"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.

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.

 

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