- 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
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Chris Boardman in Copenhagen (copyright Britishcycling.org_.uk)Chris Boardman calls for presumed liability law to help get more people commuting by bike
Chris Boardman has urged the government to introduce a system of presumed liability, similar to that operating across most of Europe, to help get more people commuting by bike once lockdown ends.
“We need legislation that properly values people travelling actively,” the former world and Olympic champion, who is now Greater Manchester’s cycling and walking commissioner as well as policy advisor to British Cycling, told Telegraph.co.uk.
He pointed out that the United Kingdom was one of only five European countries – the others are Cyprus, Ireland, Malta and Romania – not to have such a system in force.
“Nearly all other countries have done this, to put a duty of care in their legislation for everyone on the roads to look after a more vulnerable road user.”
Sometimes incorrectly referred to as “strict liability,” the concept of presumed liability establishes a clear hierarchy of road users in civil (not criminal) cases and is aimed at encouraging mutual respect between them, particularly at locations such as junctions.
Where such a system is in place, when there is a road traffic collision, the less vulnerable road user is considered to be liable, unless they can establish that the other party was at fault.
For example, the driver of a motor vehicle would automatically be held liable in an incident involving a cyclist, while a bike rider would be in a case where a pedestrian is injured.
Boardman said that adopting such a system here would help encourage people who might be apprehensive about riding a bike in traffic.
And while presumed liability doesn’t extend to the criminal law and would not apply for example in dangerous or careless driving cases, Boardman pointed out that “Using a car is the best way to commit a crime because the penalties are so light relative to the damage caused.”
Another reason for the need for a presumed liability system, he said, was because while the government wants people to avoid public transport, one in four households around the country rising to a third in cities such as Manchester do not have access to a car.
He asked: “If I don’t create an option other than public transport to get to work, is the Government saying that you can’t have access to work because you haven’t got a car?
“If you don’t create an option, you are penalising the poorest third of households.”
He also underlined that temporary infrastructure being introduced by councils across the country had an important role to play, through reallocating roadspace to people on foot or on bikes.
“You can do that immediately with planters, paint and cones. You can put them in as an emergency measure and if they are wrong, then you can take them away and do something different.
“It is the most effective form of consultation: people can try before they buy,” he added.
In 2015, following a trip to Denmark with then cycling minister Robert Goodwill, Boardman featured in this video from British Cycling in which he outlined three cycling lessons the UK could learn from Denmark – the first of those being the introduction of presumed liability.
> Video: Chris Boardman's 3 cycling lessons UK can take from Denmark
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Aluminium can 2 min 42 sec ago
Fair enough. I do really like Glenelg and the Hills too, so I think we'll renew SA's Not Part of the East passport. Also Rupert did leave...
- brooksby 23 min 12 sec ago
I suspect that "60 mph" is code for "faster than I'd like"
- FatAndFurious 6 hours 20 min ago
I'm not known for my imagination. What are folk hoping to see? We have events, races, leagues, workouts, clubs, free rides, group rides, portals to...
- mark1a 7 hours 39 min ago
No problem at all old chap, its successor the CAAD13 is available in mechanical 105 11sp guise (not too shabby a groupset IMO with Shimano trickle...
- David9694 8 hours 33 min ago
Car crashing into Colchester Co-op sees two hospitalised https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/24719022.car-crashing-colchester-co-...
- . . 8 hours 45 min ago
I have two of these (I use one on the front with the red LED turned off and taped up) and think they are great, at least in daylight Plenty of...
- Prosper0 9 hours 34 min ago
No offence to Endura, but same advice as to Rapha, I actually have all the kit I need, for probably several years. You need to go and win the next...
- chrisonabike 13 hours 29 min ago
Ah - yes, they've got an American Star the wrong way round (means the child carrier needs rearranged though). Or it could be a Facile but inverted?
- lesterama 15 hours 22 min ago
What a bunch of ases
- quiff 16 hours 15 min ago
It was only your comment in the carousel that first brought me here, and yet I still managed to read most of the page before remembering this isn't...
Add new comment
40 comments
Finally got around to it:
"Dear Mr Harper MP,
As has been stated many times, the government is fully in favour of encouraging cycling and walking, for the obvious health, pollution and reduced danger benefits, with the PM saying that there will be a new "golden age" of cycling. All this is very welcome, but without some change in the law to protect cyclists, who are more often the victims than the causes of collisions, there will be little long term increase in cycling.
In all surveys to find out why people don't cycle more, the overwhelming reason given is fear of traffic, or motor vehicles. A presumed liability law will go some way to redressing the clear imbalance between motor vehicles and bicycles. This law would be purely civil and would not cover criminal proceedings.
Such laws are common elsewhere and have been shown to be an effective way of making drivers behave more responsibly and reducing the fear of traffic of cyclists, and they are supported by all cycling organisations and such luminaries as Sir Chris Boardman. https://road.cc/content/news/chris-boardman-calls-presumed-liability-law...
I would be grateful if you could support such a law, and bring this matter to the attention of the relevant ministers. Please let me know whether you support this, and please let me know the responses from ministers.
Presumed liability has always made sense to me, however I don't fancy its chances much.
I here the protestations around false claims, and to that I say, are you really in more fear of a pedestrian knocking you off and sueing you, than a car knocking you off and you being powerless to claim rightful compensation / retribution?
For me its a no-brainer.
Also, for those complaining that it is an unjust way of looking at fault, I would say either way is ultimately unfair, its just that we are used to the innocent until proven guilty stance.
Right now, looking at it objectively, it seems proposterous that a car can knock a cyclist / pedestrian over, and it is up to the cyclist / pedestrian to essentially prove it was not their own fault that the accident happened.
I wish we had Chris Boardman working for us in Australia. legend! I don't understand why pedestrians are more vulnerable than cyclists? we are both unprotected and skin and bone (don't start on helmets!) and many close calls with pedestrians I have had I reckon I had more chance of being worse of given the likely 'glancing' blow to the pedestrian as evasive action is taken which puts me off the bike path and down a rocky bank into a muddy river...
It's not so much that cyclists are less vulnerable than pedestrians, but that they travel faster and thus bring more danger into any collision (even though cyclists are probably paying more attention to their surroundings). It's the extra speed/momentum that means that cyclists should exercise more care around peds. Similarly, the extra speed/momentum of cars makes them more dangerous than cycles.
Great idea. But it'll never happen. It is precisely the sort of Continental idea that many people voted for Brexit to avoid. The Tories will never implement it and Labour would horse-trade it for something else. Just one of many, many examples of why progress is so rare in this country.
You're so right unfortunately. I notice the UK govt is introducing compulsory quarantine for travellers coming from the EU and elsewhere. Only three months too late and once the rest of the EU is starting to relax travel restrictions. If the EU started offering free vaccines the UK govt would ignore the offer.
Presumed liability would be a real benefit to all of the pedestrians that complain about dangerous speeding cyclists too.
I would still hope it isn't abused by ped's who walk out into roads without warning or the correct lights at crossings just because they can auto-blame a cyclist or driver of a motor-vehicle.
mutual respect with road users is just that mutual, in most cases peds and cyclists should be on the same level where the law seeks to determine who was actually causing the hazard instead of just blaming the cyclist.
Why would they, when it hurts, badly?
Because some people are idiots,they dont have to a rational about it, I had a guy pull out on me at a roundabout,damn near T-boned his drivers door had I not pulled an emergency stop,caught up with him as he got caught in traffic,to express my views of his driving and ask why he did it and he said it was to "teach me a lesson because he thought I was going too fast..."
Plus I noted during the Alliston case coverage, some pedestrians were definitely deliberately stepping out in front of me to get a reaction or to test your reactions
Personal transport is effectively based around assuming everyone is going to broadly follow the same set of rules and nothing unexpected is going to happen. If you actually thought about what you're doing on a daily basis on national speed limit (or even 40mph) single carriageways you probably wouldn't drive. You're passing inches away from 40-ton lorries with a closing speed of around 100mph. Effectively the thought process is the same as Mutually Assured Destruction - which is exactly why there's the wankpanzer and chelsearedneck arms race going on in terms of size and weight of personal vehicle.
CB is, as always, right, and a presumed liability law would reduce the danger to cyclists, which is what the data from other countries shows. It might even placate some of the more vociferous pedestrian groups, even if it might be rather difficult to decide which is the vulnerable user.
I'm sure that a review of road law would come to the conclusion that it was a good idea; if only we'd had one, all those years ago.
The government have made many, many statements supporting cycling, they've even committed some funding; now it's time to change the law. After all, if they can bring in a law about causing death by dangerous cycling after a single incident and with little justification, they can bring in a much more justified law to protect us. This has to be worth an email to your MP.
As an innocent motorist, I have a lot to put up with and to pay for - I get nothing in return, except full-up car parks, pot holes, hold-ups and weaving cyclists. I live in fear for my paintwork being damaged by all these vulnerable road users, whenever I go fishing or deliver a take away.* What is the world coming to? Can't even open my door without someone whacking into it. Every trip I know could be the last - for my crumple zone or fender. I could be in for a damaged bumper that will take at least a week to straighten and re-paint, if it's not written-off completely. That's even before all the paperwork hassle starts. Broken bones can be repaired in hospital, skin heals over, you can make more blood - none of it costs you a penny. It could be that life for me is never the same again, when the time comes to trade her in, the dealer can always tell if a panel has been re-sprayed, you know.
* excuses recently given to Dorset police on the A30 by 100+ mph drivers.
You are Rod Liddle and ICMFP. Not sure the drivers were breaking the speed limit though.
I don't like the idea of presumed liability.
If it comes in I'll feel obliged to get cameras to protect myself in the event of a collision with a pedestrian, we'll also likely see 3rd party bike insurance rates rise.
I also don't think it will change driver behaviour, it will just mean slightly more expensive insurance and therefore a small increase in uninsured drivers.
We need cycle friendly criminal justice far more than presumed liability civil justice.
Or you could try to be a little more careful around vulnerable pedestrians?
I am very careful but I've still had incidents where I've had near misses or in one case a very slow speed collision.
Under presumed liability it would be in the pedestrians interest to simply answer no comment to any questions and leave the onus in me to prove they were at fault.
Very hard to do without cameras.
The fact it would be hard to prove your innocence would also make spurious claims more likely pushing up the cost of insurance.
If spurious claims become significant, then it'd be in the insurance companies' interest to either provide dashcams or offer a rebate for motorists that use them. How much do they cost - £50?
I'm pretty sure it's been in their best interests for a while but I don't know if they offer anything like that for car insurance policies.
With the relatively tiny cost of bike insurance I can't see many companies paying for cameras.
The number of incidents between cyclists and peds are so rare that I can't see presumed liability having much effect on that particular dynamic. It's not as if peds are careful to avoid cyclists because of the legal situation...
Getting a camera sounds like a smart move for presumed liability - they don't cost much for cars as they don't need to be waterproof or contain a battery.
I'd be happy to have both cycle-friendly criminal justice and presumed liability civil justice. Presumed liability should be an easy change to make and I think it would reduce insurance costs as insurance companies wouldn't need to fight so many court cases with expensive lawyers. Also, if more drivers use dashcams then the legal costs would further reduce.
perhaps if peds were on the same level as cyclists in this presumed liability then those few cases can be assessed based on hazard rather than assumption.
I disagree as when you have a crowd of people, there's almost never a collision that causes any injury. Introduce cyclists and the situation does become more dangerous (though only a tiny amount, despite what MSM would have you believe).
The most common instance when peds walk out into the road, will usually have witnesses around, so it's going to be rare to have to rely on presumed liability which would penalise the cyclist.
*
*
Which would you prioritise?
If you had to choose.
Presumed liability or criminal justice reform?
I beg your pardon?
(I'd go for presumed liability as criminal justice reform would get sabotaged by interested parties and even if not, would still rely on a majority of motorists being in the jury)
I think with sensibly written legislation you can eliminate the jury factor in a lot of cases.
A lot of fatal accidents involve drivers with multiple convictions.
Multiple convictions are multiple missed opportunities.
Presumed liability won't remove many dangerous motorists from the road.
If you're going to have sensibly written legislation, then why not also include presumed liability as part of that? I just think that presumed liability is a quick and easy way to emphasise that the bigger the vehicle, the bigger your responsibility to others. Let's do that first and continue waiting for the reform that's already been announced (was it 2014?).
I don't think it's an easy change. It fundementally changes the principles underpinning civil justice.
That's a monumental change to make.
Relative to increasing the sentences for driving offences it's incredibly difficult.
With the exception of Romania all the other countries listed have English Common Law as the basis of their legal systems indicating that it might not be as easy to impose such a change under Common Law as it is in countries operating Civil Law.
Pages