Accident liability

Jodi Gordon, of a firm of Edinburgh solicitors specialising in compensation claims for cyclists, demands that motorists must automatically be at fault in any collision between car and bike (Letters, 18 May).

This would be a perversion of justice which would mean that motorists would be guilty until proven innocent, which may be impossible.

I have cycled from Edinburgh to Spain and back, and from Land’s End to John O’groats, so I have empathy with cyclists. But many now, alas, do not show much in the way of road sense. They seem to carry a sense of entitlement and often prefer to cycle abreast instead of “oiling up”, as the term was in the past.

Ms Gordon states the obvious that in a collision between a cycle and a car the cyclist will always come off worse. The same is true with motorcyclists who so burden the NHS. Does she believe that in a crash between a motorbike and a car the motorist would also have to prove his or her innocence? WILLIAM LONESKIE

Oxton, Lauder

Jodi Gordon of Cycle Law Scotland responds to my earlier letter by saying there is a difference between criminal law and civil law (Letters 18 May).

This is correct, but she still wants “presumed liability” against the motorist and dresses it up in fine words such as: “Our concern is ensuring that the injured, or bereaved, are fairly compensated.”

She has failed to answer my question that were a cyclist to injure a pedestrian would the cyclist have “presumed liability”?

If she wants more understanding from the motorist she should campaign for cyclists to have visible identification, third party insurance, pass a proficiency test and contribute to the specialised cycle network specifically for them, not motorists.

CLARK CROSS Springfield Road, Linlithgow