Strict liability / driver attitudes...

[pedalspinner]

Deep in my poor memory I recall that the UK government vitoed strict liability for motorists. Is it not time that the CTC took this back up as an issue/campaign? I have just retrned from Germany having riden the Ostsee kusten raf weg and on every road without fail traffic slowed ond gave a wide bearth equal to an invisible car, just like the Highway code states, is this due to strict liability?
Drivers in remote areas were cheery too!

[snibgo]

I don't see why strict liability would make any difference. Most drivers keep well clear of me. Those that don't, don't think it doesn't matter if they hit me; they think they won't hit me.

Even if they collided, strict liability wouldn't affect the driver directly. All it would do would be to change the insurance situation in a small percentage of cases (those cases where neither side can prove the other is to blame).

[Geriatrix]

Is there any data to indicate the efficacy of strict liability in countries where it has been implemented?

[thirdcrank]

The main problem as far as I can see, is that nobody ever seems to know what's involved and how it operates in those countries that have a version of it. On a previous thread I asked if anybody knew (ie, not that everybody is more careful when driving near cyclists but what were the legal mechanisms to achieve that) and I drew a blank.

This means, first, that opponents can have a field day with a bogey man and then, the rest of us cannot put up a sensible case because we don't know in any detail what we are supporting.

[reohn2]

Man steps forward and puts head on block.
I like the idea of strict liability(SL) and by SL I mean the bigger vehicle has more responsibilty toward smaller one which knocks on down the line to pedestrians.So if a bigger vehicle is involved in a collision until proven otherwise the bigger vehicle takes the blaim as the driver of the bigger vehicle has more responsibilty to smaller more vulnerable road users.
The problems start when people begin to capitalise on the situation unlawfully in a carefully planned way,it doesn't mean it won't work but with the compensation culture that exsists in the UK it would be a very good way for the motoring lobby and insurance industry to block any such law.The porly resourced policeforce(s) would see it as more work,so I can't see it getting the thumbs up from them either.
Thats the situation as I see it.
Chances of it becoming law?

[Vorpal]

Some information about strict liability... http://www.stricterliabilityforus.org.uk/
If you follow the links I think that most questions about strict liability are answered.

The Road Peace paper on stricter liability has a table at the end showing how it is applied in some European countries. http://www.stricterliabilityforus.org.u ... 0paper.pdf

And this paper has some lengthy discussions (legalese warning!) about the legal application of strict liability in other aspects of law.

The problem with data is that when we compare accident rates or compensation between one country and another, we are comparing apples to oranges. There are too many factors that are different between the UK and any continental country, and it is impossible to separate the influence of other factors such as the number of drivers who are also cyclists, 30 kph speed limits, accident reporting, infrastructure, etc.

I dont' see that any new mechanisms are required. The onus is currently on the victim to show that the driver was at fault. With strict liability, the victim can claim from the driver's insurance. The onus is then on the driver or his/her insurance company to show that the victim is at fault. The law must define the extent to which compensation can be reduced when this occurs.

It is not very different from how occupational injury compensation works.

As for compensation culture, I can't imagine very many people jumping out in front of cars to claim compensation.

[reohn2]

...........As for compensation culture, I can't imagine very many people jumping out in front of cars to claim compensation.

Oh no? there are stranger things happen!

[snibgo]

Above, I may have sounded more negative than I actually am.

I approve of strict (or "assumed") liability. It would be a good thing. Someone in charge of moving a tonne or more of metal should be responsible for ensuring it doesn't squish people. A squished person shouldn't need to prove criminal liability before getting compensation. As Vorpal says, much like occupational injury. And cyclists should be responsible for not running into pedestrians.

However, I doubt that in itself it would change driver attitudes.

[thirdcrank]

Some information about strict liability... http://www.stricterliabilityforus.org.uk/
If you follow the links I think that most questions about strict liability are answered.

Thanks for this. Better info than I've seen before but I fear it's not the way to run a campaign to convince people. I'm no lawyer but I'm better informed than many laypeople. I ran out of steam looking at it. It seems to me that this can only involve the civil law - liability for compenastion - but there are bits and pieces of criminal law mixed in. If they are saying that there should be a general presumption that the driver of a motor vehicle should be liable for injury caused in a collision with a vulnerable road user, that needs to be explicitly stated. Then, it needs a readily understandable explanation of the circumstances, if any, when that general presumption might be rebutted. I fancy we are talking about a fundamental reform of the civil law. It seems from the link that Lord Denning (a reformer of the civil law if ever there was one) failed to get this accepted. On that basis, this is probably not something that is going to emerge from within the legal system and legislation would be required, hence the invitation to write to MP's. A fair wodge of MP's are lawyers and I suspect letters which are not based on an understanding of the basic issues will simply be batted back.

The Road Peace paper on stricter liability has a table at the end showing how it is applied in some European countries. http://www.stricterliabilityforus.org.u ... 0paper.pdf

I'm glad you separately linked to this because I'd already stopped reading when I reached the bibliography and I'd probably not have found it. It seems to me that the info in the table is so sketchy it takes us (or me at least) no further.

Following snibgo's point, most substantial personal injury compensation is paid out by the insurance trade. It may be that this proposal would make it harder for insurance companies to wriggle out of paying up. OTOH, Compulsory third party insurance indemnifies the policyholder so it's hard to see how this proposal would have much effect on drivers' attitudes.

From anecdotal stuff, I'm prepared to believe that drivers in some European countries are much more careful / considerate in the vicinity of vulnerable road users, but I suspect the reason lies elsewhere: possibly more robust traffic policing (as sounds to be the case in France) or different social attitudes (as sounds to be the case in The Netherlands and Scandinavia.)

It seems to me that anybody with a campaign of this type needs a clear understanding of what they want, and then to be able to explain that with equal clarity to others, both potential supporters and inevitable opponents.

[Vorpal]

Personally I don't think that a stand-alone campaign for strict/proportional liability can be successful, and I'm not even certain it should be. It needs to be part of a package that includes default 20 mph speed limits for built up areas, investment in infrastructure that creates a safer environment for cyclists and pedestrians, better enforcement and education, and a move toward the open spaces type of approach to developments, especially when significant investments are made to re-develop town centres.

[mattheus]

Some information about strict liability... http://www.stricterliabilityforus.org.uk/
If you follow the links I think that most questions about strict liability are answered.

The Road Peace paper on stricter liability has a table at the end showing how it is applied in some European countries. http://www.stricterliabilityforus.org.u ... 0paper.pdf

<snip>

I dont' see that any new mechanisms are required. The onus is currently on the victim to show that the driver was at fault. With strict liability, the victim can claim from the driver's insurance. The onus is then on the driver or his/her insurance company to show that the victim is at fault. The law must define the extent to which compensation can be reduced when this occurs.

It is not very different from how occupational injury compensation works.

As for compensation culture, I can't imagine very many people jumping out in front of cars to claim compensation.

Aha! Excellent, I'd been hoping someone would setup a site like this.

I think the only thing it lacks is a sort of FAQ: in particular, I would stress that drivers will NOT be presumed guilty of anything if they are in a collision! This is all about protecting the vulnerable, not fitting up motorists (war on the motorist?!?)

It seems obvious that this will affect driver behaviour. Noone wants to lose their NCB. How MUCH of an effect is harder to say - but it must be positive. And in the meantime, more vulnerable victims are getting compensation for injuries that are very unlikely to be their fault.

[thirdcrank]

... Noone wants to lose their NCB. ....

As any policyholder whose vehicle has been in a collision knows, it's already a no claims bonus, not a no blame bonus. Also, being involved in a collision will generally increase a driver's premium, even with a so-called "protected" NCB.

Beyond that, a substantial number of vehicles are insured on fleet policies, so an individual driver feels no direct personal increased cost following a collision.

It's loss of licence and often even loss of a clean licence that puts the wind up a lot of fleet drivers because their job can go with it and this also infuences private drivers as it pushes up premiums. This is largely why perverting the course of justice is now so prevalent. Licence endorsements and disqualification only follow convictions (and quasi-convictions like fixed penalties for relevant offences.) IMO it would be a lot better to reduce the number of collisions, rather than just making it easier to obtain compo, but that would arguably involve a much more robust enforcement regime and a reversal of the trend of the last thrirty odd years. It's so much easier to paint a white line up the middle of the footway and get cyclists out of the way.

[[XAP]Bob]

The unintended consequence will be more hit and run, it's easier to drive off after hitting a cyclist/pedestrian than a car...

[mattheus]

The unintended consequence will be more hit and run, it's easier to drive off after hitting a cyclist/pedestrian than a car...

This already happens.

Do you have evidence that it's worse in countries that have Strict Liability?

[mattheus]

IMO it would be a lot better to reduce the number of collisions, rather than just making it easier to obtain compo, but that would arguably involve a much more robust enforcement regime and a reversal of the trend of the last thrirty odd years. It's so much easier to paint a white line up the middle of the footway and get cyclists out of the way.

Well of course it would be better!

Nevertheless, a simple system exists - already tested abroad - that would improve the compo aspect, and IN ALL LIKELIHOOD have some positive effect on driver attitudes.

Why on earth are people so negative about this?