# driver at fault petition



## hubgearfreak (16 Sep 2007)

http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t=8270&highlight


----------



## domtyler (16 Sep 2007)

At least put an overview without forcing us to click the link to find out!


----------



## Amanda P (17 Sep 2007)

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/roadsafety9

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to improve road
safety by introducing strict liability for motorists in
collisions

Youngsters are being asked to walk or cycle to school to be
green and reduce jams.

Walking and cycling are generally safe but parents will worry -
if they are brave enough to let youngsters be independent.

The perception of safety has to be improved.

Lower speeds and extra road education will play a part but this
petition is calling for a change to strict liability laws on
drivers’ insurance policies.

At present, in a car - bike/pedestrian collision, the cyclist
or pedestrian (probably the worst injured) has to prove the
motorist was reckless.

We want that burden of proof switched so the motorist –
choosing to use a ton of metal at speed – has to prove the
cyclist or pedestrian was at fault.

This only applies to insurance claims. In criminal law, drivers
in collisions remain innocent until proven guilty.

This rule exists in many EU countries with more walking and
cycling, and a better child road safety record, Let’s raise
driving standards and create better road user attitudes."


----------



## spen666 (17 Sep 2007)

The petition contradicts itself

It is either a call for a strict liability situation OR it is as it suggests at the end a change in the burden of proof.

Until the position is clear, then I will not sign a petition that can be used in differing ways.


----------



## domtyler (17 Sep 2007)

> You could have done that in your response Dom



Yes I could have, but where would the fun in that be though, eh?


----------



## LLB (17 Sep 2007)

This is doomed to failure !


----------



## bonj2 (17 Sep 2007)

Why dont' insurance companies do this anyway - because surely if a driver had to prove he wasn't at fault, then there'd be less payouts?


----------



## hubgearfreak (17 Sep 2007)

bonj said:


> Why dont' insurance companies do this anyway - because surely if a driver had to prove he wasn't at fault, then there'd be less payouts?




very good point


----------



## KitsuneAndy (23 Sep 2007)

bonj said:


> Why dont' insurance companies do this anyway - because surely if a driver had to prove he wasn't at fault, then there'd be less payouts?



Because it's virtually impossible to prove that you _didn't_ do something. It could even carry over to home insurance, when claiming for accidental damage you have to prove you didn't break it deliberately.

Prove you weren't speeding, prove you didn't see the cyclist/pedestrian pull out...

I won't sign the petition in it's current form because I don't agree with that stance at all, you're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. The majority of accidents might well be the drivers fault, but saying that it is _definitely_ their fault, unless they can *prove* it wasn't is going too far, in my opinion.


----------



## Smokin Joe (23 Sep 2007)

KitsuneAndy said:


> Because it's virtually impossible to prove that you _didn't_ do something. It could even carry over to home insurance, when claiming for accidental damage you have to prove you didn't break it deliberately.
> 
> Prove you weren't speeding, prove you didn't see the cyclist/pedestrian pull out...
> 
> I won't sign the petition in it's current form because I don't agree with that stance at all, you're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. The majority of accidents might well be the drivers fault, but saying that it is _definitely_ their fault, unless they can *prove* it wasn't is going too far, in my opinion.



My opinion too.


----------



## gambatte (25 Sep 2007)

I thought currently in a rear end shunt, there was a liability supposition of blame?

I know in the case of my brother a few years ago, he stopped to help a hit cyclist. Because of the low sun, he got rear ended as did about 5 cars behind him. About 3 cars back the guy reckoned he'd stopped in time and got his hand brake on. His insurance paid out.


----------



## spen666 (26 Sep 2007)

gambatte said:


> *I thought currently in a rear end shunt, there was a liability supposition of blame?*
> I know in the case of my brother a few years ago, he stopped to help a hit cyclist. Because of the low sun, he got rear ended as did about 5 cars behind him. About 3 cars back the guy reckoned he'd stopped in time and got his hand brake on. His insurance paid out.





What does this mean?


----------



## gambatte (27 Sep 2007)

I'm saying there is already a precedent used by insurance companies, involving cars.

If one car runs into the back of another, in the absence of any other evidence, the rear car is judged to be 'at fault'.

Thats what is being asked for here, but thro legislation. In the case of a car/bike incident, in the absence of other evidence, the car is judged to be at fault.

Apologies if my English wasn't particularly good (up at 05:30, 2 young kids and it was 23:00. Shouldn't really have been typing, but catching some 'Z's)


----------



## KitsuneAndy (28 Sep 2007)

gambatte said:


> I'm saying there is already a precedent used by insurance companies, involving cars.
> 
> If one car runs into the back of another, in the absence of any other evidence, the rear car is judged to be 'at fault'.
> 
> ...



That is true, but it's also fair. You are supposed to be a 'safe stopping distance' behind the car infront. This is so that if the driver in front needs to do an emergency stop, you will also be able to stop in time.

If you fail to stop in time and smash into the back of said driver (no matter how hardly they have hit their brakes) then you are at fault as you were not a safe stopping distance behind. This is where the '2 seconds behind' rule comes from.

However, what this petition would do, is automatically make the driver at fault unless he could prove he wasn't. So, even if the cyclist was at fault, or it was a genuine accident, the driver is still to blame. Totally unfair and unreasonable.


----------



## gambatte (28 Sep 2007)

But a situation may occur where no other evidence is present and the 1st car caused the accident (e.g. rolled backwards).

In such an incident, without witnesses etc this could also be abused. 

The rear driver is at fault - unless he can prove he wasn't


----------



## KitsuneAndy (30 Sep 2007)

gambatte said:


> But a situation may occur where no other evidence is present and the 1st car caused the accident (e.g. rolled backwards).
> 
> In such an incident, without witnesses etc this could also be abused.
> 
> The rear driver is at fault - unless he can prove he wasn't



The precedent is that if you drive into the back of someone, it's your fault. If someone rolls into the front of you, that's entirely different. Yes, they could lie and say you drover into them. But they'd have to have been rolling a fair distance to actually cause any damage. A car rolling 2 foot backwards into the car behind isn't going to be going faster than a couple of miles per hour and is unlikely to do anything other than scuff a bumper.


----------



## gambatte (1 Oct 2007)

KitsuneAndy said:


> A car rolling 2 foot backwards into the car behind isn't going to be going faster than a couple of miles per hour and is unlikely to do anything other than scuff a bumper.



You've never had a car with a tow bar roll backwards into you, have you?
It does significantly more than scuff a bumper


----------



## MartinC (1 Oct 2007)

What's more likely is that someone overtakes you, cuts in and brakes. Happens all the time.


----------



## gambatte (1 Oct 2007)

Theres apparantly a scam operating where people are buying old bangers and setting up exactly this kind of 'accident'


----------



## Smokin Joe (6 Oct 2007)

gambatte said:


> Theres apparantly a scam operating where people are buying old bangers and setting up exactly this kind of 'accident'



Which is exactly what would happen if motorists had to accept presumption of guilt in accidents with cyclists.


----------



## mr_hippo (6 Oct 2007)

What is rule number one if you are involved in an accident? 'Never accept liability'


----------



## sheddy (8 Oct 2007)

But if the driver was not at fault, hopefully there would be witnesses to say so. 
I think we need some Dutch posters to help out here


----------



## Cab (11 Oct 2007)

Smokin Joe said:


> Which is exactly what would happen if motorists had to accept presumption of guilt in accidents with cyclists.



I can't see how.

Either you have an accident and damage a bike, in which case you either have to have a cheapo bike and make nearly no money or you have a good bike and damage it sufficiently that you risk taking real harm, or you come off your bike and actually really risk harming yourself a lot. It would seem a short lived career, wouldn't it?


----------



## KitsuneAndy (11 Oct 2007)

sheddy said:


> But if the driver was not at fault, hopefully there would be witnesses to say so.
> I think we need some Dutch posters to help out here



Using the same argument - if the driver is at fault, there will be witnesses to say so. So no need to have anyone at fault automatically


----------



## MartinC (11 Oct 2007)

It seems to me that it's impossible to have a sensible discussion about this in the UK. People start talking about 'guilt' and 'fault'. In large chunks of the world it's simple - people with cars insure the risk of their car damaging or hurting anyone or anything. They get the benefit, they pick up the cost of mitigating the risks. It works for them. Here we get really contrived and childish arguments about the poor victim motorist who might have to pay increased premiums because something happened they're not legally responsible for. IMO the average UK motorist doesn't consider themselves responsible for anything - how they get themselves up in the morning is beyond my understanding.


----------



## gambatte (11 Oct 2007)

MartinC said:


> In large chunks of the world it's simple - people with cars insure the risk of their car damaging or hurting anyone or anything. They get the benefit, they pick up the cost of mitigating the risks. It works for them. Here we get really contrived and childish arguments about the poor victim motorist who might have to pay increased premiums because something happened they're not legally responsible for.



I can see the motorists point.

The fear is

Would you like to pay £100 a year more, because some 'yoof' shoots out of an alley, straight in front of you, and theres no other witnesses?

I'd rather put the £100 towards toys for my kids or my next MTB.

At minimum wage it'd also be remuneration for half a weeks work.....


----------



## MartinC (12 Oct 2007)

I rest my case.


----------



## gambatte (12 Oct 2007)

MartinC said:


> I rest my case.



OK, not particularly made it tho'
Nothing contrived or childish about the argument.


----------



## spindrift (22 Oct 2007)

_Would you like to pay £100 a year more, because some 'yoof' shoots out of an alley, straight in front of you, and theres no other witnesses?_

1/

Liability would not be the motorists in this situation. You've not understood properly what strict liability means.

2/

Countries that have adopted strict liability have seen accidents fall because idiot drivers take more care. Fewer accidents means lower premiums, not higher.


----------



## gambatte (22 Oct 2007)

spindrift said:


> Liability would not be the motorists in this situation. You've not understood properly what strict liability means.



Please expand upon this statement. At present it leaves me no wiser....


----------



## spindrift (22 Oct 2007)

http://www.colchester-cycling.org.uk/News/roadsafetypetiti.html

As stated on the petition, the current burden of proof of liability rests with the cyclist or pedestrian - they need to make a case against the insured party in order to claim on the motorists' insurance. If they choose to do this, and the insurance company contests it, then the case goes to civil court, and a judge will decide which party has been careless/reckless. 

However, most cases do not get this far - either no claim is made, or a claim is made and abandoned, and the cyclist or pedestrian is assumed to be to at fault. 

Strict liability would reverse that. The motorist is - in insurance terms - automatically liable. If the motorist wishes to contest the case, *they* have to take the issue to court to try to prove the cyclist or pedestrian was careless/reckless. 

I believe that, in Europe, this test of recklessness is dropped in the case of a child aged one to nine. The thinking is that they are not fully able to assess a road situation: the motorist should have altered their driving behaviour to take into account the possibility that children were likely to be present and/or (if they had seen them) likely to act in an unpredictable manner. 

As for the confusion between criminal and civil cases, a European judge operating under Roman law might possibly take strict liability into account in a criminal case - I simply don't know! In Britain, with a criminal court jury, strict liability would only have an effect if it had changed public perceptions and attitudes, and this could be reflected in how the prosecution presented a case. As always, a final decision of criminal guilt would rest with a jury. 

Interestingly, in the recent case in which two UK motorists caught by a speed camera tried to claim they could not be forced to incriminate themselves, the European Court of Human Rights judgement noted that people "who choose to keep and drive cars" have implicitly "accepted certain responsibilities" under UK law. 

I'm not a lawyer but, surely, strict liability would simply be an extension of this aspect of that judgment. 

As far as acceptance in the UK is concerned, there is possibly a good case here for a case to be taken to the European Court of Human Rights - why should we be worse off than cyclists/peds in Holland and Germany?


----------



## CotterPin (4 Dec 2007)

*Government response*

Downing Street has responded to the petition. Note the excessive use of the "a" word. Apparently it's just one of those things when someone dies on the road and we should get over it. 

http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page13961.asp

"The Government recognises the potential tragedy that can be caused by serious road traffic accidents. It shares the concern that vulnerable road users should be properly protected. Accidents can occur for many reasons and the outcome of an accident, for example a death or serious injury, is not necessarily as a result of a motorist acting unreasonably or driving in a dangerous manner. Motorists should not be unfairly penalised but it is right that they should always have in place insurance cover for damage to third parties and to their property and that vulnerable road users should be able to claim against it when liability has been proven. 

"Most claims for damages, including those for personal injuries, are brought as negligence claims. For a negligence claim to succeed the claimant must show that the defendant had a duty to take reasonable care towards the injured party, and that as a result of a breach of that duty, the injury was caused. It must also be shown that the type of loss or injury for which damages are being claimed was a foreseeable result of the breach of the duty. 

"The determination of liability in individual cases is a matter for the courts, having due regard to all the circumstances of the case and the actions and standards that it is reasonable to expect from each of the parties involved. Where liability is determined in favour of a claimant, under the principle of contributory negligence the amount of any damages awarded may be reduced to reflect the extent to which the claimant's own negligence may have contributed to the injury. 

"It would not be appropriate to change the law to provide that motorists should automatically be liable for any accident involving a motor vehicle and a pedestrian or cyclist. This would lead to unfair results in cases where the motorist is driving entirely responsibly and the accident is caused by the irresponsible behaviour of the pedestrian or cyclist. The current law enables the court to decide where responsibility for the accident lies and to award damages accordingly."


----------



## gambatte (4 Dec 2007)

CotterPin said:


> The current law enables the court to decide where responsibility for the accident lies and to award damages accordingly."



<sarc>Just like it allows it to impose sentences accordingly.......<sarc>


----------



## spindrift (5 Dec 2007)

_It would not be appropriate to change the law to provide that motorists should automatically be liable for any accident involving a motor vehicle and a pedestrian or cyclist._ 

That's not what the petition said.


----------



## snorri (5 Dec 2007)

gambatte said:


> The fear is
> 
> Would you like to pay £100 a year more, because some 'yoof' shoots out of an alley, straight in front of you, and theres no other witnesses?



That may be the fear, but it would not be the reality. If drivers were required to take more responsibility for their actions they would drive more carefully in the presence of pedestrians and cyclists, resulting in a reduction in injury and damages, which in turn will reduce the number of insurance claims. Less money paid out by insurance companies and reduced insurance premiums for drivers. 
Everyone's a winner, less injury and grief for cyclists, reduced insurance premiums for drivers.


----------



## CotterPin (5 Dec 2007)

snorri said:


> That may be the fear, but it would not be the reality. If drivers were required to take more responsibility for their actions they would drive more carefully in the presence of pedestrians and cyclists, resulting in a reduction in injury and damages, which in turn will reduce the number of insurance claims. Less money paid out by insurance companies and reduced insurance premiums for drivers.
> *Everyone's a winner, less injury and grief for cyclists, reduced insurance premiums for drivers*.



Shame the government can't see that. This is the usual kowtowing to the motorist lobby.


----------



## spen666 (7 Dec 2007)

spindrift said:


> _Would you like to pay £100 a year more, because some 'yoof' shoots out of an alley, straight in front of you, and theres no other witnesses?_
> 
> 1/
> 
> ...





Sadly it is you who appears not to have understood what strict liability means.


Strict liability is where the person is held responsible ( ie liable) irrespective of the cause.

The petition itself is misleading as I said on this thread back in September.

There is a huge difference between strict liability and changing the presumption of guilt ( in civil sense). In other European countries the presumption, in the absence of evidence to the contrary is that the driver of a motor vehicl is liable. This is a rebuttable presumption. It is totally different to strict liability


Can you name any country who have introduced a system of strict liability rather than a rebuttable presumption?


----------



## spen666 (11 Dec 2007)

User said:


> Holland, Belgium and Sweden have 'presumption of liability' (its not 'strict liability' or 'presumption of guilt' as you don't have 'guilt' in civil cases) laws. In Belgium it is related to vehicle size - e.g if a lorry that hits a car then the presumption of liability will apply to the lorry.



I Agree- too busy thinking of criminal work - it is of course changing the presumption of liability


----------

