This is not an early april fools joke, it is the latest idea from the government.

Phil Darnton Chief Executive of Cycling England, an agency funded by the Department for Transport presented proposals to the Government.

Government advisors are looking to introduce a law that states that for insurance purposes the owner of the most powerful vehicle will always be at fault for any collision. So if a cyclist jumps a red light, cycles into you because he wasn’t looking or is practicing riding no handed along the High Street whilst standing on his cross bar – it’s the car drivers fault!

Cyclists are not immune in all of this, if they knock over a pedestrian then they are to blame because their ‘vehicle’ is more powerful.

Most drivers would agree that cyclists need prtotection, they are of course more vulnerable. Most car drivers do make allowances for this but does it make sense to make car drivers automatically at fault for any accident? Anyone who has been an a main road in Central London is only too aware of the crazy antics of some of the despatch riders, weaving in and out of traffic at speed. Should they be encouraged by making the driver responsible regardless of the clyclists actions?

Many drivers see this as yet another attack by the government on the car driver, the majority of whom are law abiding. Is this just another attempt by the governemt to get more money from the already squeezed motorist?

As a motoring Solicitor one of the offences I get asked about often is drink driving

No one would condone drink driving, it is rightly considered one of the most serious motoring offences and certainly something that you would need advice from a specialist Motoring Solicitor.

There are a number of misconceptions about drink driving and in particular about failing to provide a sample.

 It is one of the few offences (along with terrorism) that the police can take action in the police station before a solicitor arrives. You are not entitled to wait for a solicitor to arrive, or to give advice over the phone before you give a breath sample.

If you fail to provide a sample then unless you have a reasonable excuse you will be guilty of a offence. This offence carries a disqualification – just like drink driving and the sentencing guidelines for failing to provide are more serious than drink driving.

A lot of people make the mistake of thinking that because they were not drunk or were not driving then they do not have to give a sample. This is plainly wrong. If you were not driving it is essential that you provide a sample, even if you are over the limit you have a defence to drink driving – namely that you weren’t drink driving. If you don’t give a sample because you were not driving then you are guilty of failing to provide a sample and the fact that you weren’t driving is no defence at all.

What counts as a reasonable excuse? Generally it has to be a medical defence and one that can be supported by a doctors report at a later date. The fact that you have a cold and a tight chest is not going to be enough. It is not hard to blow long enough on the machine to get a sample, I have done it often (for research only obviously!)  If you suffer from asthma or a chest complaint then that may be a defence and you need to mention it to the police at the time.

If you think that you may have a defence to failing to provide a specimen or drink drive it is essential that you contact a specialist motoring solicitor as soon as possible.