Considering change in civil law of responsiblility

[summerdays]

Saw this article and can't see a link to it:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6841326.ece

Now if only it becomes more than just a consideration.

MINISTERS are considering making motorists legally responsible for accidents involving cyclists or pedestrians, even if they are not at fault.

Government advisers are pushing for changes in the civil law that will make the most powerful vehicle involved in a collision automatically liable for insurance and compensation purposes.

 

[dellzeqq]

Worked in British Columbia in the mid 70s

 

[semislickstick]

It'll be discussed on Wright Stuff channel 5 10am today.

It may be a bit anti!

 

[MartinC]

I personally don't think this change will ever happen in the UK. The mindset here is totally wrong - just look at the headline on the article.

In civilised countries the principle is simple - those who bring the risk and danger to the road environment are the ones who must bear the cost of insuring against the outcome.

In the UK the perception is that roads belong to cars and anyone else using them must conform to the "car" rules or bear the consequences. This is why our accident figures for vulnerable road users (e.g. children) are worse than our peers.

 

[Night Train]

I would have thought that in civilised countries one is innocent until proven guilty.

Legislating to place guilt on one party only in all instances is persecution.
It also serves to remove all responsibility from the other party.

So when you are cycling along the road and some yob steps out from the pavement and pushes you off your bike it automatically becomes your respnsibility, and your fault, that the yob did this. The yob also gets off free and is able to make a compensation claim against you for his actions in knocking you off his bike.

The same would happen if a pedestrian or cyclist deliberately causes an accident, say slamming into a vehicle correctly and safely stopped at a junction, that places the blame wholey on the driver of the car. I don't think that is right either.

The report looks at the most powerful vehicle being to blame.
So does that mean that there will be a heirachy based on driving power?
That would mean that a distracted truck driver in his 300hp truck would be to blame if he hit a 120hp family hatch back but if he hit a 350hp Ferrari it would be the Ferrari driver's fault?

What if two cyclist collided? Would it be the cyclist with the stronger legs who is guilty?

The consideration is daft.
What would be better is to instill a sense of responsibility into all people so that they understand and accept that their actions have consequences and that they would be held responsible for their actions and punished by the appropriate means IF they are found to be the guilty party.

 

[siadwell]

I would have thought that in civilised countries one is innocent until proven guilty.

...

The consideration is daft.
What would be better is to instill a sense of responsibility into all people so that they understand and accept that their actions have consequences and that they would be held responsible for their actions and punished by the appropriate means IF they are found to be the guilty party.

Well put. Completely agree.

 

[Origamist]

Night Train, "strict liability" is not being suggested, it is the "presumption of guilt" (or more correctly, a rebuttable presumption of liability) that is being mooted - the two are not the same thing. Where is User when you need him?

 

[Dan B]

Same old tired arguments based on the same old (intentional?) confusion between civil and criminal proceedings.

 

[Origamist]

Same old tired arguments based on the same old (intentional?) confusion between civil and criminal proceedings.

Yep, and the thread title was even helpful in this regard...!

 

[Origamist]

It'll be discussed on Wright Stuff channel 5 10am today.

It may be a bit anti!

The item was discussed under the following heading:

"Should motorists pay for cyclists' mistakes?"

Piss-poor, tabloid TV.

 

[MartinC]

Even someone as cynical as me was disappointed that the 2 posts that followed mine proved the point I was making.

 

[jonesy]

The Times article about this is a shocking piece of 'journalism' and makes me believe it is unlikely they are correctly reporting what Cycling England are actually proposing. The pro-car media are clearly getting the motorists' backlash going before the actual proposals get a chance of reasonable consideration.

 

[very-near]

I would have thought that in civilised countries one is innocent until proven guilty.

Legislating to place guilt on one party only in all instances is persecution.
It also serves to remove all responsibility from the other party.

So when you are cycling along the road and some yob steps out from the pavement and pushes you off your bike it automatically becomes your respnsibility, and your fault, that the yob did this. The yob also gets off free and is able to make a compensation claim against you for his actions in knocking you off his bike.

The same would happen if a pedestrian or cyclist deliberately causes an accident, say slamming into a vehicle correctly and safely stopped at a junction, that places the blame wholey on the driver of the car. I don't think that is right either.

The report looks at the most powerful vehicle being to blame.
So does that mean that there will be a heirachy based on driving power?
That would mean that a distracted truck driver in his 300hp truck would be to blame if he hit a 120hp family hatch back but if he hit a 350hp Ferrari it would be the Ferrari driver's fault?

What if two cyclist collided? Would it be the cyclist with the stronger legs who is guilty?

The consideration is daft.
What would be better is to instill a sense of responsibility into all people so that they understand and accept that their actions have consequences and that they would be held responsible for their actions and punished by the appropriate means IF they are found to be the guilty party.

You can't talk common sense when there is a bias to defend NT

This means all collisions with peds are going to be the cyclists fault

 

[dellzeqq]

If you propel a heavy and hard object along a road at speed, then you're responsible for the damage it causes. Nobody asked you to do it. If you don't want to take responsibility, travel more slowly, and by lighter means. Or take the bus.

 

[Dan B]

This means all collisions with peds are going to be the cyclists fault

No, it means the *presumption* is that collisions with peds are the cyclist's fault, if the pedestrian wants to pursue a civil claim for damages against the cyclist. If the cyclist is not at fault, he can demonstrate that to the court.

If the cyclist doesn't want the responsibility that goes with the privilege of more momentum, he can walk instead. Or, as Dellzeqq says, get the bus