Strict liability, law change to protect vulnerable road users?

Lum

asbokid wrote: »

If that's the best opinion that the late Lord Denning could muster, then he was distinctly overrated. My guess is that you have taken his quote out of context, or else things have dramatically progressed since 1982 when he stated that.

They didn't have no-win no-fee in 1982.

Mids_Costcutter

Bongles wrote: »

There are three groups of motorists:

a) Those who have never been involved in an incident involving harming a more vulnerable road user
b) Those who have been involved in such an incident, where the other party was at fault
c) Those who have been involved in such an incident where they themselves were at fault

The only difference between those in group b and those in group a is luck. Luck is not sufficient grounds for taking someone out of group b (i.e. someone who, if it weren't for that luck, would be in group a) and putting them into group c. In a case where the facts cannot be established after the event, it makes no more sense to hold the motorist who happened to be involved liable than it would to randomly draw a driving licence number from the DVLA's database and hold that unlucky licence holder responsible.

Is it really just luck? I don't think that behaviour on the roads is as black and white as that.

Yes the motorist should have the burden of proof: they are in control of a dangerous instrument. But having the burden of proof is not the same as being held liable. And if in a few cases where they really are not at fault and found liable then the insurance company pays. This is far preferable to the current system which discriminates against pedestrians and cyclists.

If forms of this system of civil compensation work well in so many other countries, why do you believe such a law change couldn't work in the UK?

Bongles

Mids_Costcutter wrote: »

But having the burden of proof is not the same as being held liable.

Yes it is, and I think it is very disingenuous of the campaign to suggest otherwise. In the only instances where this proposal would have any effect - cases where the facts can not be established - having the burden of proof is exactly the same as being held liable. The sole purpose of the proposal is to make that so.

In an incident involving a motorist and a more vulnerable road user, e.g. a cyclist, there are three conclusions that might be reached:

1) That the cyclist was at fault and therefore is liable for any loss suffered by the motorist
2) That the motorist was at fault and is therefore liable for any loss suffered by the cyclist
3) That the facts cannot be established and so no conclusion can be drawn as to which party is liable for the losses suffered by the other

It makes no more sense to pretend that the 3rd example is identical to the 2nd than it would to pretend that the 3rd example is identical to the 1st. The 3rd example is different from both the 1st and 2nd and it is not the law's place to gloss over that fact.

Mids_Costcutter wrote: »

This is far preferable to the current system which discriminates against pedestrians and cyclists.

There is no discrimination in the current system. Indeed, it is the introduction of discrimination where there is currently none that makes the proposal abhorrent. The proposal discriminates between different types of road user because, when one road user claims from another, the placing of the burden of proof would depend on what types of road users were involved.

A system where, when a cyclist claims from a motorist then the burden of proof lies with the motorist and when a motorist claims from a cyclist then the burden of proof lies with the cyclist would not be discriminatory because the same rule - burden of proof lies with the defendant - would be applied to all. But that's not what is proposed.

Mids_Costcutter wrote: »

If forms of this system of civil compensation work well in so many other countries, why do you believe such a law change couldn't work in the UK?

I haven't said it couldn't work - has anyone?. Of course it could work. A system of strict (or stricter) liability being with the more vulnerable road user involved could work (in that the rules would be known and could be worked to) but such a system, though workable, would be no more fair than what is proposed. None of the criticism has cited lack of workability as being the flaw in this proposal. The flaw is that it is a gross affront to logic.

Lum

I suspect a lot of people in support of such a system would suddenly change their minds once they fell foul of it.

Suppose you live at home and spent the entirity of, say, 27th April in bed. On that same day a cyclist in your area is hit by someone and mistakenly or deliberately gives your numberplate to the police.

You now have to prove that you didn't drive your car that day. How the hell are you supposed to do that?

While I've never been in an accident with a cyclist I was once accused of clipping the rear quarter of a double decker bus with my wing mirror then driving off... the driver also tried to claim whiplash... a copper turned up and wouldn't accept a viewing of the undamaged car as proof as we "could've had it repaired".

Fortunately it was a company car with a satellite tracker system fitted and we were able to show the copper that the car was in a different city on the day in question at which point they dropped the investigation, however most people don't have such gadgets fitted to their cars.

Dippypud

A few years back, whilst waiting to turn right, some numpty rear ended me, he refused to give details and drove off.

Off goes me to Cop Shop gives details etc. time passes letter arrives from Police, registered owner in Yorkshire has never been to London, blah, blah... Motor Insurers' Bureau gets in touch, says me "chap lives round corner, not in Pudsey", MIB says "might be ringer, we'll be in touch".

MIB turn up at my house, as luck would have it the numpty parked his car in the bays at the side of my house. MIB guy takes 'photos and says "easy to sort this one", and toddles off happy.

I couldn't 'prove' the guy didn't live in Yorkshire unless he was there that day, I was just lucky...don't know if the guy in Pudsey had any tickets or other stuff from the 'ringer'.