Death of a Cyclist - What can be done??

bigmat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability

greg66_tri_v2.0

number9 wrote:

The principle of Strict Liability whereby there is an assumption of liability without proof of fault, as applied in the Netherlands and elsewhere, and being discussed here - isn't that the motorist would always be responsible regardless of circumstances - rather that the burden of proof would be reversed such that the onus would fall upon the less vulnerable road user to prove that they weren't responsible for the damage or injuries suffered by the more vulnerable road user - rather than the reverse as it works currently.

That is not the legal meaning of strict liability in this country.

Perhaps you should research the term a little.

bigmat

The frustrating thing is I agree with a lot of what No.9 is saying, but the message is getting confused and that is in nobody's interests.

spen666

Greg66 wrote:

number9 wrote:

The principle of Strict Liability whereby there is an assumption of liability without proof of fault, as applied in the Netherlands and elsewhere, and being discussed here - isn't that the motorist would always be responsible regardless of circumstances - rather that the burden of proof would be reversed such that the onus would fall upon the less vulnerable road user to prove that they weren't responsible for the damage or injuries suffered by the more vulnerable road user - rather than the reverse as it works currently.

That is not the legal meaning of strict liability in this country.

Perhaps you should research the term a little.

I must concur with you Greg.

Number 9. Your intentions are clearly to improve cycling, but your repeated posting of whatcan only be described as nonsene about the law and the legal system detracts from the valid points you are raising.

We had it earlier in the week when you almost deliberately confused criminal law principles and powers with civil law ones and now you are confusing the issues of strict liability and presumprions of liability.

It is a complete waste of time you cutting and pasting vast chunks off the internet when you do not understand them.

Please think about what you are posting as your intentions are not supported by your actions.

spen666

Wallace1492 wrote:

....

I am all for strict liability. Yes, may be percieved to be unfair, but it works on the continent. It also has not increased the cost of motor vehicle insurance, and in no way presumes the driver guilty.

No9 has posted some very good information. However, No9, when you say nobody has suggested such a thing, yes they have and I am all for it!! From what you have posted I believe you are all for it too. I would think any sensible cyclist would be for it too.

I think you are mistaken when you say strict liability works on the continent.

My understanding is that it is a presumption of liability rather than strict liability. There is a huge difference.

number9

However, No9, when you say nobody has suggested such a thing, yes they have

Nobody has suggested holding motorists responsible for any injury suffered by a cyclist in any circumstances. The rules are quite clear despite the distortions that appeared in the press.The scenario painted was that drunk/drugged cyclists could smash into a car and claim damages. This is not the case. It was suggested motorists would always be held liable. This isn't true.

The last thread discusiing this horrible death was locked after Greg launched his nasty personal attacks and distortions, behaviour that he's now carried over to PMs. It would be a great shame if this thread met the same fate. Respectfully, I'd ask that people behave themselves and discuss the subject, snide remarks about other posters being on drugs, unable to drive or never leaving the house don't help anyone. Calm down, please.

Wallace1492

spen666 wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

....

I am all for strict liability. Yes, may be percieved to be unfair, but it works on the continent. It also has not increased the cost of motor vehicle insurance, and in no way presumes the driver guilty.

No9 has posted some very good information. However, No9, when you say nobody has suggested such a thing, yes they have and I am all for it!! From what you have posted I believe you are all for it too. I would think any sensible cyclist would be for it too.

I think you are mistaken when you say strict liability works on the continent.

My understanding is that it is a presumption of liability rather than strict liability. There is a huge difference.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but thats is what I was lead to believe. I thought the drivers insurance paid out, no matter the fault. Therefore it would be strict liability rather than presumed, as presumed would mean that it could be challenged and the liability altered depending on the facts, therefore as you say, a huge difference.

I am happy to be corrected, as I said I was saying what I had seen, but I do not claim at all to be an expert.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_the_Netherlands

number9

What is strict liability?

In road traffic personal injury cases in the UK, the burden of proof is on the victim to prove the other party was negligent. The injured party in a crash between a motor vehicle and a pedestrian or cyclist is most likely to be the vulnerable road user. Under strict liability, the burden of proof is reversed. Vulnerable victims, not drivers, are the ones assumed innocent with regard to causing their injuries.

Strict liability already applies to passengers, and many countries in Europe also extend it to vul-nerable road victims, e.g. pedestrians and cy-clists. Strict liability only applies to civil compen-sation and does not affect criminal prosecution.

RoadPeace is calling for the introduction of strict liability in the UK whereby motorists would be responsible for compensation for injuries to cy-clists and pedestrians, unless it was proven that the victim caused the collision. In the case of children and the elderly, or those with physical or mental impairments, motorists would be liable irrespective of the victim’s actions.

For more detail, see our discussion paper below.



http://www.roadpeace.org/documents/Stri ... 0paper.pdf

spen666

number9 wrote:

What is strict liability?

In road traffic personal injury cases in the UK, the burden of proof is on the victim to prove the other party was negligent. The injured party in a crash between a motor vehicle and a pedestrian or cyclist is most likely to be the vulnerable road user. Under strict liability, the burden of proof is reversed. Vulnerable victims, not drivers, are the ones assumed innocent with regard to causing their injuries.

Strict liability already applies to passengers, and many countries in Europe also extend it to vul-nerable road victims, e.g. pedestrians and cy-clists. Strict liability only applies to civil compen-sation and does not affect criminal prosecution.

RoadPeace is calling for the introduction of strict liability in the UK whereby motorists would be responsible for compensation for injuries to cy-clists and pedestrians, unless it was proven that the victim caused the collision. In the case of children and the elderly, or those with physical or mental impairments, motorists would be liable irrespective of the victim’s actions.

For more detail, see our discussion paper below.



http://www.roadpeace.org/documents/Stri ... 0paper.pdf

Number 9 - what your are writing is complete rubbish I'm afraid to say.

This thing you describe as strict liability is actually a presumption of l;iability. Strict liability would mean that no matter what the evidence is the motorist would be held liable.

Please stop quoting nonsense from elsewhere. You are only adding confusion to the issue.

More than one lawyer on this forum this week has pointed out to you what is strict liability and what is a presumption of liability.

In strict liability- it is what it says- ie liability is strict- ie applies irrespective of the evidence. There is no reverse burden of proof. In strict liability all that is needed to be proved is the accident ocurred ( not how it occurred)

We are wasting valuable time and effort on here discussing rubbish instead of considering the proposal.

Please stop misinforming people.

There is and never has been any proposal for strict liability to apply in RTA matttters in either civil or criminal cases.

The proposal is in relation to the presumption of liability.

Roadpeace if you have quoted them clearly are wrong in law.