Hypothetical law change? Lorry on bike: lorry's fault. Bike on ped: bike's fault

ref the highway code - the court would split the costs as described earlier as the car driver should expect cyclists to do crazy things.

(go to the first page and watch the Strict liability video again, this explains it from the Dutch perspective - the point is at 30secs in)

If this is the case, I can see why it is wrong.

The cyclist would pay the way anyone in court has to settle a debt - by selling their house/property etc - unless they had 3rd party insurance.

Of course as a member of the LCC/CTC etc, you have this as part of your membership. You are a member of one/both aren't you?

Never been involved in an accident with an uninsured party? Then you'll know how pointless this is. Oh and not a member of the LCC/CTC as I'm against a few of their policies.

Yes, because the potential to cause harm is far greater with the driver the greater responsibility rests with them. We already have a kind of assumed liability with rear-end vehicle collisions, almost invariably the following driver is assumed to be at fault.

You are on very shakey ground with this one. Oh and no 'we' (UK don't) dont have automatic liability for rear collisions.

I don't understand the question about paying, the cyclist pays like anyone else pays. Third party insurances comes with most household policies and membership of the CTC or LCC includes 3rd party liability insurance.

See earlier comment.