does sound like you got the dirty end of the stick and the car was definitely at fault for pulling out in front of you.


----------



## snorri (16 Aug 2020)

Notafettler said:


> So if a car driver kills a cyclist he has to prove his innocence? Or go to jail?


I'm unsure what you find unreasonable about the situation you describe.


----------



## steveindenmark (16 Aug 2020)

chriswoody said:


> I can't speak directly for @steveindenmark, but I do agree wholeheartedly with him. It is impossible to quantify, but if you've spent the amount of time that I have, cycling in a country that has presumed liability, then you will see that on the whole, driver attitudes are completely different. Drivers here do go out of their way to avoid you and I've been amazed at the lengths drivers go to to give cyclist and pedestrians priority.
> 
> Another point that folks here are forgetting is that it also goes the other way, so in the examples above where a young cyclist is riding along paying more attention to their phone than their surroundings, then they are presumed liable when they invariably hit a pedestrian. I really believe in it's efficacy as a road safety measure and is a big part of why cycling here is so much more safer and pleasurable than Britain.


I think you have raised a good point Chris. When there is presumed liability, there is also percieved respect. Drivers have to stop for us. They have no choice. But cyclists often give a wave of thanks and the drivers appreciate that. I think it is a very enviroment to ride around in. Drago pointed out that presumed liabilty has not changed the accident figures in Denmark. I will accept that as I cannot find the data. But there are other benefits to it. It leads to a better understanding and respect between cyclists and motorists.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (16 Aug 2020)

Slick said:


> If that were true, why is drivers behaviour so different around cyclists in countries that already have it?



That could be correlation rather than causation.

To be certain, you’d have to know the levels of collisions and injuries prior to and after the introduction of presumed liability.

I believe the difference in behaviour comes from the increased volume of people cycling, thanks to the introduction of safe infrastructure in, for example, the Netherlands at the end of the ‘70s. There, presumed liability wasn’t brought in until the ‘90s so if your suggestion is that PL was significant in affecting driver behaviour then it should be obvious from the collision stats.

But even if there is no discernible improvement in driver behaviour, it’s still a worthwhile initiative to introduce.


----------



## classic33 (16 Aug 2020)

keithmac said:


> That does sound like you got the dirty end of the stick and the car was definitely at fault for pulling out in front of you.


Almost as though I'd no right to be on the road.


----------



## Notafettler (16 Aug 2020)

snorri said:


> I'm unsure what you find unreasonable about the situation you describe.


Erhh the cyclist pulls out in front of him and the car driver has no chance of stopping.


----------



## Slick (16 Aug 2020)

Notafettler said:


> Erhh the cyclist pulls out in front of him and the car driver has no chance of stopping.


That wasn't quite the situation you described.


----------



## snorri (16 Aug 2020)

Notafettler said:


> Erhh the cyclist pulls out in front of him and the car driver has no chance of stopping.


You said "the driver kills a cyclist", which would suggest the decision of the court was that the driver was responsible for the death of the cyclist.
There is no reason to believe that that would be the decision of the court in the scenario you now describe.


----------



## Notafettler (16 Aug 2020)

snorri said:


> You said "the driver kills a cyclist", which would suggest the decision of the court was that the driver was responsible for the death of the cyclist.
> There is no reason to believe that that would be the decision of the court in the scenario you now describe.


I would prefer if you didn't quote me accurately.


----------



## mjr (16 Aug 2020)

PK99 said:


> Negligence, liability and damages come under Common Law/ Tort not statute. Various liabilities have been defined by case law.
> 
> That is the major difference between UK and (most) continental law where statute law defines
> 
> ...


What in English Common Law says that the starting point must be 50-50? Would it still start from that even if one party brought a WMD to a collision?


----------



## classic33 (16 Aug 2020)

mjr said:


> What in English Common Law says that the starting point must be 50-50? Would it still start from that even if one party brought a WMD to a collision?


That'd be premeditated. Setting out with the clear intention to do harm.

Not the same at all.


----------



## mjr (16 Aug 2020)

HobbesOnTour said:


> It's not just one thing that makes a difference - it's a whole package.


I think that may be what scares some who have not ridden much abroad. They hear of things like being required to use some cycleways and they think of their local UK-council-provided narrow indirect root-damaged washboard and it sounds like hell. The fear is that if we get something good from abroad, that will be the price asked, without us getting the rest of the good stuff, like not only smooth and wide flowing routes but traffic lights that respond to the number of bikes waiting and have countdown displays and clear route and destination signs and guarded cycle parking in most cities and loads more I forget.

I don't think one will be demanded as the price for another. Indeed, forcing us onto crap cycle paths has already appeared in minor party manifestoes without any concessions to balance the pain. Each element seems unconnected.


----------



## mjr (16 Aug 2020)

classic33 said:


> That'd be premeditated. Setting out with the clear intention to do harm.
> 
> Not the same at all.


I'm not saying they meant the WMD to go off. Just that they were carrying it.


----------



## boydj (16 Aug 2020)

The main difference with what we have here currently is the starting point when determining liability. When a cyclist is hit by a car, it is up to the cyclist to show that the driver' actions caused the incident. With presumed liability, the driver has to show why he is not liable. This would not affect any criminal liability/charges.

In my own experiences, I was fortunate that I was able to clearly demonstrate that the fault lay with the drivers and their insurance companies only argued about the level of damages to be paid. Currently many drivers walk away from incidents with no fault lodged against them when they are fully or mainly to blame for the incident.


----------



## classic33 (16 Aug 2020)

boydj said:


> The main difference with what we have here currently is the starting point when determining liability. When a cyclist is hit by a car, it is up to the cyclist to show that the driver' actions caused the incident. With presumed liability, the driver has to show why he is not liable. This would not affect any criminal liability/charges.
> 
> In my own experiences, I was fortunate that I was able to clearly demonstrate that the fault lay with the drivers and their insurance companies only argued about the level of damages to be paid. Currently many drivers walk away from incidents with no fault lodged against them when they are fully or mainly to blame for the incident.


I'd to fight for three years just to prove I'd the right to be on the road after being hit. The 50/50 blame, I'd have been happy with in the days after being hit. From there I'd fight my side, as I've done already.


----------



## Badger_Boom (17 Aug 2020)

So where would 50/50 have fitted yesterday's excitement?

I was in the right hand lane on the dual side of a three lane urban road (2x one way, 1x the other - Barbican Road for those who know York) with a 30 limit. On my left and half alongside was another car, which began to indicate and move accross into my lane (the old "mirror SIGNALMANOEUVER"). I braked gently to allow them to pull accross ahead of me, when to my surprise they braked hard, and swung into a full U-turn to get into a layby on the oposite side of the road! What proportion should I get for failing to accurately read their mind and predicting they'd do the bonkers thing rather than the simply careless?


----------



## andyoxon (20 Aug 2020)

Signed. Nearly at 3500.


----------



## Andy in Germany (20 Aug 2020)

I think a lot of people don't realise that presumed liability, as well as being the law in every European country except the UK and Romania, for some reason, doesn't just apply to car drivers: the principle is "The person who has the more dangerous/powerful vehicle is presumed to be liable". In other words the law automatically supports the weaker person involved.

Another things that seems not to be obvious is that it applies to cyclists as much as drivers: If I am cycling and hit a pedestrian in Germany, I'm automatically liable unless I can prove they were doing something silly. In the case of a child, that's near impossible, because I have to assume a child will be unpredictable and ride accordingly: "(s)he ran out in front of me officer" will be met with: "You should have expected that and slowed down" and quite right too.


----------



## Andy in Germany (20 Aug 2020)

Notafettler said:


> A new one this, someone has to prove there innocence. Disgusting idea... unless it's me they hit!



Actually, they would have to prove the other is _at fault_ and it's a motoring/insurance assumption, not a criminal assumption. In the case mentioned earlier above the question would be "What was the cyclist doing at the time?"
Answer: "He was riding about like a loon with his hands off the handlebars."
"Okay, case closed, he was being an idiot"
Same if the answer was "he was drunk"; then the motorist isn't liable, unless the motorist was drunk too...


----------



## Andy in Germany (20 Aug 2020)

Notafettler said:


> Not sure about black box but one of the Scandinavian countries 99%plus of cars have dashcams. Can't argue with that. Keep hearing police around here asking for dashcam film of accidents.



A black box would quite possibly be illegal here, and certainly dashcams are tricky because legally in Germany you can't store personal data, including numberplates and even a photo of someone's face, without permission: effectively I have copyright over my own face. This is why we have very few CCTV cameras in public places in Germany. Even Google Streetview is limited to a few cities.


----------



## Andy in Germany (20 Aug 2020)

Forgot to mention our own experience with Presumed Liability when our six year old was hit by a car in a "shared space" street is here.

Said 6 year old is now a strapping great 18 year old lump who rides his MTB down cliffs...


----------



## HobbesOnTour (20 Aug 2020)

I'm fairly sure that Ireland doesn't have presumed liability either and shares a common law legal system with the UK, albeit with a written constitution.
I do know that in Ireland when car A hits car B from behind that car A is "presumed" responsible for the accident and would need pretty compelling evidence to prove otherwise. 
(It's actually a common scam where a banger with 5 people rolls back into a car and hey presto 5 insurance claims for whiplash! Dash cams are very common as a result).


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (20 Aug 2020)

HobbesOnTour said:


> I'm fairly sure that Ireland doesn't have presumed liability either and shares a common law legal system with the UK, albeit with a written constitution.
> I do know that in Ireland when car A hits car B from behind that car A is "presumed" responsible for the accident and would need pretty compelling evidence to prove otherwise.
> (It's actually a common scam where a banger with 5 people rolls back into a car and hey presto 5 insurance claims for whiplash! Dash cams are very common as a result).


Ireland and NI both waiting


----------



## tyred (20 Aug 2020)

HobbesOnTour said:


> I'm fairly sure that Ireland doesn't have presumed liability either and shares a common law legal system with the UK, albeit with a written constitution.
> I do know that in Ireland when car A hits car B from behind that car A is "presumed" responsible for the accident and would need pretty compelling evidence to prove otherwise.
> (It's actually a common scam where a banger with 5 people rolls back into a car and hey presto 5 insurance claims for whiplash! Dash cams are very common as a result).



It is because of those type of claims that my car insurance is so ridiculously expensive. Over 20 years driving experience, no convictions, never made an insurance claim, an 1100cc car and my insurance is over €800 because I'm high risk because my car is over 10 years old and old cars are used for that type of insurance fraud and is considered high risk so I have to pay through the nose


----------



## HobbesOnTour (21 Aug 2020)

tyred said:


> It is because of those type of claims that my car insurance is so ridiculously expensive. Over 20 years driving experience, no convictions, never made an insurance claim, an 1100cc car and my insurance is over €800 because I'm high risk because my car is over 10 years old and old cars are used for that type of insurance fraud and is considered high risk so I have to pay through the nose


I remember 3rd party insurance on my first car was exactly half the cost of the (second hand) car! And most insurance companies wouldn't touch me because I worked in a hotel. 

Having been out of Ireland for more than 20 years, the car insurance situation is (just) one that I can't believe hasn't resulted in revolution! 

I used it as an example because I think it may refute the claim that common law is not compatible with presumed liability.


----------



## matticus (21 Aug 2020)

HobbesOnTour said:


> I used it as an example because I think it may refute the claim that common law is not compatible with presumed liability.


Is it actually encoded with Irish law anywhere? It's not in UK law, but does seem to be such a strong precedent that for practical (legal) purposes, it is Presumed Liability.

(and not Presumed *Guilt*, as some readers insist on mis-representing this! )


----------



## PK99 (21 Aug 2020)

matticus said:


> Is it actually encoded with Irish law anywhere? It's not in UK law, but does seem to be such a strong precedent that for practical (legal) purposes, it is Presumed Liability.
> 
> )



It is nothing to do with presumed liability as being discussed. 

Hitting someone from behind is prima facie evidence of failure to follow the rules of the Highway Code

*Highway code:

Introduction*
....
Although failure to comply with the other rules of The Highway Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, *The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. *This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.

Rule 126.Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. *You should  leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows down or stops*. The safe rule is never to get closer than the overall stopping distance (see Typical Stopping Distances diagram, shown below)


----------



## HobbesOnTour (21 Aug 2020)

matticus said:


> Is it actually encoded with Irish law anywhere?


Sorry, I have no idea. I'm not a legal expert, just someone who enjoys riding a bike 😊


----------



## matticus (21 Aug 2020)

just what this thread needs - another bloody layman.


----------



## Drago (21 Aug 2020)

HobbesOnTour said:


> I'm fairly sure that Ireland doesn't have presumed liability either and shares a common law legal system with the UK, albeit with a written constitution.
> I do know that in Ireland when car A hits car B from behind that car A is "presumed" responsible for the accident and would need pretty compelling evidence to prove otherwise.


That presumption is a standard by which their insurers operate, as do they here. It is not a law or regulation, but their own sop based upon driving laws and conventions.

Pretty compelling circumstances can arise. Early in her driving career Mini D #1 rear ended someone. Fortunately, the other party did not have a licence that was valid in the UK so he was not entitled to be on the road at all, and his insurers ended up paying for my Daughters repairs, but not their own customer's damage. I gave her a damn good telling off after that, because the odds of getting "lucky" like that twice are very, very slim.


----------



## kingrollo (23 Aug 2020)

Supersuperleeds said:


> all new vehicles should be fitted with black boxes and front and rear cameras. If you are in an accident and they aren't working you are liable. If you are in an accident and they are working there should be enough evidence to prove liability. No need for massive law changes for this.


Wouldn't that need a law change in itself ?


----------



## classic33 (23 Aug 2020)

kingrollo said:


> Wouldn't that need a law change in itself ?


What about if you wanted cheaper insurance?

Some offered cheaper insurance on having the box fitted.


----------

