Think bike

Clark Cross ( Letters, 16 May), mistakes criminal law with civil law. Civil lawyers are interested in fault through a negligent act, not guilt, which is entirely a matter for the criminal legal system.

So, when it comes to road traffic collisions, we are seeking to establish who is liable for the incident and to what extent. In some cases, that can involve a split in liability where both parties are partly at fault for a collision having occurred.

This is a distinction from criminal law. Our concern is ensuring that the injured, or bereaved, are fairly compensated; we are not looking for prison sentences, penalty points or fines.

The sad reality is that if a car hits a cyclist, it is the cyclist who comes off worse. Our argument for presumed liability rests on the fact that the driver of a motorised vehicle must understand the devastating impact a momentary lapse of concentration or carelessness can have and presume to take some responsibility. In our present system, it is always for the injured party to prove fault on another, no matter how significant their injuries may be.

We certainly do not condone illegal behaviour of cyclists and under a system of presumed liability, where a cyclist is liable for a collision, there would be no fault attached to the driver.

We simply want to see a greater sense of responsibility amongst all road users towards the more vulnerable, and advocate a change in the way compensation claims are approached to avoid unnecessary costs and delays for all involved.

JODI GORDON Associate Solicitor Cycle Law Scotland Princes Street, Edinburgh