Strict liability, law change to protect vulnerable road users?

Lum

Strict liability works well in more civilised European countries, such as The Netherlands.

Here in the land of militant cyclists and 3rd generation chav idiots it would be an ambulance chaser's charter. It would lead to a rise in insurance premiums as they would go down as a fault claim under the UK system, thus a loss of NCB.

Ultimately we'd see more uninsured drivers and poorly maintained cars, more KSIs and a new revenue stream for the work-shy, funded by the likes of you and I.

birkee

Mids_Costcutter wrote: »

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.

If the pedestrian behaves carelessly, they also are in control of a car, as they cause the driver to react. Sometimes badly.
Same responsibility!

The second highlighted sentence makes no sense!
The pedestrians insurer (what insurer?) wouldn't be liable? Why not?

sequence

birkee wrote: »

If the pedestrian behaves carelessly, they also are in control of a car, as they cause the driver to react. Sometimes badly.
Same responsibility!

The second highlighted sentence makes no sense!
The pedestrians insurer (what insurer?) wouldn't be liable? Why not?

He means your insurer (assuming you're the driver). If you can prove it wasn't your fault, ie the pedestrian jumped out in front of you) then you won't be liable and can even sue the pedestrian for damages.

It's not hard to understand, but typically we get the usual silly suggestions of "militant cyclists swerving in front of cars to get a quick buck". Yes, really there's a lot of people out there willing to kill themselves to make a few grand in compo :rotfl: ((but I wouldn't rule out the odd one or two.)

Lum

If you're referring to my post. I didn't suggest that all the militant cyclists would be causing accidents. I do believe that plenty of them will take advantage of their new found legal protections to be even more annoying and cause more problems.

I'm thinking, in particular, of the Critical Mass idiots.

sequence

Well so long as you drive sensibly, what do you suppose they are going to do ? (I don't like critical mass idiots!).

Lum

Well their own website describes them as "an activist bicycling group that organizes mass rides that disrupt [sic] motor traffic". They typically gather in groups of 100+ in busy city centres, such as London, at rush hour.

And yes, from the footage I've seen if the lights change while the group is half way through a junction, they don't bother to stop.

Mids_Costcutter

Lum wrote: »

Strict liability works well in more civilised European countries, such as The Netherlands.

Here in the land of militant cyclists and 3rd generation chav idiots it would be an ambulance chaser's charter. It would lead to a rise in insurance premiums as they would go down as a fault claim under the UK system, thus a loss of NCB.

Ultimately we'd see more uninsured drivers and poorly maintained cars, more KSIs and a new revenue stream for the work-shy, funded by the likes of you and I.

As pointed out in the first post strict liability has not resulted in higher insurance premiums for motorists in the countries that have adopted it. Is the UK really that uncivilised?

Strider590

Mids_Costcutter wrote: »

Is the UK really that uncivilised?

Cycle to work in rush hour and find out for yourself

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvJBNiEVSug

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiz6UqT75m4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyqZe5iRPWo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTCL5MDqvlE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WHf0y-AU4I





Plenty of vid on Youtube, some of the worst seem to have been removed though......

geri1965_2

sequence wrote: »

It's not hard to understand, but typically we get the usual silly suggestions of "militant cyclists swerving in front of cars to get a quick buck". Yes, really there's a lot of people out there willing to kill themselves to make a few grand in compo :rotfl: ((but I wouldn't rule out the odd one or two.)

You are clearly a lefty, or someone educated in social sciences. Maybe both!

birkee

Strider590 wrote: »

Cycle to work in rush hour and find out for yourself

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvJBNiEVSug

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiz6UqT75m4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyqZe5iRPWo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTCL5MDqvlE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WHf0y-AU4I


Plenty of vid on Youtube, some of the worst seem to have been removed though......

All valid observations Strider.
The difficulty seems to be people accepting faults from all sides.

The tendancy on these forums, seems to be to take a side, and then fight that aginst all comers with a singular viewpoint.

Don't you think discussions would be more effective, if people accepted the truth of the real world? It's not motorists, It's not cyclists, it's not pedestrians, it's a percentage of all of them.