Blame / Claim strawman

OK, let me spell out clearly why the original suggestion is one that has provoked an angry response from me.

In this country, the law of tort provides, in summary, that a person who causes injury to another or damages that other's property through negligence, is liable to compensate for that injury or damage. If the injured party contributes to the injury or damage through his or her own negligence, the compensation payable is reduced according to the level of the contribution of that contributory negligence to the accident.

This is the law for everything from products liability to motoring accidents.

In some countries, there is an idea that in cycle/motorist accidents, the rule should be that negligence by the motorist is assumed. This does not apply here.

The consequence of English law is that if a motorist injures a cyclist through the motorist's fault, the cyclist can win damages. If the cyclist did something that contributed to his injury, the damages will be reduced. For example, in recent cases it has been held that if a helmet would have reduced injury and a helmet was not worn, damages could be reduced. This is in line with cases surrounding the failure to wear seat belts in cars.

The suggestion in the original post woul,d have absolved the motorist for any liability if the cyclist, however innocent of any fault and contributory negligence, from any liability to the cyclist whom he had injured. This would place a cyclist in such circumstances in a worse position that anyone else in law. If a cyclist was paralysed through no fault of his own but plenty of the motorist's, he would be unable to recover from the motorist's insurance and would become a burden on the state. This is unfeasible on a macroeconomic scale and contrary to every move in liability law.

So it only takes a couple of hours to be trained and, the suggestion is that this would force everyone to be trained. It would, in my opinion actually reduce the numbers being trained as it would mean that people would be put off cycling. New cyclists wouldn't start cycling. The cycle-hire scheme would be still born. Very few would invest two hours and £40 to train without knowing whether they really wanted to cycle or not. Kids wouldn't be taught to cycle.

We need to encourage more people to cycle and then encourage those that do to do so safely. We do not need to make cyclists' legal position somewhat lower than the balance of the population. Cyclists are not and should not be treated as second class citizens.

Thanks for a more thorough explanation. I'm guessing you work in Law?

A couple of more questions, probably daft, but certainly not intended to insult:
*
"The suggestion in the original post woul,d have absolved the motorist for any liability if the cyclist, however innocent of any fault and contributory negligence, from any liability to the cyclist whom he had injured. This would place a cyclist in such circumstances in a worse position that anyone else in law. If a cyclist was paralysed through no fault of his own but plenty of the motorist's, he would be unable to recover from the motorist's insurance and would become a burden on the state. This is unfeasible on a macroeconomic scale and contrary to every move in liability law."*

Could there be an argument that an untrained cyclist should receive lower damages than a trained cyclist in the same instance (e.g. unavoidable numpty move by driver)?

Forgetting bikes briefly, would a driver without a license be awarded lower damaged than a legit driver if involved in an incident cased by another driver (3rd party at fault)?

*"So it only takes a couple of hours to be trained and, the suggestion is that this would force everyone to be trained. It would, in my opinion actually reduce the numbers being trained as it would mean that people would be put off cycling. New cyclists wouldn't start cycling. The cycle-hire scheme would be still born. Very few would invest two hours and £40 to train without knowing whether they really wanted to cycle or not. Kids wouldn't be taught to cycle."

*Does the compulsion to undergo training put off prospective drivers? What about the cost for them - this is much more than £40? Might there be a chance that a requirement for training could actually add further credibility to the bike as a mode of transport? (This would defo be the case if it became a requirement to get provisional driving license. No L3 Bikeability = No driving). Would a requirement for cyclists to be trained help to improve non-cyclists opinions about the cyclists place in amongst traffic?

Note, In some areas cycle training is currently delivered for free, due to funding from organisations like Cycling England, PCT's etc. E.g. Adults in certain Coventry postcodes are being offered free training at present.