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

Cyclist RLJ's hits me whilst driving I want them to pay for damage to my car,

It's interesting that cyclist (mis) behaviour is rarely to blame in vehicle/cyclist collisions. More cyclists have been killed by vehicles jumping red lights than by the cyclists jumping the red lights themselves.

If the argument is purely financial then the insurance company's view is that premiums have not risen in countries that have adopted strict liability. Drivers simply take more care.

Uninsured cars cost the rest of us half a billion pounds a year, as many as 1 in 8 cars in East London are uninsured.

A change in the law on liability would lead to enforcing liability insurance on cars as insurance cover will be required even for accidents where the driver is not at fault (the problem of uninsured cars does not exist on German or Dutch roads). With an alleged 1.2 million uninsured drivers on Britain’s roads and a new risk concept (i.e. operational risk) to cover, the cycling campaigners’ ally on this could well be the insurance industry.

Most importantly, establishing ‘operating risk’ in law should help to instill the fact in motorists’ brains that operating a heavy and powerful motor vehicle is a much greater risk to others than e.g. riding a bicycle. This might help to prevent drivers from invading cycle lanes and advanced stop lines and might even make motorists respect urban speed limits as the ‘upper limit’.
**http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/87/article9.html
**

If only a few more of the accidents with cars that lead to permanent disability or death every year resulted in motor insurers having to pay damages and maintenance for a lifetime, instead of leaving vulnerable road users (or their dependants) impoverished and inadequately maintained by social services or the tax payer, then this change would be worth making.