Like this site? Help us to make it better.


Cambridge Crime Commissioner: Making motorists liable for crashes is ‘very silly’

Sir Graham Bright slams Lib Dem policy voted through at this week’s party conference

The Police and Crime Commissioner for Cambridge has slammed a proposal to make motorists liable in the first instance for any crash that involves cyclists.

Sir Graham Bright, elected last November, said the plans – aimed at ensuring one in ten journeys are made by bicycle by 2025 and which were adopted as policy by Liberal Democrat members this week at their party conference in Glasgow – are “nonsense”.

The Cambridge MP Dr Julian Huppert, who is co-chair of the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group, proposed the motion, under which it would be assumed that the motorist was at fault for a collision with a cyclist, unless it could be proven otherwise.

The law currently operates on the Continent, and also applies to pedestrians and other vulnerable road users.

The Liberal Democrat motion also included proposals for fines for drivers who stray into cycle lanes. The party will press the Government to adopt the measures, should the Lib Dems share power in the next Parliament – whether with Labour or the Conservatives.

Other key proposals include:

Creating a cycling budget of at least £10 per person per year, increasing to £20

A Government strategy to increase Bikeability cycle training course for people of all ages and backgrounds

An increase of priority traffic lights for cyclists

The inclusion of a cyclist safety section in the national driving test and cyclist awareness training for drivers of large vehicles.

Sir Graham Bright told the Cambridge News: “The proposal is nonsense. Whenever there’s an accident someone’s at fault but it’s not always the motorist – far from it.

“You’ve only got to drive through Cambridge to realise that you’ve got to be doubly alert if you’re driving.

“And if there was an accident it could happen by someone coming straight out in front of you. So that is in my opinion a very silly thing to float.

“He doesn’t float many silly things, but that’s one of them,” he added.

His comments suggest that his grasp of the legal principle behind what is often termed ‘presumed liability’ is limited, particularly in relation to the fact that it is not an absolute rule, with exceptions for example where the cyclist is shown to be at fault.

In response, Dr Huppert said: “Cyclists and pedestrians are vulnerable road users and come off far worse in a collision with a motor vehicle.

“On occasions, a driver will use the excuse that he or she just hasn’t seen the cyclist. This is not acceptable.

“Proportionate liability, which operates in most European countries, offers the cyclist more protection in these cases. It puts the onus on the more dangerous vehicle for the collision. It would help protect car drivers from HGVs, bikes from cars and pedestrians from bikes.

“But this assumption is not an absolute rule. If a cyclist were travelling at night with no lights on, jumping red lights or not abiding by other rules of the roads, it would change the presumption.

“And it should only apply to civil liability, in cases of compensation. Where a prosecution is proposed through the British criminal justice system, the concept of innocent until proven guilty would obviously apply and a case should be proven beyond reasonable doubt.”

Earlier this year we reported on how a law firm in Scotland had launched a campaign to have the country’s civil law changed to introduce a system of ‘strict liability’ liability in incidents involving motor vehicles and more vulnerable road users such as cyclists.

The firm says that introducing the system it proposes would meant that victims would receive compensation more quickly, the burden on the courts would be reduced, and road users’ attitudes would change, with a consequent improvement in safety.

Simon joined as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment


JonD replied to Kebab Meister | 10 years ago
Kebab Meister wrote:

The 3rd party liability insurance doesn't just cover cyclists and pedestrians but quite a comprehensive package. Continentals think you're crazy if you don't have it especially since you may face private health insurance costs.

BC or CTC membership via an affiliated club is only about £15, includes 3rd party cover, and that cover *isn't* limited to cyclist/pedestrians.
So unless that 8eu includes some sort of personal cover too, it *does* sound relatively expensive - it's about 5x

The CTC cover is up to £10m, BC is probably pretty similar.

sean1 | 10 years ago

Strict Liability just means that the presumption, unless the car driver can prove otherwise, is that the car driver is at fault in the event of a collision.

We already have what is effectively a strict liability law with rear end shunts in cars. The 'shunter' is always assumed to be at fault.

Good to see a political party with good pro-cycling policies.

A V Lowe replied to sean1 | 10 years ago

Sdean you are either a bit confused or as dim as Sir Graham Bright, and I worry about Cambridge Crime Commissioner's inability to distinguish between fault (a potentially criminal issue) and liability (a civil one).

Check out the concept of the Duty of Care that extends across all equipment that can harm or damage property. You use a gun, chainsaw, etc and you are automatically liable for a civil claim if someone gets hurt or property damaged. That applies even if the victim is a prime candidate for the Darwin Awards.not requirevne

Same goes for a motor vehicle, and it has been thus accommodated since the Motor Car Act of 1903, right through to the current condition that all motor vehicle users have third party insurance - because of the extent of any claim likely to arise. Oh and that nice one about motor vehicle users having BY LAW to give details even if no contact takes place.

Angelfishsolo | 10 years ago

Sir Graham Bright Doesn't seem to live upto his Surname.


Latest Comments