I don't think people with entrenched views are going to take a blind bit of notice to the possibility of being presumed at fault if they hit a cyclist.
Too late for the cyclist in many cases.
Neil, if you left my post in context rather than stripping it out you would not have made the error of twisting the meaning.
Your comparison with speed cameras is specious. There is evidence of an offence with a speed camera.
This proposed change in law would result in people who have committed no offence being presumed guilty of one.
I disagree - the analogy isn't specious at all, in the speed camera scenario, the RK will be assumed guilty by default. If he / she genuinely can't remember, or truly doesn’t know, who's driving, then they'll have to make a credible argument to a magistrate to reverse the assumption that they're just keeping schtum.
In the proposed scenario, the vehicle driver will be, by default, assumed to be liable / negligent - but not necessarily guilty of some criminal offence.
You don't think educating drivers works, I don't the mooted change in law would work. Opinions.
The reasoning behind my opinion is based on how in fairly recent times ingrained attitudes on things like drink-driving and speeding have changed in response to how they're dealt with and marketed.
A year or two back when I first read of such a notion, I hated the idea, I thought it abhorrent. But in the interim I've read, watched and listened, to the media, people in general public I encounter, and I've concluded that something needs to be done to address the rot, ignorance and arrogance in many drivers regarding cyclists as traffic.
And it's not like I'm 100% behind it - I do have some misgivings, but all the same, something has to be done to contextualise ego with risk to life and limb, and whilst education is the normal mantra, it ain't gonna cut it.
This page intentionally left blank