News that two thirds of drivers feel aggressive cyclists threaten their safety is carried across the media this week. Given the balance of power on our roads, the claim sounds a little delusional so it’s disappointing that none of the articles provide context by exploring why it might be that some cyclists are driven to anger. It’s also interesting (and altogether predictable) that the stat revealing almost four fifths of motorist fear the behaviour of their fellow drivers does not make the headline.
Strict liability to protect the most vulnerable
Further down the article is a mention of driver resistance to the idea of the UK adopting strict liability. Most countries on the European continent have adopted strict liability because it’s common sense – Romania, Malta and Cyprus refuse to implement it.
Presumed liability makes motorists financially liable for collisions with pedestrians or cyclists. Only when the pedestrian or cyclist is proved to be negligent does the driver avoid paying compensation through their insurance. The principle recognises that the drivers of faster, heavier vehicles have a duty of care, and that if a pedestrian or cyclist is injured in a road traffic collision, injuries or shock may make it difficult for them to accurately recollect the event.
According to the campaign group Roadshare, “Presumed liability in civil law is the proper approach for a mature, socially conscious nation as it addresses the unacceptable human cost of the current system. Under presumed liability, injured vulnerable road users are properly and promptly cared for and not forced to fight for compensation.”
The Times covered the campaign for presumed liability back in 2015
At present, motor insurers routinely argue for reductions in compensation to vulnerable road users injured in road traffic collisions, even in the face of evidence that their customers are at fault.
Strict liability is not a panacea, but if the UK is serious about promoting cycling then it’s vital we fall in line with the vast majority of European countries.
The ethical choice
The ETA was established in 1990 as an ethical provider of green, reliable travel services. Over 30 years on, we continue to offer cycle insurance , breakdown cover and mobility scooter insurance while putting concern for the environment at the heart of all we do.
The Good Shopping Guide judges us to be the UK’s most ethical provider.
Chris
Re: Two thirds of drivers feel aggressive cyclists threaten their safety – I wonder whether this headline has any objective, credible basis in fact.
The reality is of course the reverse of the headline. Cyclists are hardly a credible threat to motorists, it is the exact reverse, motorists are evidently a credible threat to cyclists. Pedestrians can easily endanger cyclists too. IIRC there was recently such a case: Pedestrian jailed for killing cyclist by telling her to ‘get off the pavement’. Pedestrians walk out from behind vehicles. Cyclists can harm pedestrians, but are insignificant compared with the harm from motorists.
Of those that wish to cycle but do not, is through fear of thoughtless, incompetent and yes aggressive motorists. The types that drive dangerously close behind revving their engines, or hooting, or who throw objects or shout at cyclists.