Sep 2009 21

Innocent until proven Guilty- well, unless you're a motorist.4

It seems that ministers are now reaching for the law to promote “greener” modes of transport and hassle motorists. Government advisors are suggesting changing civil law to make motorists automatically responsible for compensation and insurance to injured parties in road collisions.

The radical measure is driven by the desire to increase the number of cyclists on the roads, as cycling is considered to be a more environmentally friendly mode of transport. The chief executive of Cycling England, an agency funded by Department for Transport (DfT) stated there needed to be a number of policy changes. The most controversial change being to place “the legal onus on motorists when there are accidents.”

Many motorists argue- and rightly so- they are already victimised by predatory traffic wardens and the increasing number of speed cameras popping up throughout the UK. Both of which generate huge amounts of revenue. However the utilization of the law to punish drivers for all road collisions involving cars goes from being a money spinning scheme to something that is much more disturbing.   

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? The notion- upon which our legal system is supposedly built- that all evidence will be taken into account and a fair decision will be reached. Well not if the law is changed- in that case the driver is always guilty.

The proposals do not even mention the fact that sometimes dangerous cycling can be the cause of road accidents. There are a minority of cyclists who jump red lights or otherwise cycle recklessly and sometimes they are responsible for road crashes.  If the legal onus falls on motorists for all collusions involving cars, cyclists have a huge legal advantage. Such advantage could feasibly encourage more reckless cycling. 

It would appear that policy-makers are so blinkered by the desire to get people out of cars and onto to bikes that they are no longer trying to deliver fair and balanced policy. There can be environmental and health benefits to cycling. But, that does not give ministers the right to unbalance the law and risk punishing innocent motorists while letting cyclists responsible for accidents off the hook. These proposals reinforce motorists' claims that they are treated unfairly by transport policy. 

The government needs to recognise that some people need to drive.  Others should be free to decide whether they want to drive or prefer cycling. Employing civil law, and putting drivers at a disadvantage in the courts, to try and influence a personal decision is grossly unfair.

Related Posts

  • David Tyler

    I have just attended a speed awareness course in Taunton for going 36mph in a 30mph area in Bristol. I live in Southampton and apparently you can only do these courses in the area you were caught. So I had to take a day away from my business, drive for 2 and a half hours there, do a 3 hour course (which I thought was at least worthwhile)and then drive for 2 and a half hours home again. 3 miles from where I live is a centre doing exactly the same course but which I was unable to attend. I have been told by a friend who attended the local course that there were 2 people from Scotland who had to come down to Hampshire for the course. The excessive waste of money and time is bad enough but for a government purporting to be “green” the waste of resources is appalling. Surely it cannot be beyond them to organise this properly on a national basis!

  • anon

    Innocent until proven Guilty – that is starting to seem such a quaint, old fashioned notion…

  • Junican

    Do we all know where this damn-fool idea has come from? It has come from some cycling quango funded by the Ministry of Transport.
    Need I say more?
    When can we get these NAZIs out!

  • Hardeep Singh

    It’s discrimination pure and simple. A repeat/career criminal is afforded a fair trial without prejudice yet the same cannot be granted to a motorist. The cyclists are just people like anyone else so why are they so high and mighty? Whereas the motorist passes a test(s) the cyclist can frequent the same roadways without insurance, equipment testing or rider proficiency, it’s all perfectly legal. Quite wrong …..
    This is the UK not some sort of social engineering project like Chairman Mao’s great leap/cultural jump/hop along forward style of project. I don’t see why the cycle is so great, you go ahead and do it if you want to but leave the rest of us alone!
    Political and media bias is an evil that we learn to tolerate but to use the basis of law to impede a person based on his/her mode of transport is quite unacceptable. A court dispenses with prejudice and deals with the facts of the matter all presided over by a learned person, what’s wrong with that? It’s worked in the past with cases of grave concern and national interest, why is it the same system is now deemed insufficient?
    The cycle will not boost our economic standing powered transport will, though I fear these delluded lefties don’t think about pragmatic things such as economic prosperity do they?