No real change there then. But a new proposal by the Lib Dem MP for cambridge who is probably no stranger to lycra or worrying truckers is for the automatic blaming of any motorist for any collision with a bicycle — even if the cyclist caused it by running a red light.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article … -lane.html
Motorists should be automatically blamed for any collision with a bicycle — even if the cyclist caused it by running a red light, according to a new policy idea from the Liberal Democrats.
And drivers also face being fined for straying into cycle lanes, under plans published in the party’s autumn conference agenda.
The proposal says that to ensure ‘justice for victims of accidents on the roads’ it is calling for a ‘consultation on the introduction of proportionate liability rules so that the default assumption after a collision is that the larger vehicle is at fault’.
Could this have wider implications if its presumed the larger vehicle in any accident is always at fault unless they can prove otherwise.
Hang on! I thought there was no such thing as “accidents” these days! I’m certain I read something on here the other day, telling me I was just a stupid truck driver, because an “accident” has now been officially re-classified as an “incident.”
So now, when you fall off a ladder, or indeed get crushed by a truck turning left, whilst cycling at speed up it’s nearside, you’ll be claiming on your “incidental” death insurance, or if you don’t die, you’ll be picked up by an ambulance and taken to the “Incident” & Emergency department at your local hospital.
I wouldn’t waste any time at all worrying about this “proposal.” Unless there is a law passed which is diametrically opposed to natural justice, (which, come to think of it, is a distinct possibility in this country these days) it’s not going to happen. In fact, did I see the date of that report was 1st April?
Good job its only a party conference agenda and for the Liberal Democrat’s. Also its printed in the Daily Fascist, they just want to cause an outrage in the middle class 
It don’t and won’t mean zb as it won’t ever be put in front of statute committees for consultations.
There are already laws in place for when the red light jumper decides to do it. They are breaking those laws, so that will still make it their fault and is in statute already, regardless of what sized vehicle they hit first. They persecute emergency vehicles when it goes wrong, so why should said cyclist be given special dispensation for being a below average IQ cretin jumping the red light.
Unfortunately the cyclist jumping red broke the law first before getting flattened. Now if running them over in that case is “wrong”, two wrongs still won’t make a right, saying he was bigger than me and hurt me!
Thank God we have only incompetents in charge and not pure bred cretins of society.
Also does that mean when I am a pedestrian and a cyclist doesn’t stop on the flashing yellow light on a pedestrian crossing or zebra crossing and I hit them, they are automatically to blame for the accident?
That’ll teach the smart arse cyclists who give the rest a bad name then. 
Them types of boys better start getting insurance for themselves then, for when they hit pedestrians, as I can see those cases won’t go away quietly or cheaply either!
C
I wouldn’t read too much into it if it’s in the Daily Fail !
What a can of worms the whole accident vs incident thing was, anyway think i will also consider getting in a cyclists blind spot (sure they have a few) and letting them plough into me and my small cat on the crossing, then we can both make a claim with the inci… i mean accident lawyers.
Coming on radio 2 now , should be interesting…
It’s something that’s been floating round for years and raises it had every year or so.
It stems from a law in some other parts of Europe that means the car or truck driver is automatically considered to be to blame in a collision with a cycle, unless they can prove he cyclist was at fault.
So the typical bad journalism from the daily mail, probably deliberately done to excite a response from its readership.
Also the it’s the MP for Cambridge who’s raising this, so being done as much for his re-election campaign than any real expectation of it happening.
The more concerning aspects of the article is the fact that (cash strapped ) councils are asking for more powers to fine motorists.
Personally I think the law would be wrong, as it means the car driver has to prove thier innocence, instead of the having to be proved guilty.
Isnt this the case anyway…
Insurance premiums would then go up by massive amounts because it would create a crash for cash charter in addition to drivers of the largest vehicles being most at risk of vehicle v cyclist conflicts and then getting stitched up under that regime.The situation will only get worse until truck and bus drivers get together by saying that either the cyclist community gets off the roads wherever possible and takes equal responsibility for their actions as every other road user,or nothing moves.
I think the worrying thing if this should ever come to pass, is that the arrogant Lycra-clad ■■■■■■ would ride even worse than they do now, safe in the knowledge that the law will support them by default.
Personally I feel that this is the latest example of what is really wrong in our society - everything from ‘the establishment’ is designed to confront one group in society against another, be it welfare recipients against workers, immigrants against nationals, everybody else against hgvs, etc, etc. From reading other news from other countries, it seems that they tend to try harder to unite their societies, whereas we want to divide ours. Maybe the gummint is worried that if we weren’t all at each others throats, we might notice just how crap and out if their depths they really are?
Just my random thoughts whilst cooking tonight’s curry!
Gary
from what the libdem MP said on radio 2 today it only applies to CIVIL claims so the proportion of blame from a claim would depend on the police report so someone riding recklessly would get less /nothing fro your insurance company
typical M P,like the majority of them full of sxxt,thats why the liberal democrats will never have proper control of this country,thats why they have to share power with the tories,this M P can say what he likes because no matter what happens,if you hurt a cyclist and you are 100% in the right because of the cyclists stupidity then what can they say,particularly if you have witnesses,as i say the guys a wxxxxr
truckman20:
typical M P…this M P can say what he likes …
So true, he can say what he likes, it don’t matter because it’s extremely unlikely to get past judicial review especially within the House of Lords. Too many cases in Civil Law of apportioning responsibilities on parties (on the basis of probability and liklihood and fact) going to court for lots of reasons, meaning the cyclist jumping a red light is still going to hold 100% of the blame for the accident!
He can say he wants every accident to be blamed on lorry drivers and UFO’s regardless of fault and the lorry driver is to physically tow his lorry back past the accident naked (as some sort of rehabilition), while being flayed and after serving a 30 year prison sentence.
Still never going to happen The words he spouts are literally hot air and condensation, that above example will never make law just because someone says they want it!
Fortunately, as much as the public thinks different, we actually have a very good and responsible law system.
C