Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Brenda Mitchell, Partner with Cycle Law Scotland, a Specialist Personal Injury firm represen>ng cyclist injured in road traffic collisions. Awarded Solicitor of the Year in 2013 in recogni>on of the Specialist Service provided to the Cycling Community. A passionate cyclist and motorcyclist, Brenda Mitchell founded the Road Share Campaign which is now chaired by Chris Oliver, Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon
2
The UK is completely out of step with the majority of European na>ons who for decades have had varying forms of Strict and/or Stricter Liability to protect cyclists. We are one of only five European na>ons who do not have a strict liability regime opera>ng, the others being the UK, Ireland, Malta, Cyprus and Romania.
3
CAPS – Cycle Ac>on Plan for Scotland 2010 contained a number of ac>on points.
4
5
6
7
By the >me of the CAPS refresh in 2013, it was noted that Transport Scotland and ScoWsh Government had not tackled ac>on points 12 and 13. However, in a very rushed a[empt to sa>sfy outcome at of Ac>on point 12, Karen Fury, a civil servant with Transport Scotland instructed a desk based review looking at the basic impact of strict liability legisla>on in a number of European countries. That cannot be construed in any way as sa>sfying caps 2010 ac>on point 12. It was concluded “the available data does not supply robust evidence of a direct causal link between SL legisla>on to levels of cycling and KSI when countries like the UK are clearly reducing fatali>es in cyclist” In Scotland we have not reduced cycling fatali>es and in 2013 it was an appalling year with 13 fatali>es.
8
Keith Brown, Transport Minister, following upon a debate in the ScoWsh Parliament, one of the longest business debates in history, confirmed he could not support the Road Share proposal due to a lack of robust evidence but he did indicate posi>ve signs of con>nued debate.
9
Following upon the debate in Parliament, it was agreed that Cycle Law Scotland should step to one side and the Road Share Group was formed chaired by Chris Oliver Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon.
10
The Road Share Members with bio can be found here h[p://www.roadshare.co.uk/roadshare-‐steering-‐group
11
The Road Share Group spent the summer of 2014 engaged in research and our research document should be available for publica>on in January/February 2015.
12
There is a degree of confusion as to the difference between Strict, Stricter and Presumed Liability. In essence, Strict Liability is liability without fault. Presumed and/or Stricter Liability means that liability is a[ached but can be rebu[ed. Stricter Liability more properly represents the Road Share Proposal as we believe in Presumed Liability but with Strict Liability for the under 14 over 70 and disabled.
13
14
Why opt for Presumed Liability rather than Strict Liability. In the UK there is considerable resistance to any sugges>on that drivers be found strictly liable to compensate those that they injure if they be cyclists or walkers. To many this simply goes against the Bri>sh sense of fair play. On that basis, the Road Share proposal is a sensible one. Some would argue that it would be far be[er to campaign for Stricter Criminal Penal>es but Criminal Law is a reserved ma[er for Westminster whereas Civil Law is a devolved ma[er for Holyrood.
15
The Road Share proposal can be found here. h[p://www.roadshare.co.uk/why-‐presumed-‐liability We propose that motorists should be presumed liable to compensate an injured cyclist or pedestrian. The onus of proof should switch so instead of the cyclist and pedestrian having to prove the motorist is at fault it would be reversed. The only way for motorist to avoid compensa>ng a cyclist or pedestrian would be to establish that cyclist or pedestrian was at fault. We propose however that those over 70 under 14 and the disabled should have the protec>on of Strict Liability. It is Road Share’s firm belief that those who are most vulnerable should be protected by society and civil laws. If a motorist is involved in an incident with a child or elderly person or disabled person, then his/her insurance company should compensate that injured child, disabled person or elderly person.
16
17
18
See link to Jamie Aarons case study here. h[p://www.roadshare.co.uk/cases/jamie-‐aarons See link to Alexander Gibson case study here h[p://www.roadshare.co.uk/cases/alexander-‐gibson
19
See link to Andrew McNicoll case study here h[p://www.roadshare.co.uk/cases/andrew-‐mcnicoll See link to Sally Low case study here h[p://www.roadshare.co.uk/cases/sally-‐low
20
By introducing Civil Law Protec>on for those who are most vulnerable on our roads, it acts as a constant reminder to all of us that when we are behind the wheel of a motorised vehicle we have to respect cyclist and walkers. We need to give them as much room as possible avoiding collisions at all costs. When behind the wheel of a car, we owe a higher duty of care to those on the road without the benefit of a metal box. Civil Liability Laws that protect vulnerable road users are clearly long las>ng and it is considered a far be[er op>on than the occasional road safety campaign no>ng that £500,000 was spent by the ScoWsh Government on the Nice Way Code.
21
Please sign the pe>>on. h[ps://www.change.org/p/pass-‐a-‐member-‐s-‐bill-‐for-‐presumed-‐liability-‐between-‐motorists-‐cyclists-‐and-‐pedestrians The outcome of the SNP debate will be known by the 15th November 2014.
22
23
24
25
