cyberknight
As long as I breathe, I attack.
- Location
- Land of confusion
Petition for presumed liability
- Thread starter cyberknight
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Badger_Boom
Veteran
- Location
- York
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
Grand Old Lady
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
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
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?
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?
Last edited:
HMS_Dave
Grand Old Lady
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
Veteran
- Location
- York
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
Charming but somewhat feckless
- Location
- Scotland
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
Legendary Member
- Location
- Leicester
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
Guest
A new one this, someone has to prove there innocence. Disgusting idea... unless it's me they hit!
Notafettler
Guest
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
Guest
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
Guru
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.
