'Strict Liability' laws

[thirdcrank]

Shootist

Reflect on why calls for a change in the system are being made. It seems to me you are answering the wrong question.

[meic]

OK, here goes. As a retired police officer who has investigated more road traffic collisions that I might wish to recall, here's a few thoughts. Firstly, 99% of all such collisions are fairly easy to analyse and to attribute fault, and hence blame. They really are. All road users, indeed everybody doing anything are required to take reasonable care in their actions. So why have a starting point that one particular party to a collision is to blame? The only time this could be of any benefit is in that 1% of collisions where one or other party is lying through their back teeth and there are no independent witnesses, and if you then automatically blame the car driver, the only intention is to save the state some money.

It is incumbent upon the pedestrian to cross the road with care. If they do not, then why should they escape the consequences of their carelessness? If a cyclist rides carelessly, likewise. If a car driver fails to give adequate clearance to a cyclist when overtaking then he is at fault and not the cyclist. If the cyclist turns right without indicating and gets hit by a car then why should the car driver be liable? If a cyclist rampages up the nearside of a line of moving cars at some traffic lights and one of the cars turns left, knocking the cyclist over, why should the car driver take responsibility for the cyclist's stupidity?

There is already a number of traffic laws that are pretty strict on liability. Zebra crossing precedence is one. Opening the door of a parked car and causing injury is another. Red traffic lights a third. Stop signs at junctions a fourth. There's probably more, but that is sufficient to illustrate that stop signs, red lights and zebra crossings are routinely ignored by cyclists. Another reason to avoid the automatic attribution of fault in cyclist collisions.

Let's not kid ourselves either that there won't arise a number of professional claimants on car insurance if liability becomes automatic. There's enough fraudulent insurance claims already under out 'inadequate' law that they may be described as a thriving business. And this term 'victim blaming' is not one I've heard before until I read a cycling forum. The concept is clear though, and increasingly common these days. The claim to be a victim regardless of circumstances merely because they are the one that came second. Used mostly as a cover for unlimited stupidity in the face of obvious and known danger.

I accept, obviously, that there is a lot of bad driving on the roads, and that cyclists are at risk of the consequences, but to attribute liability on one party merely because of the vehicle they use is as much nonsense as the 'All men are rapists' cry of the rabid feminist. Liability laws, and traffic laws, are pretty well established in the UK, and the fact that other countries do it differently proves nothing other than other countries do it differently.

Dont these two statements somewhat contradict each other. If it is so easy and reliable to establish blame how can so many fraudsters be getting away with it?

[Shootist]

Shootist

Reflect on why calls for a change in the system are being made. It seems to me you are answering the wrong question.

I have duly reflected, and re-read the previous posts, and I think I have answered the question correctly. I was also interested to read the link to the Roadpiece item which I found to be almost completely nonsense, by all appearances based entirely upon ignorance.

[Shootist]

Dont these two statements somewhat contradict each other. If it is so easy and reliable to establish blame how can so many fraudsters be getting away with it?

Not in the slightest. The first relates to accident investigation. The second is in relation to fraud, usually well organised. They are two entirely different things. A presumption of liability on the motorist will work very much in favour of the fraudster.

[meic]

But isnt their method of conducting fraud that of causing an accident and making it look as if the other party caused it instead, which would fail miserably if the results of accident investigation were so reliable as you say?

[kwackers]

Not in the slightest. The first relates to accident investigation. The second is in relation to fraud, usually well organised. They are two entirely different things. A presumption of liability on the motorist will work very much in favour of the fraudster.

How?

Are they going to stop driving round in old bangers trying to get a car full of whiplash injuries and instead start jumping/riding out into the path of vehicles?

Seems to me it's all about balance and there's little doubt the whole thing is biased towards the mighty, imo anything that gives bullies pause for thought is a good thing.

[reohn2]

.................the fact that other countries do it differently proves nothing other than other countries do it differently.

Perhaps you might reflect on why they do it differently.
And why when I cycle on the continent I'm not bullied continually by agressive drivers,yet everytime and I mean every time I ride a bicycle on the road in the UK I am,which varies from completely incompetent to the downright maniacal.

[mattheus]

[Fraudsters ...]

Are they going to stop driving round in old bangers trying to get a car full of whiplash injuries and instead start jumping/riding out into the path of vehicles?

Exactly!

It's hilarious to suggest cyclists will be causing accidents with MOTOR VEHICLES just to make a tiny fraudulent claim. (Tiny, that is , compared to the risk of serious injury / death!)

[Shootist]

.................the fact that other countries do it differently proves nothing other than other countries do it differently.

Perhaps you might reflect on why they do it differently/

I will do as soon as I can have good reason to assume that differently somehow means better.

And why when I cycle on the continent I'm not bullied continually by agressive drivers,yet everytime and I mean every time I ride a bicycle on the road in the UK I am?

As a statistic that is meaningless. If every cyclist was continually bullied every time they went on the road then it would be clear where the fault lies. However, as you are the only person I have heard making such a claim, I would have to suggest that you might look first to your own riding style in case it is provoking a reaction from car drivers. Not that any cycist could ever do such a thing. nope! Not ever. But, I am confident that many cyclists, on many days, manage fairly lengthy journeys without bother from other road users.
Which varies from completely incompitent to the downright maniacal.

Again, I would have to ask, on who's part?

[broadway]

Along with the AA and British Cycling, Ms Gartside is backing 'strict liability' laws, which are already used in a number of European countries.

Under these laws, cyclists and pedestrians involved in collisions with other road users are considered to be the innocent party unless proven otherwise.

A motorist will be liable for a crash with a cyclist unless the motorist can show that the cyclist was at fault. This could include disregarding the Highway Code or cycling dangerously or without due care.

The UK is only one of four Western European countries that doesnt have strict liability to protect cyclists and pedestrians.

Firstly, 99% of all such collisions are fairly easy to analyse and to attribute fault, and hence blame. They really are. All road users, indeed everybody doing anything are required to take reasonable care in their actions. So why have a starting point that one particular party to a collision is to blame? The only time this could be of any benefit is in that 1% of collisions where one or other party is lying through their back teeth and there are no independent witnesses, and if you then automatically blame the car driver, the only intention is to save the state some money.

So in 1% of cases motorists will get liability unfairly, I don't see that will really cause a problem.

[Shootist]

Along with the AA and British Cycling, Ms Gartside is backing 'strict liability' laws, which are already used in a number of European countries.

Under these laws, cyclists and pedestrians involved in collisions with other road users are considered to be the innocent party unless proven otherwise.

A motorist will be liable for a crash with a cyclist unless the motorist can show that the cyclist was at fault. This could include disregarding the Highway Code or cycling dangerously or without due care.

The UK is only one of four Western European countries that doesnt have strict liability to protect cyclists and pedestrians.

Firstly, 99% of all such collisions are fairly easy to analyse and to attribute fault, and hence blame. They really are. All road users, indeed everybody doing anything are required to take reasonable care in their actions. So why have a starting point that one particular party to a collision is to blame? The only time this could be of any benefit is in that 1% of collisions where one or other party is lying through their back teeth and there are no independent witnesses, and if you then automatically blame the car driver, the only intention is to save the state some money.

So in 1% of cases motorists will get liability unfairly, I don't see that will really cause a problem.

A better percentage than most.

[reohn2]

.................the fact that other countries do it differently proves nothing other than other countries do it differently.

Perhaps you might reflect on why they do it differently/

I will do as soon as I can have good reason to assume that differently somehow means better.

Do you cycle or drive on the continent?

And why when I cycle on the continent I'm not bullied continually by agressive drivers,yet everytime and I mean every time I ride a bicycle on the road in the UK I am?

As a statistic that is meaningless.

It's bound to be a meaningless statistic because statistics are only measured on proveable incidents.

If every cyclist was continually bullied every time they went on the road then it would be clear where the fault lies.

And you think they're not?

However, as you are the only person I have heard making such a claim, I would have to suggest that you might look first to your own riding style in case it is provoking a reaction from car drivers.

Oh,I do and have done for the past forty five years of cycling and fortry three years of driving various vehicles and riding motorcycles

Not that any cycist could ever do such a thing. nope! Not ever.

Cyclists aren't all angels granted,but don't tar me with that brush!

But, I am confident that many cyclists, on many days, manage fairly lengthy journeys without bother from other road users.

Yep,mainly on the continent.
In the UK it's a completely different story,one of the reasons the UK is so bad for cyclists is the complete lack of a traffic police force and that cyclists aren't taken seriously by what little police we do have.

Which varies from completely incompitent to the downright maniacal.

Again, I would have to ask, on who's part?

The one with the biggest weapon!

[CJ]

OK, here goes. As a retired police officer who has investigated more road traffic collisions that I might wish to recall, here's a few thoughts. Firstly, 99% of all such collisions are fairly easy to analyse and to attribute fault, and hence blame. They really are. All road users, indeed everybody doing anything are required to take reasonable care in their actions.

Even young children, the deaf, elderly pedestrians?

In all other walks of life, anyone using a piece of powerful machinery in a public space is under a greater duty of care vis-a-vis the public. Should an individual member of the public be injured by that machinery, the operator will be assumed liable unless he can prove that he took every reasonable precaution and made every effort to stop that happening.

It is recognised that drivers of motor vehicles are a peculiar danger to others in the fact that their driving is licensed, whereas people are free to use roads on foot, bicycles, horseback... why one can even drive carriages drawn by animals as of right. But there are nowadays so many people operating those dangerous powered machines, colliding with each other and giving as good as they get, that we take these collisions for granted and have lost sight of the fundamental inequality in relation to vulnerable road users.

Most other European countries have not. We know how the average British police officer views these matters and that our traffic laws fail to protect vulnerable road users. I am much more interested in hearing what Dutch, Danish, German, Swiss even French policemen think about the workings of their kind of justice. You don't need to cycle far in any of those countries to feel the obvious benefit of a better system.

[Shootist]

OK, here goes. As a retired police officer who has investigated more road traffic collisions that I might wish to recall, here's a few thoughts. Firstly, 99% of all such collisions are fairly easy to analyse and to attribute fault, and hence blame. They really are. All road users, indeed everybody doing anything are required to take reasonable care in their actions.

Even young children, the deaf, elderly pedestrians?

Turn it round then. Are you suggesting that they should not take reasonable care? I was T Boned at the exit of a garden centre when riding my motorcycle on a main road, by an 83 year old who wasn't taking reasonable care. Are you suggesting he didn't need to? I was doing about 40 mph, and he had a mere 200 yards clear visibility in good daylight.

With children it is the parents that are responsible for ensuring their children can manage roads in safety, and until they are, they should not be allowed out alone. I was born and raised in the East End of London, at a junction of two major main roads at a time when traffic safety was one long horror story. I had road safety drummed into me, and a huge number of my contemporaries survived, as did I. If you are vulnerable, then you should account for your vulnerability in all things you undertake. As a diabetic I do not pig out on boiled sweets, as a knackered old fart I no longer safely dodge across roads, which I could manage with safety for all when younger. When riding my bike, I take care around pedestrians as it will generally, and correctly, be me to blame if I nail one.

Neither am I saying that cycling facilities could not be radically improved in the UK. for a start, the powers that be could flatten out the hills on the main routes where I live. It is certain that driving standards, and training are woefully inadequate in this country. It is equally certain that the most effective police safety measure is plenty of road traffic patrols keen to deal with offending road users.

[irc]

When riding my bike, I take care around pedestrians as it will generally, and correctly, be me to blame if I nail one.

As a car driver I take care around cyclists as it will generally and correctly be me to blame if I hit one. Are both these examples not something like strict liability.

As for cars v bikes. The vast majority of my car bike interactions are me in a car overtaking a bike. I choose when to overtake. I choose the speed. I choose the place. I choose the clearance. So who else's fault would it be but mine if there was a crash.