Another reason I am completely against the idea of automatic blame on drivers who are involved in accidents with bicycles.
Good job no-one's suggesting that, then. Presumed liability is not the same as automatic blame.http://www.happycyclist.org/?p=429
If we move to a situation where a cyclist can hammer into the side of a car, stationary in a lay by for example, at speed causing themselves injury and the car damage, and it is up to the driver to prove the cyclist was to blame in order to recoup the expense of repair and avoid paying out huge sums towards the cyclist to pay for their rehabilitation and loss of earnings, etc., it is indeed automatic blame. If one is not to 'blame' why should one be liable for all this expense?
Forcing drivers to put up or shut up will be the result for the majority. Few will want to risk the expense of taking legal action, and the authorities will advise this is their only recourse.
Forcing cyclists to take out insurance is another way of approaching this, or we could stay with the current situation and let the police and courts sort things out with no presumption to the outcome.
The doctor diagnosed me with hereditary diarrhoea. I can't understand, I wear a kilt.