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

When The Daily Mail carried that load of old bum gravy from Petronella Wyatt they had to add on a clarification:

*Petronella Wyatt claims there is a proposal to make motorists responsible for all accidents involving cyclists, regardless of who is actually in the wrong.

This is factually inaccurate and creates animosity towards cyclists.* *

The proposed Strict Liability legislation will always allow a driver the chance to prove a cyclist's guilt. * *

Equally a cyclist who hits a pedestrian would be presumed guilty but will have the chance to prove otherwise.*

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1250746/Beware-rogue-bicycles--Petronella-Wyatt-attacks-cult-cycling-frail-mother-knocked-down.html#ixzz0ivES9vR3

Astonishing--was this added post-publication (and consequently didn't appear in the paper on the day), or did it appear on the day? If the former, why didn't they check factual accuracy in the first place, and if the latter, why did they publish it?