Scottish National Party members will debate a strict liability law at their party conference next week, which if passed could appear in a future election manifesto.
The wording of the motion is as follows:
“notes the significant rise in cycling as a mass-participation sport and means of travel in recent years, and greatly welcomes the physical and mental health, as well as the environmental benefits, that this brings. Conference recognises the dangers inherent in cycling on busy roads, however, and supports the Road Share campaign for stricter liability as a means of building greater mutual respect between road users.”
According to the legal campaign group Cycle Law: “A system of presumed liability would create a hierarchy of responsibility whereby motor vehicle drivers would be presumed liable for any loss, injury and damage caused to a cyclist involved in a collision.
“A cyclist would also be presumed liable for loss, injury and damage caused to a pedestrian in any collision thus ensuring fairness while protecting the vulnerable.
“We all have responsibility for our safety on the road and respect of all road users for one another is vital.
“Presumed liability will help promote Scotland as a cycling-friendly nation and will build a culture of mutual respect on our roads.”
Set up by the Cycle Law founder, the campaigning charity 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.
Add new comment
35 comments
They've changed their tune. Wasn't that long ago that Keith Brown was telling us that there was no evidence that Strict Liability improved the safety of vulnerable road users and that they were making inroads in regards to infrastructure to protect cyclists.
They haven't changed yet. No guarantee they will pass this motion, and there are still lots of motorist lovers in their cabinet (Brown being just the most obvious).
Something to keep in mind here is that they have gone from 25k to over 80k members in the past six weeks - that kind of influx is bound to have an effect on policy one way or the other.
The reason I think it's one way and not the other is that those new people are pretty much all of the progressive, socially conscious persuasion, i.e. politically active Yes voters as opposed to politically inert "leave me alone with your social change nonsense" No voters.
Of course there is no guarantee. There never is. But the above gives me good reason to be optimistic. It's certainly not something I expect from "Labour" (who should really be looking into a name change by now, it's getting a bit ridiculous).
Those evil separatists are at it again with their 'listening to people' nonsense
That would certainly get my vote.
Pages