Presumed liability - e-Petition

[glenn forger]

I used to work in insurance and here's my take.

We all know our standard cover meets the minimum EU requirements? Usually if the driver is over 25 they are covered under a comprehensive policy to drive in the EU, limited to third party only, so anyone the driver collides with is covered. The cost is included. There is no additional charge. Of course, for peace of mind you can upgrade to Fully Comp, usually for around £40 for the year, but my point is, if the countries that have PL can be driven in and the insurer doesn't even bother to load the premium, it suggests to me that there aren't hordes of foreign scammers waiting in foreign to hurl themselves under the wheels of cars with a UK plate. Fake cycle insurance claims are such and incredibly rare event there aren't even any stats on them. But my point is most of us are covered to drive in countries with PL, and it costs us diddly squit.

 

[format]

Premiums in the UK would rise, I have no doubt about that. Neither do the colleagues I have spoken to on the subject either.

Did you read my post on the last page before making this statement?

 

[Drago]

Apart from which It's against European law. It won't happen unless Cameron grows a pair or Farage becomes PM, either of which are about as likely as Deidre Barlow going dogging and there being a queue.

 

[format]

Apart from which It's against European law. It won't happen unless Cameron grows a pair or Farage becomes PM, either of which are about as likely as Deidre Barlow going dogging and there being a queue.

It's really nor. User has it correct.

If it really was against european law, do you think it'd be the standard across most countries in Europe. It's been in place in Germany since 1908, for example.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Sadly, the motion to introduce presumed liability has been denied.

Collision liability rule for motorists rejected

A motion which advocated changing the law to assume a car driver is at fault in a collision with a cyclist was debated before delegates decided against approving it.
Justice Committee convener, Christine Grahame MSP, argued against the motion stating "if you are touching Scots law, which is precious, let's get it right".

She said it was not clear how strict or presumed liability would work, questioning if it means the larger or more powerful vehicle driver is always at fault.
Graeme Dey MSP argued: "There is no evidence strict liability works.
"We should be establishing a culture of respect and have to ensure people behave responsibly and are held to account."
He said that could mean a proficiency test for cyclists and third party insurance."
Glasgow Kelvin Branch had proposed the motion should become party policy as there has been a rise in cycling for sport and for travel in recent years."
It called for backing for the Roadshare campaign arguing for a change in the law.
The campaign says Scotland and the UK is out of step with most of Europe, as one of only five EU countries.​

GC

 

[snorri]

From what I have read elsewhere the Roadshare campaign group are not overly disappointed at this news The feeling is that change is on the way, just not as soon a might have been hoped.

 

[mark c]

signed.

 

[Deleted member 1258]

Driving is obviously too cheap - making it more expensive, especially in terms of insurance, might make people value the privilege more highly and think more carefully about how they exercise it. But then I tend to agree with Dan anyway - your post was more alarmism than anything else.

Nothing cheap about running a car, £152 to tax it for a year, almost £500 for a years insurance, plus service, fuel and MOT.

 

[theclaud]

Nothing cheap about running a car, £152 to tax it for a year, almost £500 for a years insurance, plus service, fuel and MOT.

That's far too cheap. How much it would it need to cost before people think twice about whether they really need one in the first place, and whether they really need to get in it to nip down the road for a pint of milk?

 

[Deleted member 1258]

That's far too cheap. How much it would it need to cost before people think twice about whether they really need one in the first place, and whether they really need to get in it to nip down the road for a pint of milk?

That aint cheap when your only on £7.50 an hour, and no I don't use the car to nip down the road for a pint of milk, in fact I restrict the use of the car and use my bike as much as possible.

 

[theclaud]

That aint cheap when your only on £7.50 an hour, and no I don't use the car to nip down the road for a pint of milk, in fact I restrict the use of the car and use my bike as much as possible.

I wasn't directing any criticism at your habits, of which I know nothing. It's simply a fact that most car journeys are very short, and there's no need for them. One can only conclude that cars are too easy to acquire, and that fuel is cheap enough to waste. But we're drifting off topic, and that's probably my fault.

 

[spen666]

The petition doesn't make it clear if this is in relation to criminal law or civil law.

There is a fundamental difference.

In criminal law, its a fundamental principle that you are innocent until PROVEN guilty. If this is meant to apply to criminal law, then it would mean people are guilty until proven inncoent which is a breach of a fundamental human right


In relation to civil law, subject to issues about how it is meant to be applied, it would be a useful change, if it is workable

 

[spen666]

This will assume that the party operating the more hazardous vehicle is responsible in the event of a collision

Who decides which is more hazardous vehicle? Is it not the case that its the operative that is more hazardous rather than the vehicle.


We would end up with trials about which was the most hazardous vehicle and whether therefore the presumption applies

 

[glasgowcyclist]

The petition doesn't make it clear if this is in relation to criminal law or civil law.

There is a fundamental difference.

In criminal law, its a fundamental principle that you are innocent until PROVEN guilty. If this is meant to apply to criminal law, then it would mean people are guilty until proven inncoent which is a breach of a fundamental human right


In relation to civil law, subject to issues about how it is meant to be applied, it would be a useful change, if it is workable

It's only proposed in relation to civil law, liability for damages. The Scottish petition makes this point clearly.

GC

 

[spen666]

It's only proposed in relation to civil law, liability for damages. The Scottish petition makes this point clearly.

GC

That Scottish petition is even worse, its titled about presumed liability then states

We are only one of a very small number of countries across Europe (Romania, Cyprus, Malta and Ireland) who do not operate such a system of strict liability for vulnerable road users and yet it is not unprecedented in UK law.

Strict liability is something very very different from presumed liability.

Strict liability is not appropriate at all in these circumstances