introducing strict liability for motorists

[Cab]

Surely the default assumption should be that because a cyclist or pedestrian will come of so much worse, he'll be likely to take extra care to avoid being hit? It is more likely to be the road user who is safest in a collision who causes the collision.

A better approach than assumption of liability for insurance would be to educate courts on these facts; as that isn't going to happen either, we're left with a fairly naff situation in which nothing seems likely to change.

 

[davidwalton]

Surely the default assumption should be that because a cyclist or pedestrian will come of so much worse, he'll be likely to take extra care to avoid being hit? It is more likely to be the road user who is safest in a collision who causes the collision.

A better approach than assumption of liability for insurance would be to educate courts on these facts; as that isn't going to happen either, we're left with a fairly naff situation in which nothing seems likely to change.

I do think that until there is a duty of care for more vulnerable road users, there will be no learning. An assumption of liability would of provided the education for motorist fairly quickly. However, I am sure the Government knows best and will find a way to protect the more vulnerable road users one day

 

[andy_wrx]

Black and White case no. 1 : chavmobile/drunked middle-aged driver/incompetent in 4x4 cuts up cyclist, knocks them off, no witnesses.
- using this ruling of course gives the correct result, of course the driver should be deemed at fault

Wite and Black case no. 2 : POB (for that seems to be the current fashionable phrase for them) is riding bike along an alley, at night, no lights, suddenly and without warning, without looking, rides out of alley into road and is hit by car driving perfectly sensible and safely, no witnesses
- using this ruling of course gives a nonsense result, of course the POB should be deemed at fault not the driver

Real world cases - all sorts of shades of grey in-between.


This proposal offends my 'innocent until proven guilty' British ethos.
(yes I know you're talking about assumption of liability for insurance purposes, not legal send-to-prison guilt, but this ethos still applies)


And I have been knocked off by a car. This January.
Despite the driver having admitted it to his insurance company and them having accepted liability, they are still screwing me around 11 months later.
So I hate insurance companies just as much as the next man.

 

[davidwalton]

Black and White case no. 1 : chavmobile/drunked middle-aged driver/incompetent in 4x4 cuts up cyclist, knocks them off, no witnesses.
- using this ruling of course gives the correct result, of course the driver should be deemed at fault

Wite and Black case no. 2 : POB (for that seems to be the current fashionable phrase for them) is riding bike along an alley, at night, no lights, suddenly and without warning, without looking, rides out of alley into road and is hit by car driving perfectly sensible and safely, no witnesses
- using this ruling of course gives a nonsense result, of course the POB should be deemed at fault not the driver

Real world cases - all sorts of shades of grey in-between.


This proposal offends my 'innocent until proven guilty' British ethos.
(yes I know you're talking about assumption of liability for insurance purposes, not legal send-to-prison guilt, but this ethos still applies)


And I have been knocked off by a car. This January.
Despite the driver having admitted it to his insurance company and them having accepted liability, they are still screwing me around 11 months later.
So I hate insurance companies just as much as the next man.

Only thing is POB with NO LIGHTS is evidence. POB is at fault in that case, and correctly so.

This isn't making the car driver responsible for those where it can be shown the POB was not acting reasonably. Cyclist would still have legal obligations to ensure they ride reasonably, and their bike is legal, ie. is displaying lights, etc.

The problem is that where there is NO evidence, the car driver can just lie, or the Insurance company just refuse any claim. I think this is MORE wrong. Grey = Insurance company profit by default.

Yes, I would expect there to be cases where the cyclist or pedestrian are at fault, but still claiming money because there is NO evidence. However, seems the Insurance companies and liars have had their fair share of wining by default. Isn't it time the most vulnerable were looked after, rather than shafted where possible?

Look at the suggestion as a change to that of one where there is a DUTY of care for others on the road. As such, a no evidence incident becomes the motorists responsibility, just like the actions of a child are the responsibility of the parent, to a point.

 

[Cab]

Summed up my views very well there David.