Presumed liability petition

[atlas_shrugged]

Petition for adoption of a law of presumed liability to protect vulnerable road users:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/580595

Just north of Cranebridge a mother was walking on a path with her baby beside the A10. A vehicle careered off the road killing the baby and hospitalising the mother. This family should not have to wait for an inquest in three years time held in secret at a location 50 miles away before they can get redress for this crash. The compensation as a vulnerable road user should be instant and there should be presumed liability of the motor vehicle. No ifs or buts or delays or money grabbing lawyers. The family needs instant support.

Additionally the mayor of Cranebridgeshire wants to dual-carriage the A10. Not one mention of having a proper path set back from the road with a protective verge. The A10 is a killer road for pedestrians and cyclists and shamefully the mayor wants to do nothing about it.

[Jdsk]

I think that it would probably be a good idea. But that particular petition is badly written and contains a spelling error. And is it wise to include the separate issue of "acts of aggression" by vehicle drivers when the aim is to attract as many supporters as possible?

Jonathan


Adopt a law of Presumed Liability to protect vulnerable road users

Adopt presumed liability as we see in other European countries, where the larger vehicle is presumed to be liable for collisions, to help protect vulnerable road users.

More details
A law of presumed liability would establish a clear hierarchy of who is initially liable (and has the burdon of proof) in a road traffic accident/incident to both raise awareness and prevent vehicles being used in acts of aggression.

The vast majority of countries in Europe adopt presumed liability legislation and given the increase in cycling following Covid we should make roads safer for the vulnerable.

[531colin]

As Jonathan, I think acts of aggression is a separate issue.
If you want support, don't mention cyclists!
Or mention every vulnerable class; pedestrians, horse riders, cyclists, Children as a separate category? wheelchair users, scooter users, actually users of any mobility aid, visually impaired...thats a difficulty, because the driver can't see that somebody is visually impaired. deaf?
Motor cyclists?
Is it really assumed the driver of the larger vehicle is liable?
Open the floodgates for "crash for cash" swindlers driving into buses, lorries....

[Psamathe]

One aspect of many petitions is that the level of support is not considered in the context of the "specialisation". Thus "presumed liability" is something that would only ever attract support from a limited portion of society (e.g. cyclists). Thus a low vote count makes it look like something not supported by the public - so a petition can do more damage to a cause that help.

I think other means of generating interest might be better suited.

It is a complex issue. When I re-started cycling I was not in favour of "presumed liability". But cycle touring in EU, chatting to EU cyclists (who "at home" cycled under presumed liability laws), I changed my views and now support it. But I suspect that if you randomly stopped cyclists in a non-Covid era in a city centre most would not appreciate what you were on about. Hence more complex that an online petition.

Ian

[markjohnobrien]

I’m all for presumed liability on the European model but keeping in mind the caveats already mentioned in the thread.

There must be a paper somewhere looking at best practice in Europe (bearing in mind that it has been running successfully for many years in many countries). No need to reinvent the wheel although, of course, we have a common law system and the Europeans have Roman law which is more inquisitorial and alien to our history.

[thirdcrank]

... There must be a paper somewhere looking at best practice in Europe (bearing in mind that it has been running successfully for many years in many countries). ....

As I read the petition, it's worded on the basis that that is so, or a variation of that. I fear there may be an element of urban myth about this but I simply don't know.

One pedantic nit-pick from me is my long-running theme "Remember folks, it's not the car that kills it's the driver."

None of this matters much. This isn't a consultation on the wording of a petition but an exhortation to sign one already in existence.

[Jdsk]

But I suspect that if you randomly stopped cyclists in a non-Covid era in a city centre most would not appreciate what you were on about. Hence more complex that an online petition.

Yes, needs a campaign.

There must be a paper somewhere looking at best practice in Europe (bearing in mind that it has been running successfully for many years in many countries).

Yes. Needs supporting evidence. Not necessarily in the petition but readily available, and of varying detail appropriate to the reader.

Jonathan

[mjr]

https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/30/liab ... ive-safely but I'm still signing because it won't make matters worse.

[atlas_shrugged]

Good man mjr

[Pete Owens]

https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/30/liab ... ive-safely

In which a facility fanatic dismisses anything other than one true faith in segregation as heresy.

The argument goes something like this:
FALLACY n: X is a useful intervention.
Segregation is the one true path to cycling nirvana.
X is not segregation
Therefore X is a fallacy.
repeat at nauseum substituting any measure other than segregation for X until you have a long list

In this case ... If only there had been a separate path for that woman and baby to walk on ...

[Pete Owens]

The A10 is a killer road for pedestrians and cyclists and shamefully the mayor wants to do nothing about it.

Claiming that roads rather than drivers are killers somewhat undermines the case for presumed liability. "It wos the road wot dun it"

Peition now has 1% of the number needed.

[thirdcrank]

Post Brexit, I wonder how much benefit there is to be gained by taking Europe as an example of good practice. Our legal system has been characterised as the best, even though most ordinary people mistrust it. I fancy the strongest advocates against change will be advocates.

[Jdsk]

Post Brexit, I wonder how much benefit there is to be gained by taking Europe as an example of good practice.

Same thought.

Jonathan

PS: I wonder if there are any threads on this forum that illustrate the divisive reactions that this can cause... ; - )

[Grumpy-Grandad]

I can't sign the petition.
Automatically assuming the motor vehicle driver is in the wrong is ....... wrong.

My reason?
I had a cyclist pull out into the road in front of me (he was on the footpath), with no warning, resulting in him colliding with my car and ending up on his buttock in the road. He was too close for me to stop in time. He was thankfully not injured other than minor bruising.

He of course claimed it was my fault and was verbally abusive ...... until I waived down a passing Police car (that was a stroke of luck) and explained what had happened. The cyclist continued blaming me ....... until I invited the Police Officer to sit in my car and view the dash cam footage.
That caused the cyclist to shut up ...... he hadn't been aware I had a dash cam.

After viewing it he actually reported the cyclist for careless cycling

So no, I won't be signing the petition although I do accept that is very many cases a road traffic collision is not the cyclists fault.

[Jdsk]

I can't sign the petition.
Automatically assuming the motor vehicle driver is in the wrong is ....... wrong.

Typical models of presumed liability don't have that automatic conclusion. They change the starting point for the balance of evidence/ burden of proof. Clear proof as in your example would override that.

(It's technically known as rebuttable presumption.)

Jonathan