Strict liability, law change to protect vulnerable road users?

sequence

Ian_W wrote: »

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.

I don't have any answers to questions, but right now, any driver can run over and kill a cyclist and probably not face any real charges, or even pay for the damage. I think something has to be done as vulnerable road users get a raw deal compared to a crash between two motorised vehicles. Better education for the police perhaps ? (ie stop accepting the old "the sun was in my eyes I couldn't see him excuse" and do some proper investigation ?

Flyboy152

sequence wrote: »

I don't have any answers to questions, but right now, any driver can run over and kill a cyclist and probably not face any real charges, or even pay for the damage. I think something has to be done as vulnerable road users get a raw deal compared to a crash between two motorised vehicles. Better education for the police perhaps ? (ie stop accepting the old "the sun was in my eyes I couldn't see him excuse" and do some proper investigation ?

That has never been a valid defence.

sarahg1969

sequence wrote: »

I don't have any answers to questions, but right now, any driver can run over and kill a cyclist and probably not face any real charges, or even pay for the damage.

Really - does that happen on a regular basis? In my experience, if someone is not at fault, they are generally able to claim damages from the person who is.

Lum

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.

It also means that a jetski has to give way to a replica Armada-era battleship, right?

I thought steam had to give way to sail because the method of propulsion of a sail boat means that they are less able to change course or direction.

By that logic, pedestrians should give way to cars

Mids_Costcutter

Flyboy152 wrote: »

I am not aware of this term.

I think the premise is basically that liability (for the motorist) would not always apply hence stricter and not strict?

A better explanation can be found here:

http://www.stricterliabilityforus.org.uk/

Flyboy152

Mids_Costcutter wrote: »

I think the premise is basically that liability (for the motorist) would not always apply hence stricter and not strict?

A better explanation can be found here:

http://www.stricterliabilityforus.org.uk/

The whole point of "strict liability" is that there is no compromise. So suggesting a comparitive doesn't make much of a difference.

Strict liability is a criminal law concept, not a civil one.

Mids_Costcutter

Flyboy152 wrote: »

The whole point of "strict liability" is that there is no compromise. So suggesting a comparitive doesn't make much of a difference.

Strict liability is a criminal law concept, not a civil one.

Would be useful to know your basis for these claims as other organisations (Roadpeace, CTC etc.) seem to take a different view. You seem to have some knowledge of law.

Mids_Costcutter

There is a good discussion of this issue on the web site of Shoosmiths, the law firm:

http://www.access-legal.co.uk/legal-news/strict-liability-shat-is-it-cyclists-really-want-lu-2985.htm

Of particular use might be this summary:

"Under our current civil legal system, the burden of proof rests with a claimant to prove any allegations of negligence made against a defendant. If the concept of presumed liability was to be introduced here, the burden of proof will be shifted.

So, after any road traffic accident, the cyclist would not need to prove that the driver of the motor vehicle was negligent in any way. The role would be reversed, with the driver of the vehicle having to prove he was not negligent, and that the cyclist was."


So the term used here is negligent not reckless (as I had read in other versions of the proposal). I hope this might allay some of the concerns raised by motorists in the thread, especially Ian W's last post. Also presumed liability and not strict liability might be a better term.



I'm trying to learn about this issue too and so thank some of those replying who have pushed me into doing this!

thenudeone

I was driving recently on a country road and came up behind a cyclist. I kept back and waited until I could see the road was clear ahead, then pulled out right on to the "wrong" side of the road to overtake the cyclist, leaving plenty of room. A second later without any warning at all, the cyclist decided he wanted to get to a path on the right hand side of the road and turned right, so he was crossing directly in front of me. I slammed on the brakes and stopped a few feet away from him.
If I had been 1 second ahead or I had been going slighty faster, there would have been a dead cyclist underneath my car.

I was on the wrong side of the road at the time. If the burden of proof was on me, how could I possibly have proved that the cyclist was at fault and that I hadn't veered on to the wrong side and hit the cyclist either head on or sideways on after he had turned in an effort to avoid me?

At the moment the courts can look at the balance of probabilities and weigh up the likelihood of different circumstances having occurred. They need to have that ability to avoid unfair outcomes.

Yes - it is "unfair" that cyclists are more vulnerable to injury on the roads. That won't change regardless of the law. But there is no need to compound that unfairness by creating another unfairness when motorists are left to pick up the bill when an accident wasn't their fault.

Strider590

^^ Another reason to buy an in car video camera..... I think we should all have one!