The recent partially successful attempt by the lawyers of the accused in the case regarding the involuntary death of cycling philanthropist Clifford Micallef, to defend their client’s rights due to his being a vulnerable person, must surely bring into sharp focus the necessity for presumed liability for road traffic accident victims in civil cases.

For clarity, presumed liability would have nothing to do with a criminal case or the presumption of innocence. Just like occupational health and safety law, it would merely change the onus of proof for the least powerful of road users and in reality favour pedestrians the most, in this case in a civil context.

It would also down insurance premiums in making our roads safer by encouraging all road users without exception to ride and drive more responsibly.

The Micallef case has gone on for six years and has yet to be decided. How long will the civil case go on for? But in this recent twist (that also sets a far more dangerous precedent) do you really have to ask exactly who is the most vulnerable here?