'Strict Liability' laws

ratherbeintobago

From road.cc

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.

Sounds like a good move to me; what do people think?

Andy

estampida

good

I like living in Switzerland and other places in europe

when I was in Bern, if you looked at the road as a pedestiran, the cars would stop...... very safe roads

1st class grass as well :roll:

cooldad

Totally stupid. There are just as many asshole pedestrians and cyclists as motorists.

ratherbeintobago

cooldad wrote:

There are just as many asshole pedestrians and cyclists as motorists.

No-one's disputing that; what this would change is that the driver's insurance would have to prove the cyclist was at fault (which should be easy enough in eg. RLJing) rather than the cyclist having to prove the driver was at fault (often difficult when it's one person's word against another, and the non-driver may be seriously injured).

Also, if this is a stupid idea, how come us, Ireland, Malta & Cyprus are the only countries in Western Europe that don't already have this legislation?

Andy

cookdn

+1. In Germany they take it one step further. As a motorist even if a collision is caused entirely by the actions of somebody else it is rare to get 100% liability because their laws acknowledge that being on the roads is an inherently risky activity.

The problem is that car drivers will trot out the same old cliches about pedestrians, red lights and how cyclists are an unruly menace.

Strict liability actually helps in the relatively infrequent occurrence of a cyclist on pedestrian collision because strict liability will apply to the cyclist.

To me cyclists transgressing red lights at controlled junctions is a straw man argument. Plenty of motorists jump red lights and the consequences are far more dangerous to all road users than a cyclist doing the same.

Best regards
David

TheEnglishman

cookdn wrote:

...
To me cyclists transgressing red lights at controlled junctions is a straw man argument..

Gotta disagree. In all the years of commuting I've never seen a car/van/bus blatently jump a red light. But I see cyclists do it daily.

I'm not in favour as we have a perfectly good legal system to deal with crashes. I mean does anyone seriously think some kind of Jasper Carrot defence is reasonable? 'The bloke was all over the road - I had to swerve a number of times before I hit him'

cookdn

My position is that no road user should be jumping red lights, cyclist or motorist. I understand the position that some cyclists take about ignoring red lights because it is safer to do so in some specific circumstances, but this just antagonises other road users and is used as a stick to bash cyclists with.

TheEnglishman wrote:

Gotta disagree. In all the years of commuting I've never seen a car/van/bus blatently jump a red light. But I see cyclists do it daily.

Maybe you have been lucky or not looking at the right moment. Even Directline disagree - Red Alert: Motorists Drive Through 278 Red Traffic Lights a Minute.

TheEnglishman wrote:

I'm not in favour as we have a perfectly good legal system to deal with crashes. I mean does anyone seriously think some kind of Jasper Carrot defence is reasonable? 'The bloke was all over the road - I had to swerve a number of times before I hit him'

This was written by a cycling QC (he should know his law) - The Cycling Lawyer: Cycling against the car culture. Our legal system is designed around the needs of motorists and in my opinion is absolutely zero deterrent to a sizeable (and growing) minority of motorists and their poor behaviour around vulnerable road users. How many times have you seen cars ignore pedestrian crossings (controlled or otherwise) with pedestrians actually on them? The crossing near our house is an example of this where impatient motorists will not even wait for small children to finish crossing in safety. The UK has a sick motorist culture to the detriment of all road users (motorists included) and it is only getting worse.

Best regards
David

ps. For the record, so you don't get the idea that am some sort of unbalanced eccentric cycling militant, I'm a company car driver, full motorcycle license holder and cyclist.

airbag

TheEnglishman wrote:

cookdn wrote:

...
To me cyclists transgressing red lights at controlled junctions is a straw man argument..

Gotta disagree. In all the years of commuting I've never seen a car/van/bus blatently jump a red light. But I see cyclists do it daily.

I'm not in favour as we have a perfectly good legal system to deal with crashes. I mean does anyone seriously think some kind of Jasper Carrot defence is reasonable? 'The bloke was all over the road - I had to swerve a number of times before I hit him'

I'm with cookdn - happens all the time. I've (in a car) been waiting at the front of a queue on a narrow village road (down to 1-way light controlled roadworks) when, 2-5 seconds after lights go red, WVM 5 cars back pulls out and blasts straight through the junction. Or a clueless van driver on mobile who nearly took out a cyclist who had green a couple of weeks ago. And countless people for whom amber means 'speed up, you can make it!', at a guess 5-10% of whom end up jumping the light by more than a second.

In any case, using a generalisation about a whole group of people to justify a rule applied to individuals is generally going to be unlawful - the argument for only works because the generalisation, 'the motorist has the faster, heavier object, therefore the more potential to cause injury,' works to all intents and purposes 100% of the time. It's the second part, 'the onus should be on the road user with the greater potential to injure to show they acted responsibly or be deemed liable', that's debatable, but that's more a moral/political point than a scientific one.

rolf_f

TheEnglishman wrote:

cookdn wrote:

...
To me cyclists transgressing red lights at controlled junctions is a straw man argument..

Gotta disagree. In all the years of commuting I've never seen a car/van/bus blatently jump a red light. But I see cyclists do it daily.

Car drivers have less opportunity to jump red lights than cyclists. All you need is one car ahead of you stopping on red and you're stuffed! I once pulled up at a light that was transitioning from amber to red and the bloke behind drove into the back of me!

bails87

I see car drivers jump lights pretty regularly. One junction (30mph road) where I was nearly hit by one has an amber phase 8 seconds long, and the light had been red for a couple of seconds when the car went through. So 10+ seconds of "STOP" was ignored. I was nearly hit by 3 different cars at the same pedestrian crossing (outside a nursery and primary school) who just ignored the red light, despite it being red for at least 10 seconds in each case.

I was waiting at a red light, in the car, in a 40 zone. Multi road junction, so a long wait, a good minute or so. And a WVM goes blasting through the red light at 70ish.

A van driver who shouted a me for "riding like an idiot" was stationary in a queue when the lights in front of him went amber, then red. Then he floored it through the junction and had a go at me when he caught up (I'd gone through the junction on a totally green light) :?

Quite often when I'm driving on dual carriageways I'll stop at a light that's changing to red and the three or four cars that are next to and behind me in the other lane will go through. Amber means 'stop unless it would cause a collision'. Most drivers think it means 'go'.

Stopping at an amber should never cause a collision anyway. The only way it could is if the driver behind is too close.

gbsahne001

usually see at least 2 or 3 cars running reds each day

rolf_f

gbsahne wrote:

usually see at least 2 or 3 cars running reds each day

Yes, but if you ride 1000 miles a day that's inevitable

Kerguelen

TheEnglishman wrote:

Gotta disagree. In all the years of commuting I've never seen a car/van/bus blatantly jump a red light.

Seriously? I see it in Glasgow all the time.

Only 2 days ago I was stopped at a red in the secondary position when a car went past me at > 20mph. If I'd taken primary I would have been doomed.

Cycloslalomeur

It appears TheEnglishman's perception of motorists' traffic signal compliance rate is fairly common. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there studies indicating that the rate of traffic signal violations is higher among motorists than it is among cyclists?

When I and most other cyclist red light-jumpers ignore a red I crawl through the junction after checking for other traffic. By contrast, when motorists jump reds they tend to accelerate from their cruising speed (which was probably already above the limit) and just hope they won't hit anything. If I (as a cyclist) get it wrong I'll get killed. If a motorist does he might kill other people as well.

benno68

I think it's a good idea and seems to work in other countries. There are so many motorists and vehicle passengers that seem to have an anti cyclist attitude or display anti social behaviour towards cyclists, maybe a strict liability law will alter their behaviour.

Has anyone here nearly been taken out by a car overtaking on a narrow road, then seeing an oncoming car and deciding that swerving towards the cyclist is the better option, it's happened to me a number of times. How many times do you see a car turn left without indicating, or squeezing past a cyclist on a bend etc.

As for us cyclists, we should accept that we are road users and abide by traffic signals and road markings just like we expect motorists to.

karlth

What you describe is not strict liability. It's presumed liability. Under strict liability, a person is responsible for the event covered by the strict liability law whatever the circumstances.

Looking around the web, a lot of organisations seem confused about this.

ratherbeintobago

karlth wrote:

What you describe is not strict liability. It's presumed liability.

Yes, you're right. Presumed liability is what I meant, but I can't edit the thread title.

As an aside, anyone know what eg. horse-riding groups think about this?

Andy

karlth

ratherbeintobago wrote:

karlth wrote:

What you describe is not strict liability. It's presumed liability.

Yes, you're right. Presumed liability is what I meant, but I can't edit the thread title.

As an aside, anyone know what eg. horse-riding groups think about this?

Andy

Probably as split as we are. Actually, tere's a bit of dishonesty on the roadpeace site - it's true that it's the driver's insurance that pays, not the driver, but the driver will suffer in terms of increased premiums and loss of NCD. That could lead to perceived injustices in cases where in fact the driver is blameless but there are no independent witnesses and so he's assumed liable. Hence I'm unconvinced in either direction.

rolf_f

karlth wrote:

Probably as split as we are. Actually, tere's a bit of dishonesty on the roadpeace site - it's true that it's the driver's insurance that pays, not the driver, but the driver will suffer in terms of increased premiums and loss of NCD. That could lead to perceived injustices in cases where in fact the driver is blameless but there are no independent witnesses and so he's assumed liable. Hence I'm unconvinced in either direction.

This applies in all sorts though - eg driving into the back of someone; the presumption is that the driver at the back of the smash is the one that is at fault unless he can show otherwise.

Unjust loss of NCD is frustrating but, ultimately, the simplifications save the insurance companies spending a lot of time investigating cases that probably have a predictable outcome. 9 times out of 10 it is the driver at the back that is at fault and awareness of that is probably useful in making drivers keep a bit more distance. All the presumption of fault against drivers vs cyclists does is hopefully make drivers aware that smidsy isn't a let off. If you knock down a cyclist and the best you can do is smidsy, then you'd better hope that the cyclist was in stealth mode.

ratherbeintobago

That could lead to perceived injustices in cases where in fact the driver is blameless but there are no independent witnesses and so he's assumed liable

Aye, but if it was dark, the cyclist was wearing black and had no lights, it wouldn't necessarily need witnesses for the blame to be shared.

If, on the other hand, it was daytime, and the accident happened on a straight road, it would make it all much more straightforward without them.

Andy

Headhuunter

I have to say,I think I'm in favour if these liability laws. Yes there are careless pedestrians and careless cyclists but only motorists have such an ability to kill or maim other road users. It has been illustrated that the best way to make drivers pay attention is to put a spike in the middle of the steering wheel, drivers pay more attention when they perceive danger to themselves, strict liability is the legal equivalent to the spike in the middle of the steering wheel

dilemna

karlth wrote:

What you describe is not strict liability. It's presumed liability. Under strict liability, a person is responsible for the event covered by the strict liability law whatever the circumstances.

Looking around the web, a lot of organisations seem confused about this.

Strict liability applies to criminal law. An offence is committed where merely an act is is done ie speeding or not wearing a seat belt. There is no intention or mens rea element, doing the prohibited act is sufficient to be guilty of an offence. It has nothing to with civil law.

In a civil case the claimant currently has to show that the defendant ie the person causing the damage or injury was at fault. The change that is proposed which causes all the confusion with strict liability, which is nothing to do with this, is that the defendant will presumed to be at fault ie liable unless they can demonstrate otherwise which means the claimant ie the injured party does NOT have to show that the defendant was at fault or liable. It would be the defendant's burden to show that they were NOT.

The criminal law could also be changed so that a defendant would be guilty of an offence unless they could show evidence that they were NOT at fault for a collision with a more vulnerable road user. But this change would fundamentally change our criminal law and would have the civil liberty brigade up in arms as in effect in such road traffic situations where there is a road traffic collision an individual would be guilty untill proven innocent which goes against the fundamental principle of law that people are innocent until proven guilty for criminal offences.

A lot of people are totally clueless and get really muddled mainly because there is a lot of mis-information and ignorance put about by pseudo hacks and journos who know bugger all about law, do zero research and then write articles which are riddled with errors. Hence the general ignorance.

ratherbeintobago

I don't think anyone's suggesting a change to the criminal law; do you not think the civil penalties would be ebnough of a deterrent?

Andy