Just had a reply from mine (Ed Vaisey) - "However, as a member of the Government, I am not in a position to sign any Early Day Motions". He did, however, also say
"I understand your concerns about cyclist and pedestrian safety, and this is an issue the Government takes very seriously. I welcome the Department for Transport’s promotion of cycling as part of its sustainable travel initiatives.
Under UK law, the burden of proof is on the victim to prove the other party is negligent in road traffic personal injury cases. Under ‘stricter liability’ this would be reversed and the driver would have to prove the pedestrian or cyclist was negligent. It would be an anomaly if this was changed for collisions with pedestrians and cyclists. It could also lead to unfair results in cases where the motorist is driving entirely responsibly and the accident is caused by the irresponsible or negligent behaviour of a cyclist or pedestrian.
Evidence from the Think evaluation and other research suggest that driver behaviour change is more likely to be motivated by serious personal consequences, whether it be death or injury to themselves or others, or criminal punishments such as loss of their licence or imprisonment, than they are by any insurance issues. The Department for Transport has therefore focused on those approaches to behaviour change rather than insurance or liability.
Whilst the law often uses strict liability in situations where there is likely to be an imbalance in terms of responsibility and where there is an inherent danger, I do not consider that there is merit in a change from the current standards in favour of stricter liability. To justify any such change, it would be important to have strong evidence of a benefit. "
I found this particularly disappointing, as it suggests that there will only be "driver behaviour change" as a result of further carnage. I have written again, expressing the view that law change of this nature is unlikely to improve matters much, given such widespread disregard of existing laws, and that the threat of higher insurance premiums following any claim is likely to be rather more "behaviour changing". (Having read his response again, I am considering a further response re the insurance liability issue - the issue of "unfairness" would be no worse than currently, where the innocent victim has to prove negligence.)
Let's see if this brings forth any further response.
