Strict liability, law change to protect vulnerable road users?

Mids_Costcutter

If a motor vehicle hits a pedestrian, cyclist or equestrian, the non-motorised road user is unfortunately far more likely to be injured. As a result you might expect that drivers have a greater duty of care for non-motorised users’ safety. However unlike most other European countries, this is not currently recognised under UK law. In the event of a crash, this often makes it very difficult for non-motorised users to obtain compensation for damages.

Under the current civil liability system the burden of proof is on the victim to prove the other party was negligent. An injured pedestrian or cyclist will be far less likely to recall in detail how a collision occurred: necessary to be a good witness in court. There will often not be any independent witnesses. For these reasons a number of organisations including the Cyclists’ Touring Club and road safety charity, Roadpeace have been calling for a system of ‘strict liability’ where the burden of proof is reversed: vulnerable victims, not drivers, are the ones assumed innocent with regard to causing their injuries. A driver would not be liable though if it can be shown that the non-motorised user acted recklessly.

Drivers would not be criminalised under these proposals, which relate to civil law only (innocent until proven guilty applies to criminal justice). Especially for moneysavers, it is important to highlight that no driver would face financial ruin as a result of strict liability: the claim would be met by their insurer. Strict liability has not resulted in higher insurance premiums for motorists in the countries that have adopted it.

So, would this help to create an environment whereby pedestrians, cyclists, equestrians are treated with more respect and courtesy on the road?

Could strict liability even help to simplify and speed up insurance compensation claims and thereby save money? The insurance industry itself (ABI) has called for a fairer and faster compensation system for the injured.

Any views would be welcome, especially from anyone from the legal profession or insurance industry.

Further information is available on the Roadpeace web site:

http://www.roadpeace.org/change/safer_streets/stricter_liability/

sequence

I hope this is brought in, I support this.

societys_child

From what I've heard, courts already tend to come down on the side of pedestrians when involved in an RTA.

bigjl

I think they should introduce jaywalking laws.

I think the only thing to be considered in a collision is who was doing what and how their actions contributed to the collision.

I think you are underestimating the ability for the Ambulance Service to ascertain what happened in a collision by comparing the mechanism of injury and the damage to the vehicles involved.

The Police are also very good at identifying things like the speed and direction of vehicles and where any pedestrians or cyclists where through detailed reconstruction of the collision scene.

This is why the Police spend so long on scene taking measurements.

If any law is brought in, civil or criminal that assumes that the cyclist or pedestrian is innocent is wrong.

There is nothing wrong with the current system.

After ten years in the ambulance service in London I can assure you that no blame is apportioned just because a cyclist or pedestrian is involved.

What is wrong with expecting cyclists and pedestrians to have a little bit more responsibity for their own actions.

Of the hundreds of RTC's I have attended in a professional capacity, where a cyclist or pedestrian is involved, I am afraid that the majority are due to an error on the part of the cyclist or pedestrian.

If the Police or Ambulance think a driver of a car is at fault I can assure that neither group is shy about coming forward about what happened.


Automatically aportioning liability will just cause pedestrians to walk across the road like lemmings and for cyclist to act in ever more reckless ways.


Wether you cycle or not, wether you walk a lot rather than use a car or public transport or not everybody needs to be responsible for their own actions and accept the consequences of their actions.


As you may have gathered, I don't support anything that gives an automatic right allowing anybody to behave without responsibility.


These kinds of well meaning interference will only be abused, by Ambulance chasing lawyers and anybody looking to make a fast buck off a dodgy insurance claim, ever wondered why Insurance premiums are so high at the moment?

mikey72

If you include the need for cyclists to be insured by law, and a criminal offence not to be, then pass the same strict liabilty onto them if they hit pedestrians, by the same arguement, maybe it would be worthwhile.

sarahg1969

"What is wrong with expecting cyclists and pedestrians to have a little bit more responsibity for their own actions."

Hear, hear. In my experience, it is always assumed that pedestrians and cyclists should be entitled to compensation, just because they are injured in an accident. When enquiries have been concluded and the car driver is found not to be at fault, they often find it hard to accept, because they may have been very badly injured, and feel they 'deserve' to be compensated.

KillerWatt

bigjl wrote: »

What is wrong with expecting cyclists and pedestrians to have a little bit more responsibity for their own actions.

Nanny has been grooming the sheeple for years to believe that it is always somebody else's fault or responsibility, and they have obviously been successful judging by the seemingly erratic behaviour of a high percentage of peds/cyclists/horsey types/etc that we see these days.

spiro

This on reflects what has been maritime law for years - Steam has to give way to sail. In effect this can mean a car ferry has to give way to an 8' dingy.

maninthestreet

The victim of a road accident and a witness to the same accident can't be the same person.

birkee

bigjl wrote: »

I think they should introduce jaywalking laws.

I think the only thing to be considered in a collision is who was doing what and how their actions contributed to the collision.

If any law is brought in, civil or criminal that assumes that the cyclist or pedestrian is innocent is wrong.

There is nothing wrong with the current system.

After ten years in the ambulance service in London I can assure you that no blame is apportioned just because a cyclist or pedestrian is involved.

What is wrong with expecting cyclists and pedestrians to have a little bit more responsibity for their own actions.

Of the hundreds of RTC's I have attended in a professional capacity, where a cyclist or pedestrian is involved, I am afraid that the majority are due to an error on the part of the cyclist or pedestrian.

I think this says it all!

Inactive

We are all pedestrians.;)