Strict liability, law change to protect vulnerable road users?

Mids_Costcutter

molerat wrote: »

Narrow footpath with an alleyway between properties. Two kids ran full pelt out of the alley and straight across the road. What speed was too fast for that situation then ?

Stood on the brakes but still hit one of them (or he hit me part way down the front left wing). Police said not my fault and later the mother appeared at my house with little scrote that got knocked over in tow to apologise to me, wouldn't happen now.

I would say that over 20mph would be too fast in a residential area. At 20mph 95% of pedestrians will survive if hit by a motor vehicle and kids will be kids.

Mids_Costcutter

Strider590 wrote: »

The "vulnerable" can do some pretty stupid things sometimes!

Yes they can, but so can all road users from a HGV driver to a school girl on foot. My point is: shouldn't there be a greater duty of care placed on the drivers of motor vehicles who are more likely to inflict injury regardless of who is to blame?

birkee

Mids_Costcutter wrote: »

I would say that over 20mph would be too fast in a residential area. At 20mph 95% of pedestrians will survive if hit by a motor vehicle and kids will be kids.

Dead ones!
No excuse for causing accidents. Blame parents!

birkee

Mids_Costcutter wrote: »

Yes they can, but so can all road users from a HGV driver to a school girl on foot. My point is: shouldn't there be a greater duty of care placed on the drivers of motor vehicles who are more likely to inflict injury regardless of who is to blame?

Absolutely!

So why target motorists instead of all road users?

(example) Sure, I missed the kid running into the road, but I swerved into an oncoming car and killed a couple and two children instead.

I'll take the careless pedestrian if pushed to choose my course of actions.
Did so with a dog once, when I had an elderly couple in the back seats. The choice was the dog, or running into oncoming traffic, or into parked cars, and I was doing less than 20mph before anyone has a comment on that.
I would have still taken out a pedestrian that leapt out in front of me, in preference to risking myself and my passengers though.
One careless pedestrian? Or four other people? No contest!

Graham29

molerat wrote: »

Narrow footpath with an alleyway between properties. Two kids ran full pelt out of the alley and straight across the road. What speed was too fast for that situation then ?

Stood on the brakes but still hit one of them (or he hit me part way down the front left wing). Police said not my fault and later the mother appeared at my house with little scrote that got knocked over in tow to apologise to me, wouldn't happen now.

This happened in my village, the child wasn't so lucky and was killed outright. The car driver was put through the ringer and was totally cleared of any wrong doing at the inquest. The kid literally came out of nowhere, the only safe speed there would have been driving at a snail pace. You can't predict everything that is going to happen on the road, unless you can start reading people's minds.

Mids_Costcutter

birkee wrote: »

Absolutely!

So why target motorists instead of all road users?

(example) Sure, I missed the kid running into the road, but I swerved into an oncoming car and killed a couple and two children instead.

I'll take the careless pedestrian if pushed to choose my course of actions.
Did so with a dog once, when I had an elderly couple in the back seats. The choice was the dog, or running into oncoming traffic, or into parked cars, and I was doing less than 20mph before anyone has a comment on that.
I would have still taken out a pedestrian that leapt out in front of me, in preference to risking myself and my passengers though.
One careless pedestrian? Or four other people? No contest!

Motorists should in my view have a greater duty of care (in civil law) as they are in control of vehicles that are likely to cause injury (or worse) to more vulnerable road users in the event of a collision. Is the system of law really fair and civilised when an innocent and injured person is required to prove fault? If you see that as targeting motorists, then yes they would be targeted.

Again in the scenario you give if the pedestrian is shown to have behaved recklessly then they (their insurer) wouldn't be liable.

Sadly many motorists do not drive with necessary care and attention and at speeds appropriate for the road and traffic conditions. Strict liability in civil law could help improve driving standards.

mikey72

We've had cyclists hit pensioners, we've had pensioners run over and kill other pensioners with mobility scooters.
Strict liability would only work if compulsory insurance was mandatory for eveyone, cyclists, mobility scooters, then the least vulnerable are truely protected.
Choosing "motorists", and "everything else", is just unreasonable.

ElkyElky

I hate how you get those pedestrians who dodge traffic to cross the road, just metres away from a set of traffic lights they could push.

Ian_W

mikey72 wrote: »

Choosing "motorists", and "everything else", is just unreasonable.

No it's not, I think the principle that "biggest dog in the fight pays" is only right but these proposals just don't go far enough.

Motorcyclists are more vulnerable than most, surely it's right that if one comes speeding around a blind bend on the wrong side of the road and collides with my car I should have to pay for his injuries.

I drive a large 4x4 type vehicle and if a Micra runs into the back of me whilst I'm stopped at lights its driver is likely to be more vulnerable to injury than me, so why shouldn't I pay for that as well?

However, if I pull out in front of a bus or heavy goods, well I deserve the compo, don't I?

Perhaps where a pedestrian falls over or a cyclist falls off their bike the nearest car should be held responsible?

You couldn't make it up!! Well you can, by claiming it won't cost more for car insurance - of course it will. Or that it is so difficult to prove negligence when courts will apportion blame on a % basis in civil cases so whilst the dozy pedestrian or cyclist maybe mainly to blame they will find some blame on the driver as they are insured.

I wish the OP well with their campaign, it's probably a daft enough idea to become law, if not here then with the Euro lot. Oh, and to declare an interest, I spend more time walking these days than driving.

sequence

Ian_W wrote: »

No it's not, I think the principle that "biggest dog in the fight pays" is only right but these proposals just don't go far enough.

Motorcyclists are more vulnerable than most, surely it's right that if one comes speeding around a blind bend on the wrong side of the road and collides with my car I should have to pay for his injuries.

>>> You would not have to pay as it is clear the motorcyclist would be at fault.

I drive a large 4x4 type vehicle and if a Micra runs into the back of me whilst I'm stopped at lights its driver is likely to be more vulnerable to injury than me, so why shouldn't I pay for that as well?

>>> I believe the proposal are for strict liability unless you can prove other wise. You example here is irrelevant, the strict liability isn't based on the size of your car or engine. In this example you would not have to pay because it's clear it's not your fault.

However, if I pull out in front of a bus or heavy goods, well I deserve the compo, don't I?

>>> Again, it would be clear that it's your fault, thus you would receive nothing, except high insurance premiums.

Perhaps where a pedestrian falls over or a cyclist falls off their bike the nearest car should be held responsible?


You couldn't make it up!! Well you can, by claiming it won't cost more for car insurance - of course it will. Or that it is so difficult to prove negligence when courts will apportion blame on a % basis in civil cases so whilst the dozy pedestrian or cyclist maybe mainly to blame they will find some blame on the driver as they are insured.

I wish the OP well with their campaign, it's probably a daft enough idea to become law, if not here then with the Euro lot. Oh, and to declare an interest, I spend more time walking these days than driving.

I hope this is brought in!