This document discusses cycling law and road safety in Scotland. It covers various topics like road traffic law, rural roads, junctions, roundabouts, dogs, dooring incidents, and more. It advocates for a change to presumed liability legislation for traffic incidents involving cyclists to make it easier for victims to obtain compensation. Research shows countries with presumed liability have higher rates of walking and cycling. The document encourages supporting campaigns to implement presumed liability in Scotland through online petitions and legal resources for cyclists.
25. Insurers’ Excuses
• “Red light jumping”
• “Launched off the pavement”
• “Came from nowhere”
• “Riding too fast”
• Changing their story
• Refusing to provide insurance details
35. Road Share Research
• There is a clear and strong association between presumed liability
legislation and higher levels of walking and cycling.
• All countries with high levels of safe walking and cycling have
some form of presumed liability legislation.
• Leading cities in Europe with some form of Presumed liability now
see more than 55% of trips being made by walking and cycling,
but Scotland falls well behind this.
• Lower litigation and insurance costs are achieved due to a higher
proportion of victims obtaining compensation quickly and fairly.
• Presumed Liability has already been successful across a range of
sectors in Scotland. It is not a “new” concept and extending it to
transport presents no fundamental legal or administrative
barriers.
Sometimes, it is good to look at an example.
Prior to 1985, France had a fault based system. I have never particularly thought of the French as being a safety conscious nation and you can see here the example of traffic attempting to navigate the Arc de Triomphe – chaos!
In 1985, there was a wholesale shift over to Strict liability where a driver is liable to compensate a cyclist or pedestrian if they collide with and injure them. There is no defence of unavoidable accident and there are severe restrictions on allegations of contributory negligence. So what effect did this have?
There is no denying that bicycle safety has improved markedly and figures from the OECD, being the latest statistics published in 2012, confirmed that the fatality rate for cyclists fell by 66% from 1990.
Granted, there had been general improvements in road safety and you cannot isolate strict liability as being the sole cause of that significant reduction, but it did play a role.
In the Netherlands, it is three times safer to cycle compared to the UK.
We do accept this is hard to isolate but as the law serves to tighten restrictions around road accident liability, it has not harmed but rather has improved general awareness and safety.
So, what’s wrong with a fault based system?
We never said this would be easy. As Alison reminded me at the Heels ‘n’ Wheels event during the Edinburgh Festival of Cycling last Summer, she said, “This is going to be a marathon not a sprint.”