- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Scottish Parliament Bike Stands (copyright Simon MacMichael).jpgScottish Road Share campaign steers presumed liability law towards Parliament
Cycling campaign group, Road Share, is drawing on expertise from organisations including CTC, Scottish Cycling and Pedal on Parliament as it steps up its campaign for Scotland to adopt a law of presumed liability against motorists involved in collisions with people on bikes.
Road Share’s Campaign for Stricter Liability is targeting the introduction of liability laws that would deem motorists automatically liable in incidents with cyclists, unless it can be proved that the cyclist was at fault.
As it stands, the UK is one of only five EU countries that do not have a presumed liability law in place, which are based on a hierarchy of road users, with the most vulnerable afforded the greatest protection.
Under the system there is a presumption of liability against a lorry driver involved in a collision with a car, for example, or against a cyclist involved in an incident with a pedestrian.
A petition calling for a change in Scottish liability legislation has been active since April last year and has attracted 5,500 signatures.
In order to focus its efforts on lobbying the Scottish Parliament for the legislation, Road Share has set up a steering committee.
The committee has been tasked with analysing the benefits of civil law reform on road safety while also lobbying MSPs for a Member’s Bill for presumed liability in traffic collisions to Holyrood in the near future.
According to Glasgow-based newspaper The Herald, the steering committee is made up of 14 individuals from a number of key cycling organisations, including CTC, Scottish Cycling, Cycle Law Scotland and Pedal on Parliament which is coincidentally due to hold its third annual ride to Holyrood in Ediburgh this weekend to call for cycling-friendly Scottish roads.
Under the principle of presumed liability that Road Share wants to see introduced, in a collision between a car and a cyclist, the driver would be deemed liable and must pay full damages if the collision was unintentional by both parties and the cyclist cannot be proved to have been at fault in some way.
Similar laws operate in the majority of European countries, including in the Netherlands since the early 1990s.
Road Share references the continental cycling experience in a Q&A on its website where it cites strict liability laws as one of the contributing factors to the positive cycling culture in countries such as Belgium and the Netherlands.
It says: “Those of us who have cycled on the continent know that there is a very different relationship between motor vehicles and cyclists, one based on respect that was brought about in part by stricter liability.”
The campaign’s steering committee is to be chaired by national cycling charity CTC councillor Dr Chris Oliver, while other prominent Scottish cycling supporting councillors Frank McAveety and Jim Orr are due to join him.
The founder of Cycle Law Scotland, Brenda Mitchell, who established the Road Share campaign last year, spoke to The Herald about the formation of the steering committee.
She said: "I am very pleased to see representatives from a number of different key organisations come together to work on this very important campaign."
You can keep up with Road Share's progress via its Facebook and Twitter feeds.
Latest Comments
- slc 1 hour 3 min ago
Marsh lane was unchanged on Friday - I don't think the contractors have been back since the protest.
- hawkinspeter 1 hour 29 min ago
Quite a few years ago, a friend of mine got into serious trouble running a half-marathon due to dehydration. I don't know how fast he was, but he...
- chrisonabike 1 hour 39 min ago
She did say (in comment) they'd suggested to the council to make this access and emergency vehicles only and the council said no....
- S.E. 18 hours 39 min ago
My guess is that they sell mainly on the German market - feel free to correct me. That might explain why they are not "pushing" their products,...
- ktache 19 hours 4 min ago
Now Emily Chappell really liked the Lezyne , I have the HV version, good, but I find the handle uncomfortable in use. I've often wondered about the...
- biking59boomer 18 hours 11 min ago
What about this one!? Taken in Cardiff Civic Centre 1939
- Muddy Ford 19 hours 14 min ago
Charlie Alliston got 18mths and is the reference case (because there are so few cases) for all campaigns by anti-cyclists that 'cyclists are not...
- belugabob 20 hours 16 min ago
My local football practice pitches (all weather, in a fenced off area, are regularly the scene of inconsiderate parking, with vehicles blocking the...
- Spangly Shiny 20 hours 41 min ago
Assos ASOS anyone?
Add new comment
49 comments
'Filter' if you wish, just have somewhere to go if you if the vehicle decides to turn left.....I.e no kerbside fencing or only where you are confident of exiting the blind spot before the vehicle starts to move.
Crazylegs: In answer to your points:
1. You’re misinterpreting the statistics. The figures I gave already take account of the extent of cycling in different countries. As I have explained, cyclist deaths PER BILLION KM are lower in the UK than in many EU countries (e.g. Spain, France, Italy, Belgium, Austria). I ask again - where is the evidence that strict/presumed liability improves road safety and reduces accidents?
2. You’re not answering my question. Which countries apply strict/presumed liability WHERE THE CYCLIST IS A FIT ADULT?
3. It’s not an excuse that the Highway Code is not law. Cyclists rightly expect motorists to apply a standard of driving which is far higher than is necessary to avoid criminal conviction. Why do you consider it alright for cyclists to ride in whatever way they want, provided it’s not expressly forbidden by law?
1) Fair point about the per billion km bit. userfriendly also makes good point too though with the facts quoted.
2) Why should anyone answer that contrived question, fit adults should be treated the same as others in law and statistics and surveys would reflect that.
3) You must be trolling to come onto a cycling forum and suggest that cyclists shouldn't filter. Filtering can be done safely and filtering is not were the vast majority of accidents happen. Coming on to a cycling site and saying that cyclists shouldn't filter is akin to going on to a top-gear forum and saying that all drivers should drive everywhere in cities at 20mph regardless of the speed limits. Filtering is both perfectly legal and acceptable.
Of course cyclists shouldn't filter down the left of a left turning vehicle and if the vehicle indicates then they can avoid risking a collision - so where is the problem.
Just because you don't like filtering doesn't mean it's wrong. I don't like boxing, I think constantly hitting a persons head, bashing their brain about in their skull is stupid but I can understand why people like it and am sensible enough to realise that sometimes you should simply accept others opinions and let it be.
Reliable source please?
I think presumed liability works well in the places that have it, but I don't think it's possible to offer definitive proof that it improves road safety.
It probably does, but to gather definitive proof, you would need a country that has implemented it as an isolated solution, a single legislative "magic bullet", while not changing anything else. No other changes in legislation, infrastructure, population density, the modal split between different transport modes, driving test regimes, road safety enforcement culture, road safety politics - just the introduction of presumed liability.
I think presumed liability is worth implementing because it makes life easier for people who have been victims of accidents. But to prevent accidents and try and elicit more considerate behaviour on the roads, I think other laws could be tweaked.
My favourite laws from Germany:
1. The first sentence in German traffic law, which states that road users must always proceed cautiously and considerately. The rest of the traffic code just expands on that and fleshes it out a bit.
2. Turning drivers give way to pedestrians crossing side roads in Germany, regardless of whether the pedestrians are already crossing (if so, UK drivers would also give way) or only thinking about crossing. Result: drivers are taught to hesitate slightly and shoulder check (not just mirror check) before making turns - pedestrians and cyclists are safer as a result.
The strict liability provisions - the fact that a driver who hits a child or an elderly person is quite likely to be held liable because they should have expected the victim to move erratically and slowed down or been more careful - are really just an extension to the general principle that one should drive according to the conditions. That's enshrined in law, but it's also something that seems to be taught well and be fairly firmly embedded in the culture.
There is a fairly strong sense of collective responsibility towards vulnerable road users, but it's hard to say whether it's fuelled more by the presumed liability rules or by the sheer liklihood of encountering plenty of vulnerable road users. The number of children in Germany that get chauffered to school is higher than it would ideally be, but still fairly limited - by and large, children make their own way to school. So people know when they get into their cars that they may well encounter children that are still learning road sense, and behave accordingly. At night, most drivers speed up quite a bit and generally drive less cautiously - the strict liabilty rules apply just as much as by day, but the possibility of encountering a child is much lower. Ultimately behaviour is probably driven more by perceived risk than by rules, so I am sceptical about attempts to elicit behavioural change by changing the rules.
rollotommasi: to answer a couple of your points:
1) Because in the UK there are FAR fewer km ridden than in Spain, France etc. Simple law of averages says that the fewer people riding, the fewer accidents there are going to be.
2) There are 4 countries without Presumed Liability: Malta, Northern Ireland, Bulgaria...and us. All other 22 member states of the EU have Presumed Liability.
Not really sure where the filtering argument comes into this??
It's perfectly legal - there might be times when it is not advisable but it remains legal.
I think part of the problem whenever presumed liability crops up is this notion that cyclists (or pedestrians) are suddenly going to start hurling themselves under cars and suing everyone. That is patently utter bollocks. A lot of it is down to misrepresentation of the argument, bringing emotive words and phrases like "guilt" and "blame". I'd urge everyone to read this:
http://www.happycyclist.org/?p=429
and there are numerous other articles out there from a variety of sources which a quick Google will bring up.
Hate to be a pedant. The Republic of Ireland is the 4th country. Northern Ireland comes under the UK jurisdiction.
Recently had an argument with a colleague about strict/presumed liability. They couldn't even accept that their insurance company already operated presumed liability for whenever he shunted another vehicle. The retort was that scenario was different to driving over a cyclist or pedestrian.
I'd like to see presumed liability encoded in law along with a minimum passing distance and I'd like letters sent to everybody with a driving license notifying them of these laws, because I am sick of all of the close passes.
A large minority of drivers need it to be made clear to them that their driving is not acceptable and they need to be reminded that they have a duty of care.
Just cycle along a road like Bayswater Rd next to Hyde park during rush hour to see what I mean, it is nightmarish.
Some points about strict/presumed liability:
- They are not the same thing. "Strict" means we always consider the person with the larger vehicle liable. "Presumed" means we presume they are liable unless they can show otherwise (which seems fairer to me). This may seem pedantic, but often the terms are used interchangeably which is wrong.
- We already have a good example of presumed liability in the UK. We all know that if one driver rear-ends another the driver behind is presumed liable unless they can prove otherwise. This generally works well, except in a small number of "crash for cash" scams. Pedestrians and cyclists are rather less likely to commit this kind of fraud because it would require them to be injured, which hurts.
- Despite presumed liability being a sensible rule which all civilised nations have already implemented - obviously the person with the biggest most dangerous vehicle should be the most careful (rather than "might is right") - we should not delude ourselves that it will result in much safer roads or mass-cycling. No driver expects to have a collision. Knowing the driver will be blamed is small consolation in an accident, or in a near miss situation. It will NOT encourage people to cycle or to let their kids loose on the road. Only safer infrastructure is proven to make that kind of change. But it might send a signal that cycling and walking are considered worthy of being prioritised.
format- do you have anything to support the statements "most of the costs are incurred by going to court" whilst also saying "most cases dont go to court" ?
Seems a bit contradictory.
Once again I support Presumed Liability and your campaining but I also understand the influence insurers have on policy especially at the moment when our goverment wants to been seen as "champions" of the great british motorists and keeping cost down.
Have you approached the insurers for a view?
Apologies, I should have been clearer.
Most cases don't go to court because the majority of the time, the insurance companies know they don't have a case.
In terms of going to court - it incurs very high fees, so a system which lessens the likelihood of this happening should in theory be preferable to the insurance industry.
Presumed Liability works very well in several european countries with very low cyclist KSI rates. There is absolutely no reason it won't work here
I'm glad we agree on this - being courteous to other road users is very important. All the evidence thus far shows that it is a minority of bad drivers that are at fault in the majority of incidents between cyclists and motorists. Presumed Liability would be a strong disincentive to this minority (and everyone else) to improve their behavior to other road users. I
Strict liability could be seen to undermine these principles. That's why we're campaigning for 'Presumed Liability' - if a road user has acted completely responsibly then the presumption of liability will evaporate!
Except the highway code *does* allow filtering. Rule 72 only applies to vehicles turning left. It says nothing about multiple lanes or traffic or filtering past stationary traffic. Filtering is perfectly acceptable in this situations.
This argument is a false choice.
Presumed liability does not remove responsibility from any road user: It emphasises that the vehicle/road user capable of the greater harm has a greater responsibility.
Disingenious debating helps exactly nobody.
After having followed the debate over almost 48 entries! - which highlights how much the issue is central to a cyclist's safety - it seems the devil's advocates, who are always useful - no: necessary - in such debates, could not produce any convincing arguments for NOT introducing presumed liability. Jacknorell resumes it concisely.
I disagree with his last sentence, most opponents filed arguments which seemed important to them, they were effectively proven wrong. Good of them to post their views online, may the debate have changed their views!
Sorry, but strict / presumed liability would not make our roads safer.
If we want our roads to be safe, then safety must be the responsibility of ALL road users. Existing civil law already does this, by making all road users responsible for their own actions and not presuming that any party is automatically liable if an accident occurs.
Road safety also depends on more than simply adhering to the letter of the law or the minimum people can get away with under the Highway Code. It needs road users also to abide by the SPIRIT of these rules. Good road behaviour includes being aware of others, being courteous to other road users, and driving/riding in appropriate ways that other users can predict. These principles underpin proper defensive driving/riding techniques that cautious cyclists and careful drivers rightly adopt.
The strict liability campaign undermines these good principles. Strict liability only works with hard and fast rules - it can't cope with tests of whether parties' behaviour was reasonable in the circumstances. If strict liability applied, drivers would have to be made liable even if cyclists marginally complied with the minimum requirements of the law, even if the cyclist’s actions were reckless in those particular circumstances.
Cycle Law Scotland's agenda seems to be even worse. It appears they want drivers to be liable even where a cyclist has failed to abide by the Highway Code. Rule 72 of the Code clearly states "Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left." But that's not what Cycle Law Scotland's website would have you believe. According to them "Filtering is a perfectly legal way to make progress through traffic safely" (http://www.cycling-accident-compensation.co.uk/Filtering.aspx) - no exceptions given.
All road users are not equal. Some road users have a much larger propensity to cause harm than others, which is why anyone who gets in a motorised vehicle that can cause death or serious injury must accept greater responsibility.
Pedestrians and cyclists who are in a collision with a motor vehicle are much less likely to be able to mount a legal challenge to an offender because they are usually physically unable to gather evidence at the scene or recount an accurate picture of what has happened. This is what happens when you're hit by fast-moving vehicle.
This is rubbish. It's not the case in other countries, and there's no reason to believe it would be here.
Get off your high horse and admit that the Highway Code is full of ridiculous inconsistencies and poorly written and framed advice, much of which is not law. The example you state is one of these. Of course, there is no law against 'filtering' (or 'overtaking' as it's commonly known). It's just as legal for motor vehicles, as it is for bicycles.
Fluffy_Mike – if you’re so keen on strict / presumed liability, perhaps you can show me actual evidence that it improves road safety. I’ve actually tried quite hard to get clarification of which EU countries apply strict / presumed liability where the cyclist is an adult, and struggled.
Perhaps you can also explain why cyclist deaths per billion km are lower in the UK than in many EU countries (e.g. Spain, France, Italy, Belgium, Austria) – some of which presumably have some strict / presumed liability arrangements in place: http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/0905_sin_full_rpt_0.pdf (Appendix A)
Behaving reasonably on the roads in order to minimise the risk of accidents is EVERY road user’s responsibility. Trying to place all responsibility for avoiding accidents on one group of roads users alone is clearly wrong. If one vehicle causes more damage than another if there is an accident, then that should be reflected in the penalty a driver or cyclist faces if they were liable for what happened.
Your attempt to dismiss the Highway Code suggests to me you don’t want to be bound by either the letter or the spirit of what it states (and it clearly states that cyclists shouldn’t undertake a vehicle indicating to turn left). It would be totally unacceptable for drivers to be able to do anything they wanted on the road that was not expressly prohibited by law. Why should it be any more acceptable for cyclists?
Must be nice living on fantasy island. You should write more often, over here in the UK it's rather bleak sometimes.
Here's a tip for you. Why don't you try answering questions put, instead of relying on a couple of smart-Alec comments?
A tip for me? How nice of you! Here's a tip for you, mate - if you register an account on a website for the sole purpose of poo-pooing something that will obviously be rather important to a majority of its users for very good reasons which have been explained to you at length, don't be surprised if people recognise you as the sad troll that you are if you keep going on making nonsense points.
Userfriendly – Why shouldn’t I be on this board? I’m not trolling. I’m not anti-cyclist. I’m just raising a few constructive concerns about strict/presumed liability. Concerns that nobody yet has addressed, including:
• Where is the evidence that strict/presumed liability improves road safety and reduces accidents
• Why cyclist deaths per billion km are lower in the UK than in many EU countries (e.g. Spain, France, Italy, Belgium, Austria) – some of which presumably have some strict / presumed liability arrangements in place
• Which EU countries apply strict/presumed liability in cases where the cyclist is a fit adult
• Whether it is acceptable for Cycle Law Scotland to pretend that filtering is acceptable in any circumstances.
I can quite honestly say I have tried to debate fairly and constructively. To date your offerings are an infantile remark and an accusation of trolling. So don’t you dare throw criticisms in my direction.
Stuff the victim act, mate. You quite obviously created an account on this website for the purpose of commenting on this thread, which can clearly be seen by looking at two things: your registration date and the fact that so far you have commented on this thread only. You also ignore the elaborate explanations already given to you by other users, and your "few constructive concerns" reek like you're pulling them out of your arse.
Note that the majority of the leaders in this statistic are fairly new EU members, who all have introduced presumed liability rather recently. The obvious result is that their numbers of cyclist deaths show the largest decline.
The countries with the smallest decline on the other end of that statistic are of two kinds: the first kind doesn't have much decline because their numbers were already much lower than the EU average, the Netherlands being a prominent example, or Denmark. The other kind doesn't have much decline because there isn't a frigging thing being done to reduce those numbers. Hint: we're living in one such country.
Where do you get that information from? It doesn't jive at all with the information publicly available. If you bring this into a conversation you must back it up. You haven't. Causing a slight suspicion in me that you're just talking shite.
Yet you claim to have knowledge about those numbers for the countries of Spain, France, Italy, Belgium, Austria. How strange! Three of which are listed by the ETSC as actually making remarkable progress, something that goes completely against your "point".
Want to try this again? This time with a bit more effort mayhaps?
All of them except the UK, Ireland, Malta, Cyprus and Romania. This information is also publicly available. If you truly had an interest in debating this subject you would probably know this. The fact that you don't is, well, telling ... isn't it?
Of these five countries, only Ireland is a statistical outlier. Romania is especially bad. And if you actually did any cycling yourself, not on trails somewhere but on the road, you would know first hand the road culture in the UK and how cyclists are treated here all too often. You clearly don't.
Already answered by someone else above.
Oh, you can say that. And I can bloody well not believe you. Quite honestly.
My 'infantile remark' was a subtle reference to the insultingly ridiculous "punishments" handed out to irresponsible people who kill, injure or "merely" bully/intimidate other people using their cars. Too subtle for you, evidently. Not my bloody fault.
Up yours.
Rollotommasi, your questions do mainly seem designed to move the discussion away from road safety and how it may improve in the UK. In other words, they detract from the discussion, and do not merit responses.
I wonder why you've struggled. Is it because:
1 - The laws do not specify whether it's applied to adults or juveniles (and thus applies to everyone)? Or;
2 - The laws in some countries do specifically exclude fit adults (this seems overly complicated to me, but wouldn't be surprised...)?
My assumption is that it's a blanket rule, especially as it only shifts the presumed financial liability, not the criminal one.
The politics of this is interesting -if it's a No in September, the SNP will do well to look at policies that make us (in Scotland) more akin to the other social democratic Euro countries, to help increase the distinction some of us perceive between our politics and outlook and those of SE England. Meaning, this policy might float then, despite the political risks it carries.
So if two cars collide is the one with the more powerful engine or heavier weight at fault?
And if two cyclists collide is the one with the lower FCN liable?
I can't help fearing that this means every single cyclist is going to need 3rd party insurance (which may no longer be free with CTC/BC membership) and will need to ride around with a front and rear facing camera. We do, after all, live in a country where there are more than 1,500 whiplash claims per DAY (!) and more than half of them are fraudulent.
Strict liability means it's easy money for a pedestrian willing to step out in front of a cyclist and feign injury.
I cycle daily into central London so I should be in favour of this but I can't help thinking it might be a case of "be careful what you wish for, it may come true". I hear the argument about other countries not having this experience but I don't think other countries have 1,500 whiplash claims per day (the ABI reckon Britain is at least double France, Spain and the Netherlands).
@mpdouglas
I agree that there are some truly awful people out there who will lie for gain or to protect their mistake. But the example you use is not a good one:
"Strict liability means it's easy money for a pedestrian willing to step out in front of a cyclist and feign injury."
Cyclists would have to be careful going over zebra/etc crossings (as we already should be - in case the lemmings leap out from nowhere!), but if a pedestrian 'steps out in front of a cyclists' in the road where there wasn't a crossing, this would be exactly the sort of thing which would revoke the presumed liability.
On the other hand, if a cyclist was ever on the pavement (where they shouldn't be) then they would always be presumed liable for any accident that took place in this space.
I know laws don't always work this way... but "presumed liability" really is meant as a soft nudge-nudge to the party in the larger vehicle to be more careful and considerate around smaller parties. Not as a stick to penalise them when accidents (not incidents mind you) do happen!
My two-penneth... D :>
I always conceived that promoting cycling hinged on investment in cycling infrastructure (incl public transport) and investment in education (school/ driving schools/ media). The more people take to biking, the safer it becomes, not only because bicycles become a permanent fixture of the trafficscape - making drivers more aware - but also because more drivers become cyclists - making them understand both the pleasure and benefits of cycling and the threat of cars. I had never thought of the law perspective: indeed the third essential ingredient.
Pages