Scheme mooted as one way of increasing uptake of green transport
22 September 2009

Government advisers are pushing for changes in civil law that will make the most powerful vehicle involved in a collision automatically liable for insurance and compensation purposes, according to a report in the Times newspaper.

If such a law was passed, it would make motorists legally responsible for accidents involving cyclists or pedestrians, even if they are not at fault. Likewise, cyclists would automatically be at fault if they collided with a pedestrian.

The move is one of several ideas mooted as a way of getting people out of cars and onto bicycles or walking more.

Other proposals to promote the uptake of greener transport include the imposition of blanket 20mph zones on residential streets.

Supporters want such measures to be included in the government’s National Cycling Plan and Active Transport Strategy, due to be published soon.

Phillip Darnton, chief executive of Cycling England, an agency funded by the Department for Transport (DfT) to promote cycling, said four key policy changes were needed.

“I would like to see the legal onus placed on motorists when there are accidents; speed limits reduced to 20mph on suburban and residential roads; cycling taught to all schoolchildren; and cycling provision included in major planning applications,” said Darnton.

Twitter - follow

Find an Autocar car review

Driven this week

Join the debate


22 September 2009

This is a great idea. As long as I pick a more powerful vehicle to have an accident with, I can get myself a nice new car on insurance. Cracking! Seriously, how can such utterly barmy ideas ever see the light of day? What is the rationale behind it? There surely must be more to it than this.

22 September 2009

Let's start a competition to see who can come up with a more stupid, idiotic and spiteful idea than this.

If this is the best our 'government' can do, then let's vote for monkey world at the next election.

22 September 2009

[quote Autocar]even if they are not at fault.[/quote]

I'm banging my head against the desk at the stupidity of this moronic idea. And the reason: to get more people to walk and cycle! Oh boy are we done for.....

22 September 2009

It all very well to encouage people to walk...but this is ridiculous! The law should never enourage any category of people to behave irresponsibly, including pedestrians.

22 September 2009

What the hell happened to the basic legal principle: "innocent until proven guilty"? Why should a motorist be presumed guilty of causing an accident with, say, a cyclist without any consideration of the facts as to who caused it? When will these idiots who seem to resort to anything to get people out of their cars eventually realise that no one wants to get out of them. Walking and cycling are excellent, healthy pursuits but are totally impractical other than for exercise, especially in bad weather. Give me strength!

22 September 2009

This is good. Holland and Germany have similar laws/conventions regarding collisions between motor vehicles/bicycles and bicycles/pedestrians.

One consequence of this will be to get the occasional, inconsiderate hobby cyclist off the footpaths and onto the roads. Many cyclists, young and old, are scared of cycling on the road. The greater the number on the roads, rather than footpaths, where it's unlawful already, the greater the need for motorists to take care of other, vulnerable road users and the greater the lobby by cyclist numbers to have motorists treat cyclists with respect and keep their distance(min. 2m/6ft, Highway Code).

I have noticed personally in the last ten years the increasing disregard and indeed often unwarranted, outright aggression to cyclists by drivers, across the spectrum, from white van driver usual suspects to supposedly respectable middle-aged family man. This trend has been driven in large part by the tantamount to criminal incitement of attacks against cyclists by Clarkson, Parris et al(Parris suggesting stringing piano wire across country lanes and Clarkson's continuous attacks on cyclists/cycling). Mindless morons now think it fair game to literally push cyclists off the road, as their hero, has as good as said it's okay, indeed made it 'cool' to do so. Their is a large amount of sociopaths already in possession of vehicles on Britain's roads without giving them de facto licence to vent their videogaming fantasises of 'taking someone out', or generally venting their sick inadequacies in everyday life, from behind the wheel of a two ton weapon on a defenceless twelve stone of human flesh.

Think of the generations coming up. I was taught the cycling proficiency test on the busy roads around my school. I would not want my children to do that today. Not because the roads are really that much busier, in large cities anyway, nor are the speeds any higher, indeed often slower than 20/30 years ago, but the mentality of the average driver has changed, for the far worst. Their are too many, 'psychos' in plain language out on the roads, in possession of a deadly weapon. Clarkson, the general spirit of our times, for dog eat dog, has changed the whole landscape of mixed, civil road use. This law change would start to redress the balance, but it would only be a start. The Criminal courts need to start giving demonstrative, punitive sentences to drivers convicted in cases of manslaughter, serious injuries to cyclists. The drivers continuing to flout the law by the, clearly ostentatious use of handheld mobile phones, especially women are prevalent in this, need to be made an example of, first by actual enforcement of the law by cop patrols, not cameras, and use of dangerous driving convictions, not civil fines and points on licences.

The whole attitude to cyclists on UK roads needs to change.drastically. The sick propagation of this aggressive, violence-inciting hatred by celebrities and acceptance by the chattering classes is, well sick. The excuse of many a unfit, overweight, over-the-hill, 40/50-something inadequate that the 'lycra warrior deserved it, as he pays no tax, insurance, has no reg plates and was taking up the road I paid for' has to stop. The sign of an elementarily civilised society would be to ostracise morons of this ilk and the celebritiy cynical morons that stand behind so much of this 'laddish' sick culture and knowingly play to the lowest common denominator for their own financial gain.

22 September 2009

Well next time I'm skint I'll be walking out in front of some unlucky motorist!!!, what a stupid idea. Insurance fraud will go through the roof.

22 September 2009

Another completely barmy concept from a government in its death throes, with its typical knee-jerk reaction, reaching for the law book before considering sensible suggestions. As both a driver and cyclist in London I have seen and experienced most. I prefer cycling because you can get around more easily, and usually faster, than buses and Tubes. However, there are times when carrying passengers and shopping, a car is the only option. In my opinion, there a large number of cyclists who are aggressive and reckless in their behaviour towards cars (and other cyclists). I have knocked a cyclist off his bike who cut up on the inside when I was indicating and turning left at a T junction, believing that he had right of way. I have seen cyclists deliberately damaging stationary cars in traffic because they were in their way and both my wife and I have been knocked off our bikes, in separate incidents, by other cyclists (my wife has a steel pin and plates in her arm to prove this). The huge increase in cyclists commuting in London (and presumbly other conurbations) will surely mean that 'cycling insurance' is a necessity – not legally compulsory, but a sensible alternative.

22 September 2009

So, if I ram a Lambo up the a**e with my Volvo, I get a new car? what a load of bull poo.

22 September 2009

I really thought it was April 1st when I read this.

It would be great fun though. After a few years, no one would be in gainful employment as no one would dare to get into a car for fear that a penniless cyclist was around the corner trying to engineer a crash. Queues would be forming of the millions of unemployed trying to jump into the path of the increasingly rare car that was sighted on the roads, in order to earn a quick payout.

Meanwhile the speed limit will have been reduced to 2.5mph as this dreadful government, kept in power by the 10 million useless public sector jobs it bankrolls for its voters, realises that no one is being done for speeding as no one has a car and revenue from fines has disappeared. So pedestrians become the next target, with anyone caught in a trot imprisoned for life and their assets confiscated under the Labour party's new initiative to fill up the prisons emptied of all the terrorists who they released on compassionate grounds because they wanted some oil at any price.

The scenarios are endless.

I ride a cycle and drive a car. All I would say those cyclists who resolutely refuse to pull over even a fraction to let a car pass safely and prefer to block a road for miles is that if basic manners and awareness of other road users was part of the cycling proficiency test, you would not have passed it. Ever.


Add your comment

Log in or register to post comments

Find an Autocar car review

Driven this week