Brenda Mitchell, specialist Lawyer at Cycle Law Scotland takes a look at common road traffic collisions for cyclists and describes the experiences of real cyclists when claiming compensation from insurers.
20. Insurers Excuses
• “Red light jumping”
• “Launched off the pavement”
• “Came from nowhere”
• “Riding too fast”
• Changing their story
• Refusing to provide insurance details
• MIB
26. What do you do if the worst happens
to you?
• STOP at the scene if injured.
• Contact the Police.
• Note the reg number(s) and get contact and
insurance details.
• Photograph where possible
• Call us on 0800 0899 3389
Sometimes, it is good to look at an example.
Prior to 1985, France had a fault based system. I have never particularly thought of the French as being a safety conscious nation and you can see here the example of traffic attempting to navigate the Arc de Triomphe – chaos!
In 1985, there was a wholesale shift over to Strict liability where a driver is liable to compensate a cyclist or pedestrian if they collide with and injure them. There is no defence of unavoidable accident and there are severe restrictions on allegations of contributory negligence. So what effect did this have?
There is no denying that bicycle safety has improved markedly and figures from the OECD, being the latest statistics published in 2012, confirmed that the fatality rate for cyclists fell by 66% from 1990.
Granted, there had been general improvements in road safety and you cannot isolate strict liability as being the sole cause of that significant reduction, but it did play a role.
In the Netherlands, it is three times safer to cycle compared to the UK.
We do accept this is hard to isolate but as the law serves to tighten restrictions around road accident liability, it has not harmed but rather has improved general awareness and safety.
So, what’s wrong with a fault based system?