You are reading a single comment by @spindrift and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
@spindrift
The proposed law change was reported so badly it's understandable there's confusion.
The cyclist would be at fault in your example, and would be subject to criminal and civil law.
The proposal is a sensible, workable suggestion. It would save lives, reduce premiums and prevent senseless deaths and injuries.
If a motor vehicle hits a pedestrian, cyclist, equestrian or disabled person, the non-motorised user is far more likely to be injured. This ought to mean that drivers have a greater duty of care for non-motorised users’ safety. However, this is not currently recognised in law.
Although the current civil liability system requires negligence to be proven, this creates an inherent balance against pedestrians and cyclists who, due to their greater vulnerability, are far less likely to recall how the collision occurred with the clarity needed to be a “good witness” in court.
Hence non-motorised crash victims often find it very difficult to obtain compensation for damages. This current situation regularly leads to grave injustice, far more serious than anything that could possibly result if the burden of proof were reversed in such cases.
The law on driver insurance schemes should therefore be amended so that non-motorised road users will be able to claim injury damages from drivers who hit them, unless it can be shown that the non-motorised road user behaved recklessly.
In deciding whether a person has acted recklessly, their mental and physical characterisitics should be taken into account, so that groups such as children, people with learning difficulties and disabled people who may not have appreciated the outcomes of their actions would be able to claim damages.
Drivers would not be criminalised under these proposals, which are in line with laws already in place in other European countries. They would merely be required to drive safely, and to take the requisite care around children and other people who can be expected to act unpredictably.
http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4686