Presumed liability Road traffic act

3wheelsgood wrote:

No, this is not a good idea. The implication here is that This proposal would have all sorts of consequences and where would it stop? MTB vs Roadbike? Large person vs smaller? High IQ vs low IQ? Just because someone comes off second best in an incident does not preclude the possibility that they may have caused it to happen. Any legal process which relies on presumption, rather than evidence, is demonstrably flawed. The presumption of innocence is firmly enshrined in law and it would be tragic if we allowed any erosion of this, the most fundamental, tenet of our system.
There is no case for making cyclists a special case. However, I look forward to a clear and well-defined list of ''hazardous vehicles'' with an appropriate hierarchy of hazard which will, of course, tell all us muppets who to avoid and help to reduce insurance premiums, provide a safer travelling environment, resolve global conflict and end world poverty, hunger and disease.

I disagree, at this stage presumed liability is a principle, details of legislation will be decided later

I doubt any vulnerable road user (cyclist for example) would voluntary offer themselves for injury against a vehicle. , knowing full well that the merest small impact could lead to death.

If presumed liability was placed into the road traffic act, drivers would be overly cautious and less inclined to take risks. If however a reckless cyclist made a silly maneuver then the driver would not be liable for the accident. It is making drivers think first about being more cautious when they come up on a vulnerable road user.