Few readers can fail to have been shocked by the recent tragedies occurring on our roads. The recent death of a pedestrian said to have been using a zebra crossing and the grievous injury of another motorist getting into his car in the same incident should have highlighted the fact that road users at both ends of the scale are just as vulnerable.

Add to this recent stories in the press of a child caught driving his parents’ BMW, the hit-and-run involving a person on a bicycle and the acquittal of a bowser driver involved in a collision with a person on a bicycle and it becomes clear that there is not only something very wrong in the way we drive but also that we have become immune to the responsibility carried for the injuries and fatalities caused on our roads.

It is time to look seriously at presumed liability in civil cases brought when seeking compensation after road tragedies like these. This does not interfere with the presumption of innocence in criminal cases, it merely shifts the onus of proof onto the less vulnerable in civil cases.

It would also reduce insurance premiums, because people would drive more carefully, a proven point in other EU states that have presumed liability and a cost saving that is to the car driver’s advantage.

It also reduces the delay suffered by the victims or their families in accessing compensation from civil cases, following a number of years spent determining criminal cases.

Unfortunately, all too often it is the victims trying to prove their innocence, not only in both courts but on the road as well.

It is time for that mentality to change. After all a zebra crossing should be a safe place to cross the road, not just a slightly less risky one.