Calls to back campaign for cycle law change.

[classic33]

Call to back campaign.

"THE families of two cyclists killed in accidents on Scotland's roads have urged MSPs to back changes to ensure drivers would have to prove they were not at fault in road accidents.


Sally Low, 44, died after she was involved in a collision with a car on a country road near her home in Moray in September, 2013.

Andrew McNicoll died after he was in collision with a lorry, driven by John Stewart, in Edinburgh in January, 2012.

The McNicoll family are pursuing a civil action after Mr Stewart was cleared in March at Edinburgh Sheriff Court of causing the death by driving with undue care and attention

Now the families of Mrs Low and Mr McNicoll have spoken publicly as they back a campaign, launched this year."

 

[summerdays]

Well I agree with presumed liability, you never know if might make motorists notice the sun was blinding them such that they couldn't see!

 

[Turdus philomelos]

Cycle Law Scotland need a further 539 to petition for presumed liability.

https://www.change.org/p/pass-a-mem...utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink

http://www.roadshare.co.uk

 

[Drago]

The story isn't particularly well presented in the article but it seems subtly different from civil liability as it stands on the continent or Ontario.

Criminal presumed liability is counter to European law where guilt must be established as part of a fair-trial process and can not be presumed. No point signing it as it can not lawfully be introduced, although the second half of the article seems to talk more about civil liability again.

Which are they on about? Do they even know themselves?

 

[Spinney]

The petition itself, though, clearly mentions civil law.

 

[Tin Pot]

The petition itself, though, clearly mentions civil law.

It does but I'm not sure how this differs from the rest of civil law - it's been a quarter century since I studied GCSE law, so forgive me but isn't it a key difference that there guilt must be proven in criminal law, but in civil law the defendant must prove the plaintiffs claims untrue. Is that not basically the same thing as presumed liability?

 

[Spinney]

It does but I'm not sure how this differs from the rest of civil law - it's been a quarter century since I studied GCSE law, so forgive me but isn't it a key difference that there guilt must be proven in criminal law, but in civil law the defendant must prove the plaintiffs claims untrue. Is that not basically the same thing as presumed liability?

I'm afraid I don't know the ins and outs of it.
But if what you say is the case, there seem to be remarkably few successful claims against motorists under civil law - or perhaps we just never hear about them?

 

[the snail]

It does but I'm not sure how this differs from the rest of civil law - it's been a quarter century since I studied GCSE law, so forgive me but isn't it a key difference that there guilt must be proven in criminal law, but in civil law the defendant must prove the plaintiffs claims untrue. Is that not basically the same thing as presumed liability?

Don't think so, although it's the case with libel? I think the level of proof is different though - balance of probability rather than beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Profpointy]

My undsersdaning is the same as snail's above - thus civil claims indeed are on balance of probabilities. However there are very good arguments for "presumed liability" for tort claims ( injury and the like) against the party responsible for something seen as dangerous. Thus, if you operate a chemical works and there is a leak, or your pet lion escapes you'd be held liable for injuries wihout being proved negligent - the law already works like this for this sort of thing. It would be a bloody good idea if this also applied to those operating 2 tonnes of machenery travelling at high speed. This is not the same as criminal guilt which would have to be proven int the normal way. And the motorist would still have a reasonable defence if he could establish that the cyclist had done some manifestly stupid.

 

[Karlt]

Every time a driver's insurers pay out it's a win under the civil law - the insurance company knows that if it went to court they'd lose. It doesn't often get to court because in most cases liability is actually fairly simple, so very few cases go that far. But when a driver left hooks you and you claim against his insurance, that's a claim under the civil law - negligence, in this case.

The standard of proof in civil law is balance of probabilities. In other words you have to persuade the judge that your case is stronger than the other party's. Neither party has to prove the other party wrong, just less likely to be right than they are.

Presumed liability would shift that so that the defendant must demonstrate that the claimant is responsible for his own losses; the claimant would not have to demonstrate anything. It would make a difference in cases where liability is unclear and the evidence is lacking; in the absence of evidence to the contrary the claimant would win.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Presumed liability works in theory, but I have very little faith in people and feel that it would be exposed by the "crash for cash" kind of people.

Buy a cycle, ride into a car, profit.

As a cyclist, how would you feel if a pedestrian walked in front of you, no video evidence to prove your innocence. Would you be happy to pay their compensation?

I think the problem is that in criminal cases that they're likely to be dominated by non-cycling drivers, as that is the generic demographic of nearly every city in the country.

So when the defence is "the sun was in my eyes" or similar, it quite easily brings the response of "we've all had that before, when we can't see" from the jury, from which a not-guilty verdict.

 

[glenn forger]

I expect you have some examples of cyclists deliberately riding into motor vehicles in countries that have PL?

No, you haven't, because it's an utterly stupid claim which wouldn't work under PL anyway. You can't cycle into cars and claim compensation under PL. So I'm mildly interested why you just wrote a screed about summat you know next to nothing about?

 

[growingvegetables]

Presumed liability works in theory, ...........

Actually, it works in practice in all the countries of Europe, apart from five. Cyprus, Malta, Romania, Ireland, and the UK.

 

[classic33]

Have been witness to and for the injured party when they have been stationary and had another vehicle "drive into the back of them".
Various factors meant it couldn't have happened, as given.

 

[Arrowfoot]

Presumed liability works in theory, but I have very little faith in people and feel that it would be exposed by the "crash for cash" kind of people.

Buy a cycle, ride into a car, profit.

You do know that much of Europe has this on their books for years. Any examples of cyclist deliberately riding into a car in Europe?