The Guardian's bike blog

Good comment though

Imagine for a moment you are walking along a pavement, a vehicle passes you, it kicks up a stone and blinds
you in one eye. If you have to prove negligence then you will not be entitled to compensation, the driver did
nothing wrong. Strict liability says that the possibility of kicking up a stone and blinding someone is an inherent
risk of driving, the fact the driver chose to drive the car and put you at risk in that way means that they have
accepted they will be held liable if that risk is realised.
Strict liability is nothing to do with criminal responsibility, strict liability recognises that the driver is the one who
has introduced the risk to the public space and they have done so to their advantage . Driving in an urban
setting is morally hazardous, the driver accrues the benefits of driving but not the risks. All strict liability does is
recognise that if you wish to benefit by taking risks at the expense of others, you should be prepared to pay up
(or rather, your insurer should) when that risk is realised, consequently strict liability isn't limited to cars vs
bicycles, it says the larger vehicle, the one owing the greater risk is more liable HGV>car>bicycle>pedestrian.
Strict liabilty is reserved for "inherently dangerous" activities or products. The classic example used is that of a
circus: If a lion escapes and injures an audience member, it doesn't matter how strong the lion's cage was, or
how closely the lion was watched.
The reasoning behind strict liability is to hold whoever benefits from a dangerous activity - demolition,
transporting hazardous materials, using dangerous machines, etc. - accountable for any damaged caused by
that activity.
Besides which who'd have thought in the 21st century such a bigoted, ignorant view still existed, the century of
the car is over, car use is declining, deal with it. The place with the highest number of cyclists is the centre of
London, the people working in the city aren't any more green or health conscious than anyone else, but they do
have a transport problem and have recognised that cycling is a far more efficient, cheaper and faster form of
transport than the car.
By undermining the use of bicycles you create a distorted market in personal transport which limits people to an
inefficient mode in urban areas, making society poorer. People have to be able to choose the most efficient
mode for a particular journey, sometimes it will be the car, sometimes the train, sometimes the bicycle, every
journey is different. You say cities are for cars, in fact the complete opposite is true, cars are at their most
inefficient in cities, being no faster than any other mode of transport (usually slower when you include finding a
parking space and walking to and from the car) and costing a lot more, hence why in our largest city, London,
car use is lower than any other part of the country.