Pressure has been mounting on policymakers to introduce presumed liability into civil law to protect vulnerable road users.

As it currently stands, if someone wishes to proceed with a civil claim following an accident the onus is on them to prove the other party was to blame for causing the accident.

This can be a time-consuming exercise which involves securing evidence from independent witnesses, experts (eg accident reconstruction professionals) and the police to establish blame.

If the other party, or defendant, denies they are at fault then this may prevent the victim from getting quick access to the rehabilitation they need to fully recover, something often necessary in cases involving cyclists or pedestrians.

A delay in physical or psychological treatment following an accident can significantly impact the time it takes an injured person to recover from an accident, and in some instances prevent full recovery from happening at all.

Even where liability is established against the defendant, the injured party could still be found partly to blame if the defendant can prove they had some fault in the accident.

This is known as contributory negligence, and can mean that the percentage of damages the pursuer receives is reduced by an amount decided by the presiding judge.

Presumed liability would change the way claims progress by shifting the onus of proof from the pursuer to the defender.

In effect, the party deemed to be at fault would be guilty until proven innocent.

The defender, or in most instances, their insurance company, would need to convince the court that blame rested completely with the pursuer in order to defend the case. This is similar to how contributory negligence is argued by the defender at present.

The concept of presumed liability to protect vulnerable road users might seem new to the UK, but it has been implemented into the laws of many European countries for some time.

It would only apply to civil claims being brought against an at-fault driver and not any criminal charges. This is a positive step towards ensuring quicker and fairer justice for anyone who is injured or killed on Scotland’s roads.

However, presumed liability serves as a remedy to right a wrong rather than a means of preventing a wrong in the first place. Unfortunately, there will always be accidents on our roads and people will get hurt. The efforts that are made to minimise these accidents are key and should include greater education for all road users (regardless of their mode of transport) and massive improvements within the transport system as a whole.

Both rural areas and city centres are beset by roads that are simply not fit for purpose.

They are too congested and a chronic lack of investment means they are often poorly maintained. Just look at how often potholes are the focus of road users’ ire. However, we have seen signs that the Scottish Government and local authorities are taking this problem seriously with the implementation of 20mph zones in Glasgow and a similar rollout taking place in Edinburgh.

To simply focus on speed as an issue is blinkered however. In fact, many serious and fatal accidents occur below the reduced speed limits.

To maximise the impact of these new speed limits, they must form part of a coherent strategy that will address road user behaviour and the appalling state of many of our roads.

Presumed liability should be welcomed as it offers greater civil protection and faster access to rehabilitation for vulnerable road users involved in an accident.

That being said more must be done to address the causes of accidents rather than how to deal with the aftermath. There remains a need for a greater focus on prevention rather than cure. Presumed liability will go some way to protecting cyclists and pedestrians, but the underlying problems will still be there.

Scott Whyte is managing director for Watermans Accident Claims and Care.