Interesting to hear that Julian Huppert is keen to distort the law in favour of one set of road users over everyone else.
MP Julian Huppert’s argument that a law of ‘proportionate liability’ – assuming the larger vehicle and less vulnerable road user should be responsible for a crash – would offer cyclists greater protection and stop drivers claiming they hadn’t seen bikes.
ALL users of the highway need to obey the rules and take responsibility for their actions. Deciding liability on size or impact rather than the action taken is plain silly.
It might not be life threatening to me when a cyclist scratches the side of my car and then rides off but it is expensive to repair and very irritating. To also be found liable because I’m a car driver would add insult to injury.
Cyclists that weave in and out, fail to signal intentions to pull out, go through red lights, hop on and off pavements and don’t use lights in the dark are far too plentiful in Cambridge. They create tensions and irritation amongst all road users, including pedestrians and cause considerable frustration to the cycling lobby who try to encourage the right things.
I read the Netherlands and Germany quoted as examples of where the assumption of innocence for cyclist works. Their are unintended consequences to a law of this sort. When I lived in Germany a small industry grew up with cyclists suing car drivers. Their were even examples of cyclists deliberately colliding with slow moving cars just for the compensation. We, British Forces were particularly juicy targets.
Cycling is great for many reasons. Lets not have yet another reason to divide and cause friction between different kinds of road users.
If everyone stuck to the rules it would be safer for all.