introducing strict liability for motorists

[davidwalton]

"It would not be appropriate to change the law to provide that motorists should automatically be liable for any accident involving a motor vehicle and a pedestrian or cyclist. This would lead to unfair results in cases where the motorist is driving entirely responsibly and the accident is caused by the irresponsible behaviour of the pedestrian or cyclist. The current law enables the court to decide where responsibility for the accident lies and to award damages accordingly."

See
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page13961.asp

I do believe the Government don't care much for Cyclists or Pedestrians.

 

[rich p]

Am I missing something? That seems to be the logical position to take.

Especially in the light of the crap cycling behaviour of many tw*ts.

 

[davidwalton]

Am I missing something? That seems to be the logical position to take.

Especially in the light of the crap cycling behaviour of many tw*ts.

Yes, it would SEEM the logical position. It is the position where every accident involving a cyclist or Pedestrian has the Cyclist or Pedestrian having to prove the motorist was at fault to be able to claim on insurance. This position only works when the facts are clear and independent evidence is forthcoming. In all other cases, there is no claim.

The position favours the motorists and his insurance company, as insurance will only pay if the is sufficient proof.

 

[andy_wrx]

Equally, if one of these cycling tw*ts crashes into a car, it's up to the driver or their insurers to prove that it was the cyclist's fault

 

[Smokin Joe]

Complete nonsense. Each case should be judged on it's own merits and to have a system of automac blame for the motorist is not just. If you are worried about insurance payouts when no blame can be established there is nothing to stop you taking out your own insurance.

Automatic liability wiould also set a dangerous legal precedent, There are feminist groups out there who want anyone accused of rape to be automatically charged and left to prove their innocene in court, no matter whether there is a shred of evidence or not.

 

[davidwalton]

Equally, if one of these cycling tw*ts crashes into a car, it's up to the driver or their insurers to prove that it was the cyclist's fault

Yes. Don't you think it would be better if things were not in the insurance companies favour by default, just for once?

If things were in favour of cyclists, motorists would quickly change how they drove around cyclists and pedestrians. That or insurance companies will make them pay. Result SHOULD help safety of cyclists and pedestrians.

Not saying things would be perfect though.

 

[davidwalton]

Complete nonsense. Each case should be judged on it's own merits and to have a system of automac blame for the motorist is not just. If you are worried about insurance payouts when no blame can be established there is nothing to stop you taking out your own insurance.

Automatic liability wiould also set a dangerous legal precedent, There are feminist groups out there who want anyone accused of rape to be automatically charged and left to prove their innocene in court, no matter whether there is a shred of evidence or not.

That is what we already have. As a victim, you have to prove the other party is guilty, and not you. If there is no evidence other than those directly involved, there is no claim.

Please read the link first. Responding as if this is about a legal stance is not what this is about. It is ONLY about the insurance claim side.
This is only for Insurance purposes, like they have in Europe, not for legal matters.

 

[davidwalton]

Equally, if one of these cycling tw*ts crashes into a car, it's up to the driver or their insurers to prove that it was the cyclist's fault

and the damage a cycle or pedestrian does to a motor vehicle is little in comparison to the damage they can do to your body.

 

[rich p]

If you're going to get up to gale force 6 on the earnest argument scale you'd probably be better off putting this in Soapbox where people relish a good scrap.

 

[davidwalton]

If you're going to get up to gale force 6 on the earnest argument scale you'd probably be better off putting this in Soapbox where people relish a good scrap.

I hope not. I am sure there are 2 camps, one that things are fine, the other that things should change.

Doing nothing is only helping insurance companies, and not any victim that would be denied a claim based solely on there being not sufficient evidence.

On the other side, there will be the odd idiot that gets away with a claim they have no right to.

As it is, cyclist have to ensure they have a means of proving, so all should use a HeadCam just in case, and hope it shows enough. The alternative is to be at risk with the possibility of insurance companies laughing at you.

 

[Smokin Joe]

With my motoring hat on I will repeat what I said before. You want to be covered by insurance whether the other party can be proved to be at fault or not? Take out your own insurance.

If there is one piece of legislation which would get cyclists hated by EVERYBODY who drives, this would be it. It would also increase the number of drivers who fail to stop and would just leave you lying there. In addition, for every responsible cycling enthusiast there are God knows how many little chavs riding round who would take the "You hit me and you're in trouble, I can ride how I effing want" attitude.

A dead duck, in my opinion and I would not either want it or support it.

 

[Saddle bum]

...........
If things were in favour of cyclists, motorists would quickly change how they drove around cyclists and pedestrians................

There are plenty of precedents for legislation that negatively affects an innocent group so that another group may be perceived as having their safety improved.

 

[Jacomus-rides-Gen]

Education not litigation.

The only way to get motorists to behave better is to educate them better.

The idea of automatic liability, but not guilt, is possibly good, but does run against our clture of innocent until proven guilty.

 

[davidwalton]

With my motoring hat on I will repeat what I said before. You want to be covered by insurance whether the other party can be proved to be at fault or not? Take out your own insurance.

If there is one piece of legislation which would get cyclists hated by EVERYBODY who drives, this would be it. It would also increase the number of drivers who fail to stop and would just leave you lying there. In addition, for every responsible cycling enthusiast there are God knows how many little chavs riding round who would take the "You hit me and you're in trouble, I can ride how I effing want" attitude.

A dead duck, in my opinion and I would not either want it or support it.

In a perfect world, everyone would tel the truth and insurance companies would pay all legitimate claims.

People lie, and insurance companies will do anything not to pay a penny, unless there is evidence. THERE IS NOT ALWAYS EVIDENCE!!! That is the problem, and to date, this means that the only winners are the insurance companies and the motorist that has lied.

If you think that is right, then fine. I fully expected there to be people who believed insurance companies should win by default.

Remember, Insurance companies only pay IF you can provide proof.

Are there any Countries in Europe where Cyclists are hated??? because many do have exactly what was suggested, and it works in favour of EVERY victim. UK way, works in favour of the liar and Insurance company, but only the victims that CAN provide proof.

 

[davidwalton]

Education not litigation.

The only way to get motorists to behave better is to educate them better.

The idea of automatic liability, but not guilt, is possibly good, but does run against our clture of innocent until proven guilty.

I believe that there are already cases where the assumption is that of guilt, to do with car ownership and some associated offenses, I think??