Strict Liability

[snorri]

The start of a new campaign began today with an item on the Call Kaye programme on Radio Scotland.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01rwzq1

Listen from 03.10 - 09.42,
from 16.42 - 40.45,
also from 1h. 34.14 - 1h.40.00.

A free puncture repair kit to anyone who can listen to Alan Douglas without swearing loudly!

http://www.cycling-accident-compensation.co.uk/strict-liability.aspx

 

[Davidc]

Presumed liability is the sane version. Strict liability is absurd.

 

[PK99]

The start of a new campaign began today with an item on the Call Kaye programme on Radio Scotland.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01rwzq1

Listen from 03.10 - 09.42,
from 16.42 - 40.45,
also from 1h. 34.14 - 1h.40.00.

A free puncture repair kit to anyone who can listen to Alan Douglas without swearing loudly!

http://www.cycling-accident-compensation.co.uk/strict-liability.aspx

Interesting snippet in there:

Strict liability establishes a hierarchical structure to identify responsibility in the event of a road traffic accident, bringing certainty to the legal process.

I presume that in that hierarchy, if a cyclist hits a pedestrian they have strict liability for the harm caused?

 

[mcshroom]

Unless proven otherwise yes. The whole point of the system is to make the less vulnerable more responsible around the more vulnerable, instead of the current situation of the less vulnerable bullying the more vulnerable out of the way.

 

[Davidc]

Unless proven otherwise yes. The whole point of the system is to make the less vulnerable more responsible around the more vulnerable, instead of the current situation of the less vulnerable bullying the more vulnerable out of the way.

You're describing presumed liability. With Strict Liability there's no question of proving otherwise, liability is as the title - strict - so the less vulnerable road user is automatically liable irrespective of the actions of the more vulnerable road user.

 

[TwoPosts]

I'm not sure about the legal terms in Scotland, but in England you will never get strict liability attached to Road Traffic Accidents, as has been pointed out the term is may be presumed liability which appears to be a term used in some countries in Continental Europe.

Strict liability is very rare and also very dangerous, it means that if you commit an offence with strict liability attached you are immediately guilty and all that can be done when it comes to court is to apply any mitigating circumstances to the sentence passed. This is what happened to one person who accidentally sent a risque text message to his phone address book instead of one person

Even though he was freed, he is still guilty and has the offence on his record and his life probably made extremely difficult all because of a silly mistake and strict liability.

I can't see a law in England being passed that says if a motor vehicle hits a cyclist / pedestrian or if a cyclist hits a pedestrian you are automatically guilty.

As I said I don't know the layman's definition for Strict Liability in Scotland.

Peter

 

[HLaB]

Presumed liability is the sane version. Strict liability is absurd.

It might have just been the sportive spirit but my (limited) one experience of cycling in a country with strict liability crazy cycling IMO was taking place (undertaking, pulling out along side/ in front of cars, etc). If that was an accurate picture, I'm in favour of Presumed Liability too.

 

[PK99]

Unless proven otherwise yes. The whole point of the system is to make the less vulnerable more responsible around the more vulnerable, instead of the current situation of the less vulnerable bullying the more vulnerable out of the way.

By strict liability there is no need to prove anything - Big A hits little B, A is liable no matter what happened

 

[snorri]

Presumed liability is the sane version. Strict liability is absurd.

That's what I thought, but just posted the link without comment.
I would hope more information will be forthcoming.

 

[beatyf]

yeah,thank you,instead of the current situation of the less vulnerable bullying the more vulnerable out of the way.

 

[Dan B]

I think a lot of people say "strict" when what they actually mean is "presumed".

That's my presumption, anyway ;-)

 

[snorri]

I would avoid using the term "strict liability" - it scares the horses motorists..

.I agree, still awaiting clarification from the legal eagle whose campaign it is.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

I'm not sure about the legal terms in Scotland, but in England you will never get strict liability attached to Road Traffic Accidents, as has been pointed out the term is may be presumed liability which appears to be a term used in some countries in Continental Europe.

Strict liability is very rare and also very dangerous, it means that if you commit an offence with strict liability attached you are immediately guilty and all that can be done when it comes to court is to apply any mitigating circumstances to the sentence passed. This is what happened to one person who accidentally sent a risque text message to his phone address book instead of one person

Even though he was freed, he is still guilty and has the offence on his record and his life probably made extremely difficult all because of a silly mistake and strict liability.

I can't see a law in England being passed that says if a motor vehicle hits a cyclist / pedestrian or if a cyclist hits a pedestrian you are automatically guilty.

As I said I don't know the layman's definition for Strict Liability in Scotland.

Peter

You are confusing liability with guilt. You are confusing civil law with criminal law. Read my blog article here: http://www.happycyclist.org/?p=429

 

[TwoPosts]

You are confusing liability with guilt. You are confusing civil law with criminal law. Read my blog article here: http://www.happycyclist.org/?p=429

Ah, I see, thanks for the link.

However if the term presumed liability will serve in place of strict liability it might be less inflammatory and stand more chance of success.

Peter

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

Ah, I see, thanks for the link.
However if the term presumed liability will serve in place of strict liability it might be less inflammatory and stand more chance of success.
Peter

Yes, true. It is unfortunate that many people tend to be a little sloppy with their terminology and say strict liability when they really mean presumed liability. However, the more important thing is that this is to do with liability for reparations, not to do with guilt or innocence. The strict vs presumed thing is a side issue.