Presumed liability petition

[Grumpy-Grandad]

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

I understand that but its just wrong to automatically presume guilt of the motor vehicle driver (or cyclist) where there is no evidence one way or the other

[slowster]

I understand that but its just wrong to automatically presume guilt of the motor vehicle driver (or cyclist) where there is no evidence one way or the other

To which my response would be the same as when this issue was discussed last year:

Presumed liability is a starting point for legal disputes. It only determines the verdict if there is no strongly persuasive evidence available. Given that there will be a small but neverthless significant number of accidents involving cyclists and motorists where the cyclist is killed or left with severe life chaging injuries, but it is not possible to prove that the motorist was responsible due to lack of witnesses etc., it is better that presumed liability apply in such cases.

Any harm to those motorists who are wrongly held liable as a result of presumed liability would be more than outweighed by the harm to cyclists (and pedestrians) who are injured/killed by a motorist's negligence and currently are unable to gain compensation from the motorist's insurer because of a lack of evidence as to exactly what happened.

viewtopic.php?p=1519074#p1519074

[markjohnobrien]

I understand that but its just wrong to automatically presume guilt of the motor vehicle driver (or cyclist) where there is no evidence one way or the other

To which my response would be the same as when this issue was discussed last year:

Presumed liability is a starting point for legal disputes. It only determines the verdict if there is no strongly persuasive evidence available. Given that there will be a small but neverthless significant number of accidents involving cyclists and motorists where the cyclist is killed or left with severe life chaging injuries, but it is not possible to prove that the motorist was responsible due to lack of witnesses etc., it is better that presumed liability apply in such cases.

Any harm to those motorists who are wrongly held liable as a result of presumed liability would be more than outweighed by the harm to cyclists (and pedestrians) who are injured/killed by a motorist's negligence and currently are unable to gain compensation from the motorist's insurer because of a lack of evidence as to exactly what happened.

viewtopic.php?p=1519074#p1519074

Interesting and thoughtful points.

[Jdsk]

There's a campaign and a detailed proposal for Scotland:

http://www.roadshare.co.uk/home

"The Case for Presumed Liability on Scotland's roads"
http://www.roadshare.co.uk/research

I don't know anything about the provenance.

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

I'm now reminded by slowster's post that a broadly similar petition was launched last year to

Adopt a system whereby, in the event of an incident, the liability for the incident falls on the larger vehicle. It will be up to the larger vehicle to prove that it was not their fault.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petition ... hmJ_c9OaRI

That one attracted 5730 signatures.

[ClappedOut]

Having both ridden motorcycles bicycles and driven cars and vans for work, I have seen plenty of antisocial behaviour of all involved.
Drunks driving down one way streets Wrong way and getting aggressive, Motorcycles overtaking on blind bends, white van man behaving badly and white van man taking no **** when it’s their right of way.

Cyclists riding in erratic ways through no entry or flying out an blind alley across a road without a clue if a vehicle coming.

Automatic assumption of guilt by one party is defective and allows for circumstances where people behave in a manner that why should I care as fireproof.

Well meaning heart string puller, but I won’t be signing, just like speed kills- it doesn’t / inappropriate speed does and all the moaners happy for police to chase speeders at speed.

A fix all for complex issues never works

[slowster]

Automatic assumption of guilt by one party is defective and allows for circumstances where people behave in a manner that why should I care as fireproof.

Well meaning heart string puller, but I won’t be signing, just like speed kills- it doesn’t / inappropriate speed does and all the moaners happy for police to chase speeders at speed.

A fix all for complex issues never works

It apparently works well in the vast majority of the rest of Europe. If it did not, then examples of the failure of the system in Germany, in the Netherlands, France etc. would be quoted as part of the justification for not introducing it in the UK. Sometimes relatively simple and even crude solutions not only work for complex issues, but may even be the optimum solution given that perfect solutions either do not exist or are simply not achievable within a realistic timescale. There were many experts and critics who said congestion charging would never work and was not a solution to the levels of congestion in London. They were wrong.

Solutions and policy options do not need to be perfect, they just need to be better than the status quo.

[thirdcrank]

... It apparently works well in the vast majority of the rest of Europe. ...

This is the bit that I have trouble with: not because I don't believe it, but I never seem to see evidence that it exists in the varied forms that many cyclists seem to believe. These days, it's always possible I've forgotten so if somebody at some stage has linked to a reliable comparative study of European civil law systems, please accept my apologies and link again.

AIUI, there are two strands.

First, it avoids survivors' justice: killing somebody in a crash inevitably eliminates the evidence that the deceased might have given had they survived.

Then, there's a view that the driver of a powerful and/or heavy vehicle has a greater duty of care than, say, a pedestrian. I'm pretty sure that Martin Porter QC, the Cycling Silk and leading civil lawyer has made the point in one of his blog posts that our system incorporates a version of this already.

[mjr]

Automatic assumption of guilt by one party is defective and allows for circumstances where people behave in a manner that why should I care as fireproof.

But the current situation of automatic assumption of guilt by both parties equally is worse. I believe a CUK reported study years ago found motorists were at fault in something like 85% of collisions.

[Mike Sales]

Automatic assumption of guilt by one party is defective and allows for circumstances where people behave in a manner that why should I care as fireproof.

But the current situation of automatic assumption of guilt by both parties equally is worse. I believe a CUK study years ago found motorists were at fault in something like 85% of collisions.

I have lost the link to, I think, The Times which reported what is likely the same study. As I recall the data was collected by the Met. and interpreted by the TRL.

[Jdsk]

Was it this TRL report from 2009?

"Collisions involving pedal cyclists on Britain’s roads: establishing the causes"
https://trl.co.uk/uploads/trl/documents/PPR445_new.pdf

Jonathan

[ClappedOut]

Automatic assumption of guilt by one party is defective and allows for circumstances where people behave in a manner that why should I care as fireproof.

But the current situation of automatic assumption of guilt by both parties equally is worse. I believe a CUK reported study years ago found motorists were at fault in something like 85% of collisions.

Devils advocate so we have established 25% would be wrongly affected v innocent until proven guilty.

a thought provoking debate

[mjr]

Automatic assumption of guilt by one party is defective and allows for circumstances where people behave in a manner that why should I care as fireproof.

But the current situation of automatic assumption of guilt by both parties equally is worse. I believe a CUK reported study years ago found motorists were at fault in something like 85% of collisions.

Devils advocate so we have established 25% would be wrongly affected v innocent until proven guilty.

1. "innocent" and "guilty" are about criminality, not liability. This is not presumed guilt and I apologise for not correcting your earlier post and incorrectly writing "guilt" instead of "fault" earlier.

2. Current situation means 35% need to show they were not at fault, proposed situation means 15% would, so I'm not sure where your 25% comes from. It would reduce a lot of the wasting of courts time, potentially removing 20% of liability hearings.

[atlas_shrugged]

OK so there have been some constructive suggestions:

1) Correct spelling mistake
2) Don't mention cycling (maybe vulnerable road users)
3) Change 'acts of aggression' to maybe carelessly and/or dangerously

mjr is definitely right that this is about liability (i.e. not about criminality or guilt)

I can not comment about someones road accident without video evidence or hearing from the other party.

I can offer plenty of annecdotal evidence of a very good experience cycling in France (in Normandy and Nandax), Netherlands, Germany, and Austria. In Germany I was crossing a side road and a black Mercedes gave way to me. I nearly fell off my bike in shock. In Normandy for a weeks cycling the drivers were so nice and careful when they overtook. Note that cycling infrastucture in Normandy is almost non-existent i.e. you are on normal roads with motor vehicles.

Now I will try and explain why default liability helps the victims:
When the Cranebridge school caretaker was killed at a pedestrian crossing with his bike by a speeding driver he left behind 3 little children and the caretaker was the main breadwinner. For at least 18 months and maybe more his Missus had no word or idea from the Police or crash investigators anything about what had happened. She did know that the killer driver was back behind the wheel in a new car just like nothing had happened. It took 3 years before the driver was eventually criminalised and I believe jailed (which deters nobody). My point is that for 3 years this family had no income. How can this be right when the killer driver is back behind the wheel driving a new car? Default liability instantly changes this. Support for the family are instantly available. Accident details are more quickly available (unless the driver wants to contest). The killer driver instantly gets an insurance hike as he should. The current system only benefits lawyers.

Note I will leave the issue of criminality outside this thread. To be honest I do not know what to do. My feeling for the driver above are not printable.

[atlas_shrugged]

By contrast here is a photo from an Austrian accident. A velomobile rider is cycling over a bridge (on the correct side). He passes a car parked on the wrong side and as he does so he then gets shoved from behind for quite a distance.

Notice how shocked the driver is. She knows that she will be liable. The result a quick report to the Police and the insurance and then the vehicle is replaced/repaired no questions asked. The velomobile rider was luckily unharmed. A full description of the accident and photo is already available on the internet.