"The government has been urged to introduce presumed liability for civil cases relating to certain road collisions, a move which would see motorists presumed liable when involved in incidents involving cyclists, pedestrians or horse riders."

Road C.C. article

I'm in an interesting situation in that I cycled more than quarter of a million miles and was a strong defender of cyclists. During that time I had a few bad experiences with motorists, usually down to their carelessness, though there were a couple of cases involving young yobs.

But on half-a-dozen occasions in recent years it's only been my alertness that has prevented me driving into an idiot cyclist. Had I done so, I would have had difficulty in proving that I was not at fault. (Some times I'd noticed a cyclist riding on the pavement, only for him to suddenly switch to the road in front of me,as I'd half anticipated.) And as a pedestrian I've had a dozen close encounters with pavement cyclists.

It's reassuring that some of the comments appended to the road.cc article are balanced and recognise that some cyclists are their own worst enemies.

I still regard cycles - and even "illegal" e-scooters - as an ideal way of getting around, provided they're used sensibly.

 
The idea is not altogether new, it is already the case in some European countries.

And yes "some cyclists are their own worst enemies" as are some motorists, although the previous administration would not have liked to see it that way.

Much as we might hope it is unlikely to happen, to many votes in cars, and most elected members worship at the altar of the great god motorcar.

 
Terrible idea which I hope will be consigned to the bin forthwith.

Where necessary liabilty for an RTC involving cyclists should be apportioned to the actual guilty party rather than on the basis of a preset assumption.

And in my experience - I cycle around 5000 miles a year - it is quite commonly other cyclists or pedestrians at fault.

 

 
Only 4,500 signatures in over 3 months.......not much of an urge?

 

Probably realism involved. There should be no presumption of anything entirely outside of the control of one of the parties involved.