Presumed liability

DaveBeck
Posts: 8
Joined: 10 Aug 2019, 10:07am

Re: Presumed liability

Postby DaveBeck » 22 May 2020, 11:56am

Cyril Haearn wrote:I have never been to Cornwall :?


That's a shame. Perhaps when the Corona pandemic has abated you should come and see what it's like, there are a lot of hotels, campsites, caravan parks etc. that will be crying out for your custom. Plenty of ways to get here and bring your bike too.

It is nice cycling here, not every Cornish road includes a very steep hill. (Although there are a few! :lol: )

mikeymo
Posts: 892
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: Presumed liability

Postby mikeymo » 22 May 2020, 12:14pm

jgurney wrote:
Farrina wrote:In the Sunday Times yesterday it was reported in one of the articles that the Government was intending to legislate to bring in a presumed liability rule as regards cyclists v motor vehicles. No mention was made of the same as regards cyclists v pedestrians (which I would also support).

Wonder if anyone had heard anything concrete ? (can't believe everything you read in the press)


mikeymo wrote:Any chance of a link?


This, I think: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coro ... -zfddmk577


Thanks. So that other people don't have to sign up, the only part of that article pertinent to this discussion is:

"The government is also proposing to introduce “presumed liability” rules, whereby a motorist involved in a collision with a cyclist is presumed to be at fault unless they can prove otherwise."

PH
Posts: 8885
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Presumed liability

Postby PH » 22 May 2020, 12:23pm

Grimpeur wrote:
PH wrote: Other than pricing, how else would you discourage that? .

Why discourage driving at all?

Go read the book :roll:

jgurney
Posts: 797
Joined: 10 May 2009, 8:34am

Re: Presumed liability

Postby jgurney » 22 May 2020, 12:32pm

Farrina wrote: In the Sunday Times yesterday it was reported ..... (can't believe everything you read in the press)


mikeymo wrote: the only part of that article pertinent to this discussion is:
"The government is also proposing to introduce “presumed liability” rules, whereby a motorist involved in a collision with a cyclist is presumed to be at fault unless they can prove otherwise."


I can't find any other sources making the same claim, so I'm inclined to doubt it.

As it would be absurd to apply presumed liability only to collisions with cyclists and not with pedestrians, I suspect if the proposal really exists it will be for applying presumed liability to all cases of collisions between motor vehicles and road users of any other kind.

mikeymo
Posts: 892
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: Presumed liability

Postby mikeymo » 22 May 2020, 12:56pm

PH wrote:
Grimpeur wrote:
PH wrote: Other than pricing, how else would you discourage that? .

Why discourage driving at all?

Go read the book :roll:


I can't find the book you're referring to. It sounds interesting, what's it called?

mikeymo
Posts: 892
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: Presumed liability

Postby mikeymo » 22 May 2020, 1:10pm

Grimpeur wrote:My earlier post was [ - ] because of the wording yet the person my post was directed at is allowed to have "We love safety cameras,we hate Mortons" in his signature.Says it all really.


Yes, you'll find that is the case.

reohn2
Posts: 38725
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Presumed liability

Postby reohn2 » 22 May 2020, 1:14pm

I've not read all the post so forgive me if these points have been already raised.
Presumed liability AIUI is that the bigger vehicle is liable to be more responsible than the smaller one in the event of a collision,this isn't criminal law but civil.
Which means if an HGV collides with a car the HGV's insurance is automatically liable unless it can be proved otherwise,eg; if an HGV is driving down a road at legal speed and a car pulls out of a side road against a stop or giveway sign causing a collision,the HGV's insurance has a case,but not if roles are reversed which is pretty much the law as it stands.
But if there's any abiguity on on each side the civil responsibility onus is on the larger vehicle.
This state of affairs knocks on down the line, car v bike collision or bike v pedestrian.

The problem in the UK AFAICS is a total lack of traffic policing due to police focres across the country being totally under resourced and demoralised by a poor court system and lack of imaginative sentencing which has led to the police running around playing catch up or not.
This state of affairs has given the unscrupulous and downright criminal element of society free rein,hence people driving without car insurance,MOT or VED,not to mention the increase innthe number of drunk or drugged drivers and cars with false reg plates( so called ringed cars),and other motoring crime on our roads,as a result such drivers are less willing to stop in the case of a collision.
And also more likely to bully other road users who they see a invalid road users,but more often than not because such bullies are complete and utter gits who know the state of policing and couldn't give a monkey's for no one else.

A better equipped and better trained traffic police force and a more harsh penalty system whose implementers are willing to hand down maximum sentencing for repeat offenders would,IMO go a long way to solving UK motor crime,but when the tail(motoring lobby)wags the dog(government) and the same government over a period have reduced our policeforce by 20,000 officers and slashed it's funding to the bone,we end up where we are presently, at the mercy of morons both in government and on the roads.

One final point,anyone who thinks paying for motor insurance through raising fuel duty to pay for it will make drivers more responsible,is living on cloud cuckoo land AFAICS,as there's no direct comeback on any a driver who should be involved in a collision proven to be his/her fault,nor is there any extra insurance load for anyone with a string motoring convictions onntheir licence.It's just a bonkers idea full of holes IMHO :?
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

Oldjohnw
Posts: 4125
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: Northumberland

Re: Presumed liability

Postby Oldjohnw » 22 May 2020, 1:20pm

Just a thought: hating people is not generally regarded as a useful way of changing their behaviour.
John

PH
Posts: 8885
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Presumed liability

Postby PH » 22 May 2020, 1:21pm

mikeymo wrote:
PH wrote:
Grimpeur wrote:Why discourage driving at all?

Go read the book :roll:


I can't find the book you're referring to. It sounds interesting, what's it called?

Go find the library :roll:
Seriously, I wan't going to engage with the forum's self confessed troll, but if you really are unable to find any of the thousands of books on the subject there is something wrong with you. If you're looking for a book recommendation, Bike Nation by Peter Walker is an interesting read.
If you're going to reply to this, make it sensible or I'll just ignore it.

mikeymo
Posts: 892
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: Presumed liability

Postby mikeymo » 22 May 2020, 1:31pm

PH wrote:
mikeymo wrote:
PH wrote:Go read the book :roll:


I can't find the book you're referring to. It sounds interesting, what's it called?

Go find the library :roll:
Seriously, I wan't going to engage with the forum's self confessed troll, but if you really are unable to find any of the thousands of books on the subject there is something wrong with you. If you're looking for a book recommendation, Bike Nation by Peter Walker is an interesting read.
If you're going to reply to this, make it sensible or I'll just ignore it.


I thought you were referring to a specific book. I went back over your posts and couldn't find such a reference. Hence my question. I hope that's "sensible" enough for you, if not, feel free to ignore my reply.

Thanks for the recommendation, I'll look it up.

I don't know who the "troll" is, I can't recall anybody confessing to being one. Oh, and thanks for the "eye rolls", it lets me know what level we're at.

mikeymo
Posts: 892
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: Presumed liability

Postby mikeymo » 22 May 2020, 1:54pm

Oldjohnw wrote:Just a thought: hating people is not generally regarded as a useful way of changing their behaviour.


^^this, a thousand times.

https://www.ted.com/talks/megan_phelps_roper_i_grew_up_in_the_westboro_baptist_church_here_s_why_i_left.Megan/discussion#t-3967

Cyril Haearn
Posts: 12939
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am
Location: Between the woods and the water

Re: Presumed liability

Postby Cyril Haearn » 22 May 2020, 4:03pm

Oldjohnw wrote:Just a thought: hating people is not generally regarded as a useful way of changing their behaviour.

I do not express hate to them
I ignore them as far as possible, for example I often wait when I have priority because I know they shall turn too closely across my path and nearly hit me
I guess have accepted that I can do next to nothing to influence them
Entertainer, kidult, curmudgeon
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we dislike mortons

mikeymo
Posts: 892
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: Presumed liability

Postby mikeymo » 22 May 2020, 4:38pm

reohn2 wrote:Which means if an HGV collides with a car the HGV's insurance is automatically liable...


I think you are making the same mistake that others have made, confusing liability with insurance.

You are also making an assumption, that the HGV "has" insurance. I know it was just a turn of phrase, but an HGV cannot be a party to an insurance contract. That contract can only be taken out between legal persons (which includes companies).

The person who is "liable" is (probably) the driver or the driver's employer. Whether that liability is covered by the insurance is a separate matter. It might not be if, for instance, the vehicle's MOT has expired. Or the driver wasn't actually licensed to drive that class of vehicle. All of this depends upon the contract between the insurance company and whoever took out the insurance. Which may be the driver, or the driver's employer.

It would certainly be a mistake to assume that there is some insurance which is "automatically liable". This confusion between liability, insurance and who pays is exactly why the suggestion that insurance should be added to fuel prices is such a bad idea.

Oldjohnw
Posts: 4125
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: Northumberland

Re: Presumed liability

Postby Oldjohnw » 22 May 2020, 4:54pm

Cyril Haearn wrote:
Oldjohnw wrote:Just a thought: hating people is not generally regarded as a useful way of changing their behaviour.

I do not express hate to them
I ignore them as far as possible, for example I often wait when I have priority because I know they shall turn too closely across my path and nearly hit me
I guess have accepted that I can do next to nothing to influence them


You've just changed your signature!
John

reohn2
Posts: 38725
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Presumed liability

Postby reohn2 » 22 May 2020, 5:50pm

mikeymo wrote:
reohn2 wrote:Which means if an HGV collides with a car the HGV's insurance is automatically liable...


I think you are making the same mistake that others have made, confusing liability with insurance.

You are also making an assumption, that the HGV "has" insurance. I know it was just a turn of phrase, but an HGV cannot be a party to an insurance contract. That contract can only be taken out between legal persons (which includes companies).

The person who is "liable" is (probably) the driver or the driver's employer. Whether that liability is covered by the insurance is a separate matter. It might not be if, for instance, the vehicle's MOT has expired. Or the driver wasn't actually licensed to drive that class of vehicle. All of this depends upon the contract between the insurance company and whoever took out the insurance. Which may be the driver, or the driver's employer.

It would certainly be a mistake to assume that there is some insurance which is "automatically liable". This confusion between liability, insurance and who pays is exactly why the suggestion that insurance should be added to fuel prices is such a bad idea.

I'm not playing your game.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.