- 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
news
Natalie Bennett (CC licensed by Edinburgh Greens via Flickr)When lorries hit cyclists the driver should have to prove they are not liable says Green Party leader
Green Party leader, Natalie Bennett, has said that lorry drivers should have to prove they are not at fault where there has been a collision with a cyclist, reports the International Business Times. She argues that vulnerable road users killed by large vehicles should be entitled to compensation unless it can be clearly shown that they were at fault.
Bennett, who is challenging for the Holborn and St Pancras constituency, was speaking in a debate with Labour’s Sir Keir Starmer.
"If we presumed liability then the lorry driver has to show that they are not at fault when you've got a huge disparity of power, of weight, between the cyclists and the lorry.
"We are talking about civil liability here. We are not talking about criminal cases. We are talking about situations where the vulnerable road user is killed or injured by a much larger, more dangerous vehicle, and where they should be entitled to compensation unless it can be clearly shown that they were at fault."
Starmer, however, was concerned that such a move could allow the presumption of guilt to seep into other parts of the legal system. "Once you shift the justice system to a system of presumption that somebody is in the wrong without having to demonstrate they're in the wrong, we have a real difficulty."
The topic arose following London’s fifth cycling fatality this year when a woman was killed in a collision with a tipper truck near Lambeth Bridge earlier this week. The victim has since been named as Moira Gemmill, a designer who had been overseeing renovations of Windsor Castle. All five of the capital’s cyclist fatalities have involved HGVs.
From September, lorries of more than 3.5 tonnes which are not fitted with cyclist safety measures will be banned from London’s streets as part of the city’s Safer Lorry Scheme. Vehicles will require side guards as well as mirrors that give the driver the best view possible of any cyclists and pedestrians around their vehicle.
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- muhasib 23 sec ago
I wonder if the company who did the website redesign got paid before Wiggle went into administration?
- brooksby 5 min 12 sec ago
No, you're not missing anything. I've just re-read the original article and I clearly just presumed they would hand in their licence…
- hawkinspeter 15 min 52 sec ago
That still annoys me about the BBC - iplayer only keeps some programmes available for a short time, so we have to rely on people making copies to...
- hawkinspeter 31 min 46 sec ago
I just played around a little with Google Maps with directions going from Hanham/Warmley toTemple Meads and that didn't choose Crews Hole Rd. The...
- nextSibling 1 hour 6 min ago
The point of limited-run models like these isn't to make a profit. It's a marketing exercise to get the brand in the media via filler articles that...
- FionaJJ 1 hour 37 min ago
Seems like a flaw. I wonder who decided that? Surely it's in everyone's interests to come up with an agreement that a portion of the car-park be...
- chrisonabike 1 hour 42 min ago
Don't forget the hour record!...
- brooksby 1 hour 54 min ago
https://metro.co.uk/2024/11/25/uncle-picture-welcome-sign-car-crash-kill...
- pockstone 2 hours 27 min ago
See my comment on the live blog...I think it's pretty clear who the real baddie is.
Add new comment
44 comments
All of our political parties are making pronouncements about cycling policies. Only the most naive of us will expect anything to change.
*Sigh*. Road.cc's own headline conflates liability with innocence.
Requiring someone to prove innocence in a criminal case would be a huge, and horrific, change to our legal system.
That is not what is suggested. Indeed in the case of commercial drivers, all that is necessary for our purposes is for the road - complete with other road users - to be recognised as the workplace, rather than the vehicle.
It's a simple concept no one would quesion in other scenarios.
If I go out running and pass a school of young children coming out to meet their parents to any right mind you'd recognise you need to take care...perhaps you have to walk.
If I run through at 10mph and then send a little tot flying what parent is really going to apologise to me and ignore the poor little sod sat crying on the floor?
Fact is if you present a danger to those more vulnerable you have a moral duty, let alone any legal expectation, to exercise good judgment and show extreme care to those around you.
As we see time and time again this expectation is anticipated at every level in our daily lives but utterly abandoned when the motor vehicle is involved. It won't be long before road death is legalised given our slipping trend towards extreme tolerance of road violence...watch the politicians argue otherwise whilst simultaneously doing nothing.
Brilliantly put, I often wonder when a driver delivers a punishment pass on just for being on a bike. If I was to meet the same driver in the supermarket and he briefly delayed me getting to the bake beans, would it be acceptable to swing my d-lock a few inches from head and then shrug my should and say "you were in my way"
I'd be locked up before you know it.
I've never seen a nail so accurately hit on the head. Nice work!
It could take decades to make our roads safer while they are currently becoming more dangerous. Presumed liability for this sort of instance involving a vulnerable road user could expedite the process. It seems to work in most European countries but people here confuse it with legal guilt and so are against it before they are willing to fully understand the concept.
And to be fair, cyclists should be presumed responsible in collisions with pedestrians.
In many jurisdictions, a driver who runs into the rear of another car is presumed responsible.
And in others, police are required (if at all possible) to ticket the individual they consider responsible for an accident at the scene or as soon as practicable.
There's something weird about British society in that bad things can happen and no one is responsible. I don't mean meteorites from space - I mean terrible drivers breaking the law without penalties.
For a one-time lawyer, Starmer seems to have forgotten that there are plenty of other presumptions in our legal system, including presumptions of civil liability (eg Rylands v Fletcher). And given that his party did away with both the right to silence and introduced the bad character provisions (both steps he urged when the DPP), I don't believe that he's particularly worried about creeping changes to the criminal law either. Unless it's a perfect example of a politician's viewpoint shifting with political expediency (and the desire to curry support with the electorate).
I think that I'll vote Green precisely because of this sort of policy. However economically illiterate they may be (where the other main parties have hardly covered themselves in glory on the subject), I'd rather have a party in a position of power or influence that delivers measures to put the vulnerable in a better position, than vote for the usual shower of vested interests.
Please remind me in which country if a car hits a cyclist it's the drivers fault
The Netherlands
Article 185 of the Dutch Road Traffic Act (1994) has arranged for special protection of weak traffic participants (pedestrians, cyclists, etc).
Strong traffic participants (cars, lorries, etc) are always liable, even if it's not their fault.
There are certain exclusions, which comes down to deliberate misconduct.
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artikel_185_Wegenverkeerswet
So since 1994 there's one thing you don't want to do here in NL as a motorist, and that's hitting a cyclist.
Having been on holiday last year to Holland. It's amazing how considerate drivers are when cycles come into close proximity.
Drivers can behave with consideration when the correct legislation is in place.
We have legislation now as debated above that rear shunts are liable on the person behind, hardly stops them. Maybe the problem is more that us are Brits are inconsiderate drivers full stop and no amount of legislation will stop that.
Otherwise why do we still have drink drivers ?
Plus France, Germany, Denmark, Belgium, Sweden.... it's actually almost the whole of the EU.
Thailand too ... and most SE Asian countries as far as I'm aware.
Its just a really poor mix of road users, and the authorities don't appear to be able to grasp the problem. Lorries should not be mixing with pedestrians and cyclists at such close range. If they continue to do so without any significant health and safety measures being taken this will continue to happen.
I feel so sad for everyone involved. Its just terrible that people have to go through this trauma on such a tragically regular basis.
Be safe everyone. Don't take unnecessary risks. Enjoy your life - don't take it for granted.
Pages