Strict liability, law change to protect vulnerable road users?

Dippypud

Can't help but agree with that...

Mids_Costcutter

thenudeone wrote: »

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.

With the proposed change to civil compensation, the courts would still be able to look at the balance of probabilities and weigh up the likelihood of different circumstances having occurred. Nothing would change there. It's not true that motorists would pick up the bill either: their insurance company would pay. One of the aims of the proposal is to promote safer driving and make motorists aware of their responsibilities. Overall this would lead to fewer injuries and fatalities and hence fewer compensation payouts.

With the scenario which you experienced, I really don't know if you can be so sure that you wouldn't be able to show (not prove) that the cyclist was negligent: it's hypothetical because thankfully a collision didn't happen. It's my view also that the vast majority of cyclists don't have a death wish and are not likely to make such manoeuvres.

asbokid

bigjl wrote: »

There was a person in East London several years ago that got an, erm, appendage stuck in one of those wide neck Lucozade bottles, he waited all night to dial 999, he then refused to travel, but called back 4 hours later.

Come on, tell the whole story, nurse!

The patient suffered the injury as an inpatient at the Homerton, the Turpin ward, iirc. Staff had been ordered to cut down on waste, including the unnecessary use of pee bottles. The partially sighted old man, bursting for a Jimmy, spotted the Lucozade bottle on the bedside table of his neighbour and thought, "what the hell..the girth looks right.."

I remember it in the Advertiser.

asbokid

Mids_Costcutter wrote: »

It's not true that motorists would pick up the bill either: their insurance company would pay..

Just a minute..

That is a very disingenous claim.

Insurance companies aren't going to pay the extra costs. We are!

Insurance premiums are obviously going to rise to pay for the extra claims under this sinister piece of legislation.

What is it with recent governments and their unhealthy interest in reversing the legal burden of proof (RLBOP)?

A very dangerous legal precedence has been set, and further draconian RLBOP laws are on the horizon.

There is another article in the press today about yet another new law that reverses the burden of proof on motorists.

Drivers will soon be found guilty of driving without insurance, if they don't have a valid policy in force at all times.

There is worrying talk about cars being clamped on our own driveways!

Drivers who don't renew their insurance in time face having their car clamped on their drive

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1378219/Drivers-dont-renew-insurance-time-face-having-car-clamped.html

asbokid

sarahg1969 wrote: »

In my experience, it is always assumed that pedestrians and cyclists should be entitled to compensation, just because they are injured in an accident. When enquiries have been concluded and the car driver is found not to be at fault, they often find it hard to accept, because they may have been very badly injured, and feel they 'deserve' to be compensated.

Yes, and I've heard this argument used by drivers of performance cars who are in collision with low value vehicles.

"I don't care who is to blame. The fact is your dirty old van is worthless in comparison to my Porsche. So you should pay for the repairs!"

Mids_Costcutter

asbokid wrote: »

Just a minute..

That is a very disingenous claim.

Insurance companies aren't going to pay the extra costs. We are!

Insurance premiums are obviously going to rise to pay for the extra claims under this sinister piece of legislation.

There is no evidence that insurance premiums would rise: this hasn't happened in other countries that have adopted a presumed / stricter liability system of compensation for non-motorised road users under civil law. As I wrote in my previous post, one of the aims of the proposal is to promote safer driving and make motorists aware of their responsibilities. Overall this would lead to fewer injuries and fatalities and hence fewer compensation payouts.

Bongles

There seems to be a horrendous confusion in this proposal between severity and probability. A negligent act on the part of a motorist is a greater wrong than a negligent act on the part of a pedestrian or cyclist because the motorist, in charge of their ton-plus of steel death machine, has a greater ability to harm others. However, the fact that one party was in a position to cause greater harm than the other if they had been negligent is no justification whatsoever for presuming, beyond what is supported by evidence, that that party, in fact, was negligent.

Mids_Costcutter

Bongles wrote: »

There seems to be a horrendous confusion in this proposal between severity and probability. A negligent act on the part of a motorist is a greater wrong than a negligent act on the part of a pedestrian or cyclist because the motorist, in charge of their ton-plus of steel death machine, has a greater ability to harm others. However, the fact that one party was in a position to cause greater harm than the other if they had been negligent is no justification whatsoever for presuming, beyond what is supported by evidence, that that party, in fact, was negligent.

The late Lord Denning, formerly one of the most senior and respected judges in England and Wales, expressed a different view (in 1982):

“In the present state of motor traffic, I am persuaded that any civilised system of law should require, as a matter of principle, that the person who uses this dangerous instrument on the roads – dealing death and destruction all round – should be liable to make compensation to anyone who is killed or injured in consequence of the use of it. There should be liability without proof of fault. To require an injured person to prove fault results in the gravest injustice to many innocent persons who have not the wherewithal
to prove it.”

And what Lord Denning was proposing then was true strict liability, not merely a reversal of the burden of proof (presumed or stricter liability) as Roadpeace, Cyclenation and others are proposing now in 2011. There is every justification for stricter liability under civil law.

Bongles

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.

asbokid

Mids_Costcutter wrote: »

To require an injured person to prove fault results in the gravest injustice to many innocent persons who have not the wherewithal to prove it.”

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.

Every year, thousands of pedestrians and cyclists are injured by motor vehicles. Whether they are funded through conditional fee agreements, or otherwise, most of those injured will obtain the wherewithal to prove fault.