Strict liability, law change to protect vulnerable road users?

reeac

spiro wrote: »

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.

Not that simple - the big ship may be "constrained by draught" [i.e. has to stay in a dredged channel] and both vessels are required to maintain a good look out at all times. Only very foolish dinghy sailors go anywhere near big ships. Experienced sailors know that the size of a big ship creates a deceptive impression that it's only moving slowly.

Flyboy152

Mids_Costcutter wrote: »

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/

In other words, forget about justice and pile the blame on the motorists all the time.

Forget the cyclist jumping red lights and riding the wrong way on one-way streets. The pedestrian who, without any warning, walks straight out into the path of a car. The horse rider who can't control their mounts, who ride on the wrong side of the road or directs their horse out of junctions without looking.

The whole point of proving damages is the basic tenet of civil liability.

mikey72

Flyboy152 wrote: »

In other words, forget about justice and pile the blame on the motorists all the time.

Forget the cyclist jumping red lights and riding the wrong way on one-way streets. The pedestrian who, without any warning, walks straight out into the path of a car. The horse rider who can't control their mounts, who ride on the wrong side of the road or directs their horse out of junctions without looking.

The whole point of proving damages is the basic tenet of civil liability.

Maybe it works in the Netherlands as the cyclists stop at red lights.
Even the cycle lanes have traffic lights with other cycle lanes, and again, the cyclists stop. They stop for pedestrians as well.

Mids_Costcutter

Flyboy152 wrote: »

In other words, forget about justice and pile the blame on the motorists all the time.

Forget the cyclist jumping red lights and riding the wrong way on one-way streets. The pedestrian who, without any warning, walks straight out into the path of a car. The horse rider who can't control their mounts, who ride on the wrong side of the road or directs their horse out of junctions without looking.

The whole point of proving damages is the basic tenet of civil liability.

The proposal is not to 'pile the blame on motorists all the time', but merely to reverse the burden of proof. Can you explain what 'proving damages' means? I'm no legal expert but am trying to learn more!

Actually I'd like to add that strict liability has been a part of the English legal system for many years. Strict liability offences include offences relating to the preparation of food, possessing unlawful weapons and drugs, and driving offences such as drink driving and speeding.

The examples you give above all sound like reckless behaviour by equestrians, cyclists etc. In that case the motorist wouldn't be liable. Of course such events happen but what about taking the viewpoint of the innocent (non-motorised) victim?

One of the reasons I started this thread was to understand more about how this proposal could work, and so would especially welcome views of those with legal knowledge or who work in the insurance industry. [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]

[/FONT]

Flyboy152

You proposal suggest that no matter what, it will always be assumed that the motorist is at fault and as in strict liability, there will be no mitigating circumstances. Therefore, the motorist will blamed and prosecuted for something that may not be their fault.

Mids_Costcutter

Flyboy152 wrote: »

You proposal suggest that no matter what, it will always be assumed that the motorist is at fault and as in strict liability, there will be no mitigating circumstances. Therefore, the motorist will blamed and prosecuted for something that may not be their fault.

No it doesn't, the motorist wouldn't be liable if it were shown that the vulnerable road user had acted recklessly. Please read the first post of this thread.

Flyboy152

Mids_Costcutter wrote: »

No it doesn't, the motorist wouldn't be liable if it were shown that the vulnerable road user had acted recklessly. Please read the first post of this thread.

But that then contradicts your proposition of "strict liability."

Mids_Costcutter

Flyboy152 wrote: »

But that then contradicts your proposition of "strict liability."

You're right. I've learnt that to be quite accurate it should be termed "stricter liability".

So any reasons why it wouldn't work in the UK?

Flyboy152

Mids_Costcutter wrote: »

You're right. I've learnt that to be quite accurate it should be termed "stricter liability".

So any reasons why it wouldn't work in the UK?

I am not aware of this term.

Ian_W

Mids_Costcutter wrote: »

The proposal is not to 'pile the blame on motorists all the time', but merely to reverse the burden of proof.

No it doesn't. It is saying the motorist is negligent and therefore liable unless s/he can prove - not that the other party was negligent (reversing the burden) - but that they were RECKLESS, a far higher legal burden. For example, if I pull out of a side road and hit a cyclist that would be careless driving, easy to prove and easy to prove negligence for damages. Reverse situation, cyclist pulls out of side road and collides with car, still careless riding and they could be prosecuted for it but the motorist would still have to fork out as it would not be reckless.

Actually I'd like to add that strict liability has been a part of the English legal system for many years. Strict liability offences include offences ...

Mixing criminal offences and civil proceedings for damages is a bit like comparing apples with oranges, they require vastly different standards of proof and the criminal courts can only find guilty or not whereas the civil courts can find both parties are at fault to some degree and apportion damages accordingly.

Of course such events happen but what about taking the viewpoint of the innocent (non-motorised) victim?

But under the proposals the "innocent victim" need not be anything of the sort. They could have been as careless as hell and totally responsible for the accident but if their actions fell short of recklessness they would still qualify as an innocent victim.

It seems to me that the proposals are simply a couple of groups of road users trying to get others to pay for something they could buy themselves, personal accident insurance.

It is predicated on some dodgy "facts" and assumptions. If this is to protect the most vulnerable, why doesn't it include motorcyclists? There are 4x more motocyclists killed or seriously injured on the roads than pedal cyclists, are they not vulnerable?

The "fact" that it won't increase motor insurance (or not by much) is actually just an assertion without proof. I think, also with no proof, that it would increase car insurance by at least 15-30%. Now go and ask motorists who have seen very large increases in premiums this year and record fuel prices if they want to pay for your "free lunch".