History of 'strict liability' for road traffic in UK

[Tommi]

Is it just me or is the situation with strict liability (or presumption of liability) for road traffic in UK utterly ridiculous?

I've been to UK only for a few years so I don't have the whole picture, but from what I've learned regarding strict liability for road traffic in UK can be summarised as:

1. in 2002 strict liability was brought up with The EU Fifth Motoring Directive. I think strict liability wasn't actually part of the directive, but in any case it was deemed that strict liability wasn't necessary, and other methods such as speed limits and mobile phone bans would take care of everything.
2. in 2007 there's a petitition for strict liability. Guess it didn't go well, though the response was unavailable.
3. in 2011 Department for Transport is focusing on other approaches to alter driver behaviour

Now, from what I gather DfT has already had 8 years to focus on those other approaches and any significant change in behaviour is yet to come. Why would this year be any different? (I believe there's saying that "insanity is repeating the same behaviour and expecting different results")

I'll admit I can be short tempered, but just how long can this go on?

Already wrote to my MP.

 

[spen666]

Tommi, your post makes little sense as you are confusing STRICT LIABILITY with a PRESUMPTION OF LIABILITY

They are seperate things.

With strict liability, one party is liable irrespective of the cause of the accident. - eg if larger vehicle is held liable under strict liability, then say on a motorway, a car comes at 120mph off a slip road and across the inside lane and drives into an Articulated lorry being driven perfectly properly and safely at 50 mph in the middle lane, the lorry driver would be liable.

That is not a situation that any right thinking person could support (IMHO)

A presumption of liability would mean that in the absence of any other evidence the larger vehicle (assuming that was the presumption) would be held liable, but the lorry driver would be able to rebutt the presumption by producing evidence to show what had happened.


Two very different situations and outcomes.

There are many people and pages on the web that do not understand this distinction

 

[Tommi]

Tommi, your post makes little sense as you are confusing STRICT LIABILITY with a PRESUMPTION OF LIABILITY

Thanks, I know the difference. Roughly, presumption of liability equals strict liability amended with "unless proven otherwise"

Anyway, granted I only saw 'strict liability' mentioned but I still find it quite strange that rather than have some progress and move for presumption of liability as compromise nothing happens in 8 years.

 

[Davidc]

You have to understand that in the UK the motor car is king of the road, and nothing can come in the way of that.

If a car is in collision with a pedestrian, cyclist, horse rider or motorcycle then it's never the car driver who is responsible. That is irrespective of the circumstances. If you ride a bike or do any of the other things I've listed then you are responsible for any collision you're involved in. Just by being there you caused the collision.

Driving a car is a basic inalienable human right, whereas riding a bike, walking etc. on the road aren't. That's a fundamental cultural matter here and can't be changed.

Any ill-considered move to make a change to this upsets the editorial staff (and readers) of the Daily Mail, and as that is the main policy making organ of the country there's no chance of it happening.

If you don't like this arrangement then you'll just have to move somewhere else. Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, France all spring to mind.

 

[spen666]

Thanks, I know the difference. Roughly, presumption of liability equals strict liability amended with "unless proven otherwise"

Anyway, granted I only saw 'strict liability' mentioned but I still find it quite strange that rather than have some progress and move for presumption of liability as compromise nothing happens in 8 years.

Tommi, Strict liability and presumption of liability are mutually exclusive concepts

you will change nothing if you continue to confuse the two.

 

[Tommi]

Tommi, Strict liability and presumption of liability are mutually exclusive concepts

you will change nothing if you continue to confuse the two.

Can you please enlighten me? From what I gather when applied to road users the propositions would be:

1. strict liability: driver of the more dangerous vehicle is always liable in a collision with more vulnerable vehicle
2. presumption of liability: driver of the more dangerous vehicle is presumed liable in a collision with more vulnerable vehicle unless they can prove otherwise

What have I misunderstood?

The way I see it presumption of liability is "more soft" version of strict liability. So when you're negotiating between strict liability and status quo, surely presumption of liability should be discussed as possible compromise?

 

[sheddy]

BM

 

[dellzeqq]

a few countries and US states impose strict liability for owners of animals. If you own an aeroplane and it causes damage to a third party, you will pay up. There was, at one time, strict liability for automobile drivers in British Columbia - and it had an extraordinary, not to say wonderful, effect on driver behaviour.

Reg will doubtless tell us all about the Corfu Channel case. My own feeling is that the Albanians were stitched up.

 

[dellzeqq]

well.........................in 1975/6 one could walk off a footpath in to traffic and cars, that were in any case being driven with a degree of care that I found both shocking and wonderful, would come to a halt. This was because, at that time, the liability for any injury to a pedestrian in whatever circumstances would lie with the driver. The state insurers settled the claim (although the injured party could employ a lawyer to make the quantum case, as you can here with the MIB) and the insured would have, quite apart from facing prosecution in the event that he or she had been driving carelessly, to pay increased premiums or, possibly, be denied insurance altogether.

 

[CotterPin]

Roadpeace calls it "Stricter liability":

At present, our civil compensation system for personal injury is fault based. Thus in a collision, driver error must be proven. Because the default assumption is that the driver has not contributed to the crash, their insurance company is not automatically liable for compensation. Often what will follow is a lengthy and stressful fight for compensation by the victim. Yet pedestrians and cyclists involved in a collision -- who have the least potential to cause death or injury, are usually the only casualty and often the only witness other than the driver -- will often be unable to give evidence due to the injuries sustained.

 

[spen666]

Roadpeace calls it "Stricter liability":

Road peace are wrong on this point.

User is a lawyer and a very experienced one. I have no idea what if any legal knowledge the person who wrote this inaccurate article for roadpeace has, but it is clear they do not understand what they are writing about.

Just because an article is on the internet, doesn't mean it is accurate

 

[Dan B]

"Stricter liabiltiy" is as far as I can see a term coined by Roadpeace and not a legal term of art. They can call it any made-up name they like without being "wrong", it just means they're less likely to be understood.

 

[CotterPin]

Road peace are wrong on this point.

User is a lawyer and a very experienced one. I have no idea what if any legal knowledge the person who wrote this inaccurate article for roadpeace has, but it is clear they do not understand what they are writing about.

Just because an article is on the internet, doesn't mean it is accurate

Wasn't saying it was accurate - just saying that was what Roadpeace call it.

Whatever it's called, personally I am all for it. My friend was knocked off his bike last year and broke his collarbone badly. Why was he the one that had to go chasing the driver for compensation, and is still waiting over a year later?

 

[spen666]

Wasn't saying it was accurate - just saying that was what Roadpeace call it.

Whatever it's called, personally I am all for it. My friend was knocked off his bike last year and broke his collarbone badly. Why was he the one that had to go chasing the driver for compensation, and is still waiting over a year later?

so what are you suggesting should happen & why?

 

[CotterPin]

so what are you suggesting should happen & why?

I am currently drafting a response for what I know is a complex issue and will get back to you over the weekend. In the meantime, what would you suggest be an appropriate solution to the situation my friend found himself in? Are there any methods you could suggest that would modify driver behaviour to minimise risk to other road users?