Skip to main content

To: Department for Transport

Strict Liability Law for Motorists

Strict Liability Law for Motorists

Dear Department for Transport,

Please pass a strict liability law between motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.

It would mean that motorists are presumed to be at fault in civil actions after an accident with a cyclist or pedestrian, unless they can prove they were not to blame. It would also mean that cyclists would be presumed to be at fault for accidents involving pedestrians.

It would NOT mean motorists are criminally liable, it would just be for the purposes of compensation.

We are only one of a very small number of countries across Europe (Romania, Cyprus, Malta and Ireland) that do not have this law.

In accidents where a cyclist was killed or badly hurt the cyclist was presumed to have committed an offence in just 6% of cases [1], the vehicle driver was assumed to have done so 56% of the time. Although Boris got this massively wrong, this disparity is just common sense because motorists have no fear of injury or death if they collide with a cyclist. The fear is great visa versa, therefore there will be a disparity in the caution used and who causes the accidents.

This law will help make Britain's roads safer for cyclists by increasing the awareness and caution of motorists. It will say to motorists 'if you choose to use one ton of metal that can move at some speed to transport yourself, then you need to be extremely careful in every manoeuvre you take'.


Why is this important?

Cycling is good for you health, has no carbon emissions and is significantly more efficient than motor vehicles in space and resources, but unfortunately a lot of people do not cycle because Britain's roads are too dangerous.

6 cyclists dying in just two weeks is simply outrageous, many measures need to be taken ASAP, this is just one that will help. Other countries have proved that things can be done to make our roads safer, let's make our politicians do the same.


Reasons for signing

  • The culture of the road where might prevails over right needs to be changed so that non-vehicularised road users can do so more safely and car-drivers realise they are not the sole users.
  • One of many other insane cases:
  • Cars are the source of the danger, and it seems reasonable that the onus should be on car drivers. Also, cyclists and pedestrians are likely to be in more immediate need of compensation after a crash (lost earnings and other expenses due to a hospital stay, cost of a new bike etc.) but getting the scratches out of the car's paintwork can probably wait. It therefore seems reasonable to streamline the process of claiming from the motorist's insurance.


2015-02-16 18:09:19 +0000

1,000 signatures reached

2015-02-15 17:36:41 +0000

500 signatures reached

2015-01-25 08:09:47 +0000

100 signatures reached

2015-01-24 16:27:37 +0000

50 signatures reached

2014-11-10 12:03:18 +0000

25 signatures reached

2013-11-27 19:02:32 +0000

10 signatures reached