# Presumed liability - e-Petition



## hatler (10 Oct 2014)

Wot it says in the title.

https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/57804


----------



## I like Skol (10 Oct 2014)

I don't get this. Surely the person that causes an incident/collision is responsible and therefore liable? Why do we want to move away from this?


----------



## hatler (10 Oct 2014)

Because it might change vehicle driver attitudes as to how to conduct themselves around more vulnerable road users ?
Because it might change cyclist attitudes as to how to conduct themselves around more vulnerable road users ?


----------



## summerdays (10 Oct 2014)

It won't let me sign, so maybe I've already signed it?


----------



## Markymark (10 Oct 2014)

I like Skol said:


> I don't get this. Surely the person that causes an incident/collision is responsible and therefore liable? Why do we want to move away from this?


Cos what usually happens is everyone denies responsibility thus it's goes 50:50. Easy get out for cars. Presumption is that the most vulnerable and most likely to be hurt will do the most to avoid.


----------



## byegad (10 Oct 2014)

Signed.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (10 Oct 2014)

Signed.


GC


----------



## jiberjaber (10 Oct 2014)

Signed.


----------



## Markymark (10 Oct 2014)

We'd get it if everyone voted libdem.


----------



## snorri (10 Oct 2014)

I like Skol said:


> Surely the person that causes an incident/collision is responsible and therefore liable? Why do we want to move away from this?


It can be very difficult to prove the person who caused the incident was responsible if the victim is unable to speak up for him/herself.


----------



## I like Skol (10 Oct 2014)

I would prefer a system where people that were subsequently found to be making false or fraudulent claims or accusations to avoid liability were massively penalised on the excess and future insurance premiums. This way the system would work as it should and there would be no need to presume anything.

I have been involved in an RTA where the other party went as far as moving the location of the accident to another street to try and make it fit with their account of how my wife was supposed to have driven her car into them! When this was exposed as the lies it was the claim simply proceeded as if nothing had happened. There is no penalty and every incentive to make up these lies and that is what needs to be addressed. If people knew that if they drove like idiots and caused injury or damage then they would without fail be held responsible and heavilypenalised if found to be attempting to evade liability for their actions, then they might think twice before trying it on?


----------



## SatNavSaysStraightOn (10 Oct 2014)

signed - have seen the affect that presumed liability has on driving styles and I believe it would make drivers more attentive and observant (it certainly has in other countries)


----------



## Spinney (10 Oct 2014)

signed.

But what @I like Skol says needs addressing as well, I think.


----------



## snorri (10 Oct 2014)

I like Skol said:


> If people knew that if they drove like idiots and caused injury or damage then they would without fail be held responsible and heavilypenalised if found to be attempting to evade liability for their actions, then they might think twice before trying it on?


 Isn't that what signatories to the petition are hoping to achieve in the case of bike/car incidents?
Although it would also help pedestrians in bike/pedestrian incidents.
Car/car incidents are another kettle of fish!


----------



## jazzkat (10 Oct 2014)

Signed. Though, sadly, I doubt it'll ever happen.


----------



## snorri (13 Nov 2014)

Mark Beaumont gave a good account of himself on the radio this morning promoting Presumed Liability and defending the proposal from attacks by the usual suspects trying to divert the topic to general cyclist bashing.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (13 Nov 2014)

snorri said:


> Mark Beaumont gave a good account of himself on the radio this morning promoting Presumed Liability and defending the proposal from attacks by the usual suspects trying to divert the topic to general cyclist bashing.



I missed that, catching up now on iPlayer. Thanks.

GC


----------



## Drago (13 Nov 2014)

Not signed. Too many arses that RLJ or ride a night with no lights. It'd be wrong for one of these.Muppets to cause a smack and the car driver to automatically - even if only initially - be presumed liable.

Once there's a sea change in the behaviour and skill exhibited by the majority of cycle users then I'll support it with gusto.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (13 Nov 2014)

Drago said:


> Once there's a sea change in the behaviour and skill exhibited by the majority of cycle users then I'll support it



It's a sea change in the behaviour and skill exhibited by the majority of drivers that is needed. This is a major step towards that and will save many more KSIs than pissing around with plastic hats, painted lanes or Niceway Code patronising bollocks.

GC


----------



## Drago (13 Nov 2014)

Indeed old friend, but not all drivers are bad in the same way not all cyclists are good. To potentially penalise good drivers for the consequences of the actions of bad cyclists leaves road users no further forward in either safety or morality.


----------



## theclaud (13 Nov 2014)

Drago said:


> Not signed. Too many arses that RLJ or ride a night with no lights. It'd be wrong for one of these.Muppets to cause a smack and the car driver to automatically - even if only initially - be presumed liable.
> 
> *Once there's a sea change in the behaviour and skill exhibited by the majority of cycle users then I'll support it with gusto*.



Well, excuse us if we don't all hold our breath waiting for your support...


----------



## Beebo (13 Nov 2014)

I've signed it, but with only 437 signatures so far, it isnt gonna fly!


----------



## glasgowcyclist (13 Nov 2014)

Beebo said:


> I've signed it, but with only 437 signatures so far, it isnt gonna fly!



I wonder why it's been so poorly supported; the Scottish petition is doing far better, with almost 7,000 signatures. 
We'll introduce it and pave the way for you chaps in the rUK.

GC


----------



## snorri (13 Nov 2014)

Drago said:


> but not all drivers are bad in the same way not all cyclists are good. To potentially penalise good drivers for the consequences of the actions of bad cyclists leaves road users no further forward in either safety or morality.


So, we should continue to let down innocent cyclists killed and injured by reckless drivers of motor vehicles because some people may be having their vehicles scratched by reckless cyclists?
Some imbalance surely?


----------



## Paul99 (13 Nov 2014)

Anybody signing for presumed liability, who also owns, drives and insures their own car had better start saving.

Your insurance premium will go through the roof. Just saying.


----------



## theclaud (13 Nov 2014)

Paul99 said:


> Anybody signing for presumed liability, who also owns, drives and insures their own car had better start saving.
> 
> *Your insurance premium will go through the roof.* Just saying.



It's a win-win.


----------



## Paul99 (13 Nov 2014)

theclaud said:


> It's a win-win.


Based on my post, I can't see how this would be a win-win?


----------



## Dan B (13 Nov 2014)

Paul99 said:


> Anybody signing for presumed liability, who also owns, drives and insures their own car had better start saving.
> 
> Your insurance premium will go through the roof. Just saying.


They said that about the recent law change that made it illegal to offer lower rates to female drivers than male ones. Didn't happen then either.


----------



## Paul99 (13 Nov 2014)

Dan B said:


> They said that about the recent law change that made it illegal to offer lower rates to female drivers than male ones. Didn't happen then either.


I didn't say they were going to offer lower rates though did I? I said they would be going through the roof. You think they won't?


----------



## Dan B (13 Nov 2014)

Paul99 said:


> I didn't say they were going to offer lower rates though did I? I said they would be going through the roof. You think they won't?


No, you said they'd go through the roof. That's exactly what people said would happen when the change was announced to make sex discrimination in insurance illegal and it didn't happen then, so no, I don't think it'll happen here either.


----------



## theclaud (13 Nov 2014)

Paul99 said:


> Based on my post, I can't see how this would be a win-win?


Driving is obviously too cheap - making it more expensive, especially in terms of insurance, might make people value the privilege more highly and think more carefully about how they exercise it. But then I tend to agree with Dan anyway - your post was more alarmism than anything else.


----------



## Paul99 (13 Nov 2014)

Dan B said:


> No, you said they'd go through the roof. That's exactly what people said would happen when the change was announced to make sex discrimination in insurance illegal and it didn't happen then, so no, I don't think it'll happen here either.


 
But this is a completely different thing. Insurance companies won't chance an expensive court case if their policy holder is already held to be at fault. It will be cheaper to just pay any claim. That cost will be collected up front in premium.



theclaud said:


> Driving is obviously too cheap - making it more expensive, especially in terms of insurance, might make people value the privilege more highly and think more carefully about how they exercise it. But then I tend to agree with Dan anyway - your post was more alarmism than anything else.


 
No making it more expensive will just create more uninsured drivers on the roads. People who need to use a car, or use a car because they don't like the alternatives won't stop driving because it has been made more expensive. It's not alarmist.


----------



## Dan B (13 Nov 2014)

I just got an online quote for Eur80/month for comprehensive insurance on a new Ford Fiesta somewhere in central Rotterdam. There were a couple of questions I guessed the answer to because I don't know any Dutch, and I don't know how much of this premium is for theft or fire or other insurance, so it's not really directly comparable with UK insurance, but it's definitely same ballpark as last time I looked at insurance prices in London


----------



## Paul99 (13 Nov 2014)

Dan B said:


> I just got an online quote for Eur80/month for comprehensive insurance on a new Ford Fiesta somewhere in central Rotterdam. There were a couple of questions I guessed the answer to because I don't know any Dutch, and I don't know how much of this premium is for theft or fire or other insurance, so it's not really directly comparable with UK insurance, but it's definitely same ballpark as last time I looked at insurance prices in London


 
It's not really comparable at all, but thanks for bothering.


----------



## Dan B (13 Nov 2014)

Paul99 said:


> It's not really comparable at all, but thanks for bothering.


It's one data point, which is one more data point than you provided for your claim that insurance would go "through the roof".


----------



## Paul99 (13 Nov 2014)

Dan B said:


> It's one data point, which is one more data point than you provided for your claim that insurance would go "through the roof".


You got a quote from another country, you're not sure what it is for but because it is similar in monetary value to the last quote you had in London, you are trying to present it as evidence that presumed liability will have no effect on motor insurance prices in the UK.

You win. Congratulations.


----------



## GrasB (13 Nov 2014)

Paul99 said:


> Anybody signing for presumed liability, who also owns, drives and insures their own car had better start saving.
> 
> Your insurance premium will go through the roof. Just saying.


Wasn't the introduction of presumed liability, actually I think it was strict liability, linked to a reduction in all types of collisions somewhere? Just saying.


----------



## snorri (13 Nov 2014)

Paul99 said:


> Anybody signing for presumed liability, who also owns, drives and insures their own car had better start saving.
> Your insurance premium will go through the roof. Just saying.


If it helps to make the roads safer for me as a cyclist, I really don't care if my car insurance premium goes up a bit. Money is not everything.
However, I see no reason for premiums to be increased, as drivers are encouraged to take more care around cyclists there should be fewer crashes and fewer claims on insurance.


----------



## glenn forger (14 Nov 2014)

GrasB said:


> Wasn't the introduction of presumed liability, actually I think it was strict liability, linked to a reduction in all types of collisions somewhere? Just saying.



Yep. The number of collisions goes down so so do premiums. Plus, of course, lives are saved and people aren't hurt, aside from the crucial monetary implications. 

So much rubbish is written about Presumed Liability, it really doesn't mean herds of cyclists will be throwing themselves under car wheels, good grief. A cyclist behaving injudiciously WOULD NOT automatically get a payout, that would be taken into consideration.


----------



## format (14 Nov 2014)

The thing about presumed/strict liability is that logically it should reduce costs for the insurers, and therefore costs for motorists.

At the minute, looking at the breakdown of insurance costs, going to court costs far, far more than it does to settle before court. Some of the examples I have seen include damages being estimated at £2000. So a pre trial settlement would costs the insurance company (and therefore the insurance pool) £2000. If they insist on going to court, and lose, this figure can spiral up to £10,000, or even £20,000, as once they lose, they will have to pay court costs, their own costs, and the costs of the injured party, on top of damages.

But our current system encourages motorists to avoid an early settlement, as the onus of proof is on the injured and vulnerable party. As such, insurers can sit back and stick to their guns, continuing to deny liability.

Presumed liability switches this around, and puts the onus on to the more powerful road user. If a motorist has acted negligently, and is faced with having to demonstrate fault on the behalf of the vulnerable road user in order to escape liability, it is far, far less likely that they will get anywhere close to court scenario. Thus costs are reduced for everyone, insurance premiums will fall, and there will be a reduced burden on the already strained court system.


----------



## chewa (14 Nov 2014)

It is only presumed liability and you probably find that there is some elements of that now, if not enshrined in law (e.g rear ending of one car by another or a cyclist hitting a pedestrian- in both one could presume who is liable - and insurers do in the former- but that presumption can be swept aside by fact). It's a civil liability issue, while the presumption is that the more "powerful" or dangerous vehicle would be at fault, in any civil case (or even discussions with insurers) any claim will rely on the same factual information.

I can't see why it would automatically lead to an increase in insurance premiums, it's just a starting point in any discussion of a civil claim and would only really be relevant in an incident where it was your word against mine.


----------



## Dan B (14 Nov 2014)

User said:


> Really? Got any evidence to back that claim?


If you read the rest of the thread you'll find that Paul99 has accepted that he was wrong on that claim


----------



## Paul99 (14 Nov 2014)

Dan B said:


> If you read the rest of the thread you'll find that Paul99 has accepted that he was wrong on that claim


 
I did no such thing. I just haven't bothered as yet to point out that the UK's motor insurance industry isn't directly comparable to any other country, neither is the infrastructure.

Those who think that motorists will change their driving styles overnight to be far more cautious are having a wet dream. Presumed liability is also utopia for the crash for cash brigade.

And don't be thinking that they won't turn their attention to cyclists either.

Premiums in the UK would rise, I have no doubt about that. Neither do the colleagues I have spoken to on the subject either.

For the record, I don't disagree with the principle just the potential application.


----------



## Dan B (14 Nov 2014)

My mistake then. I suppose "You win" should have been read with the same grain sack of salt as the original claim of "through the roof"


----------



## Wobblers (15 Nov 2014)

Paul99 said:


> You got a quote from another country, you're not sure what it is for but because it is similar in monetary value to the last quote you had in London, you are trying to present it as evidence that presumed liability will have no effect on motor insurance prices in the UK.
> 
> You win. Congratulations.



You claimed that insurance premiums would "go through the roof". A reasonable prediction based on that claim would be to expect insurance premiums in countries to be markedly higher than in the UK. As Dan B showed, they are not. Therefore, you are wrong.


----------



## glenn forger (15 Nov 2014)

I used to work in insurance and here's my take.

We all know our standard cover meets the minimum EU requirements? Usually if the driver is over 25 they are covered under a comprehensive policy to drive in the EU, limited to third party only, so anyone the driver collides with is covered. The cost is included. There is no additional charge. Of course, for peace of mind you can upgrade to Fully Comp, usually for around £40 for the year, but my point is, if the countries that have PL can be driven in and the insurer doesn't even bother to load the premium, it suggests to me that there aren't hordes of foreign scammers waiting in foreign to hurl themselves under the wheels of cars with a UK plate. Fake cycle insurance claims are such and incredibly rare event there aren't even any stats on them. But my point is most of us are covered to drive in countries with PL, and it costs us diddly squit.


----------



## format (15 Nov 2014)

Paul99 said:


> Premiums in the UK would rise, I have no doubt about that. Neither do the colleagues I have spoken to on the subject either.



Did you read my post on the last page before making this statement?


----------



## Drago (15 Nov 2014)

Apart from which It's against European law. It won't happen unless Cameron grows a pair or Farage becomes PM, either of which are about as likely as Deidre Barlow going dogging and there being a queue.


----------



## format (15 Nov 2014)

Drago said:


> Apart from which It's against European law. It won't happen unless Cameron grows a pair or Farage becomes PM, either of which are about as likely as Deidre Barlow going dogging and there being a queue.



It's really nor. User has it correct.

If it really was against european law, do you think it'd be the standard across most countries in Europe. It's been in place in Germany since 1908, for example.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (19 Nov 2014)

Sadly, the motion to introduce presumed liability has been denied.

_*Collision liability rule for motorists rejected*_

_A motion which advocated changing the law to assume a car driver is at fault in a collision with a cyclist was debated before delegates decided against approving it.
Justice Committee convener, Christine Grahame MSP, argued against the motion stating "if you are touching Scots law, which is precious, let's get it right"._

_She said it was not clear how strict or presumed liability would work, questioning if it means the larger or more powerful vehicle driver is always at fault.
Graeme Dey MSP argued: "There is no evidence strict liability works.
"We should be establishing a culture of respect and have to ensure people behave responsibly and are held to account." 
He said that could mean a proficiency test for cyclists and third party insurance."
Glasgow Kelvin Branch had proposed the motion should become party policy as there has been a rise in cycling for sport and for travel in recent years."
It called for backing for the Roadshare campaign arguing for a change in the law.
The campaign says Scotland and the UK is out of step with most of Europe, as one of only five EU countries._​
GC


----------



## snorri (19 Nov 2014)

From what I have read elsewhere the Roadshare campaign group are not overly disappointed at this news The feeling is that change is on the way, just not as soon a might have been hoped.


----------



## mark c (23 Nov 2014)

signed.


----------



## dave r (23 Nov 2014)

theclaud said:


> Driving is obviously too cheap - making it more expensive, especially in terms of insurance, might make people value the privilege more highly and think more carefully about how they exercise it. But then I tend to agree with Dan anyway - your post was more alarmism than anything else.



Nothing cheap about running a car, £152 to tax it for a year, almost £500 for a years insurance, plus service, fuel and MOT.


----------



## theclaud (23 Nov 2014)

dave r said:


> Nothing cheap about running a car, £152 to tax it for a year, almost £500 for a years insurance, plus service, fuel and MOT.


That's far too cheap. How much it would it need to cost before people think twice about whether they really need one in the first place, and whether they really need to get in it to nip down the road for a pint of milk?


----------



## dave r (23 Nov 2014)

theclaud said:


> That's far too cheap. How much it would it need to cost before people think twice about whether they really need one in the first place, and whether they really need to get in it to nip down the road for a pint of milk?



That aint cheap when your only on £7.50 an hour, and no I don't use the car to nip down the road for a pint of milk, in fact I restrict the use of the car and use my bike as much as possible.


----------



## theclaud (23 Nov 2014)

dave r said:


> That aint cheap when your only on £7.50 an hour, and no I don't use the car to nip down the road for a pint of milk, in fact I restrict the use of the car and use my bike as much as possible.


I wasn't directing any criticism at your habits, of which I know nothing. It's simply a fact that most car journeys are very short, and there's no need for them. One can only conclude that cars are too easy to acquire, and that fuel is cheap enough to waste. But we're drifting off topic, and that's probably my fault.


----------



## spen666 (28 Nov 2014)

The petition doesn't make it clear if this is in relation to criminal law or civil law.

There is a fundamental difference.

In criminal law, its a fundamental principle that you are innocent until PROVEN guilty. If this is meant to apply to criminal law, then it would mean people are guilty until proven inncoent which is a breach of a fundamental human right


In relation to civil law, subject to issues about how it is meant to be applied, it would be a useful change, if it is workable


----------



## spen666 (28 Nov 2014)

> This will assume that the party operating the more hazardous vehicle is responsible in the event of a collision


 
Who decides which is more hazardous vehicle? Is it not the case that its the operative that is more hazardous rather than the vehicle.


We would end up with trials about which was the most hazardous vehicle and whether therefore the presumption applies


----------



## glasgowcyclist (28 Nov 2014)

spen666 said:


> The petition doesn't make it clear if this is in relation to criminal law or civil law.
> 
> There is a fundamental difference.
> 
> ...



It's only proposed in relation to civil law, liability for damages. The Scottish petition makes this point clearly.

GC


----------



## spen666 (28 Nov 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> It's only proposed in relation to civil law, liability for damages. The Scottish petition makes this point clearly.
> 
> GC


 That Scottish petition is even worse, its titled about presumed liability then states


> We are only one of a very small number of countries across Europe (Romania, Cyprus, Malta and Ireland) who do not operate such a system of *strict liability* for vulnerable road users and yet it is not unprecedented in UK law.


 

Strict liability is something very very different from presumed liability.

Strict liability is not appropriate at all in these circumstances


----------



## chewa (28 Nov 2014)

I suspect (hope) that petition was not drafted by a Scottish lawyer (or law student). Strict liability very well covered in the Ll.B. course


----------



## sheddy (10 Feb 2015)

Another one here
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/strict-liability-law-for-motorists


----------



## dave r (10 Feb 2015)

sheddy said:


> Another one here
> https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/strict-liability-law-for-motorists



Signed and shared on Facebook.


----------

