Lambeth Bridge tipper truck fatality

[mjr]

You clearly need to study your law a little bit better. You are misconstruing that act.

I await your corrections to Wikipedia and elsewhere.

But WTF has RIPA got to do with a motorist and guilt ?

It shows the presumption of innocence isn't a universal right, contrary to the earlier claim.

But WTF are you taking about guilt instead of liability again?

 

[Dan B]

[QUOTE 3649933, member: 9609"]you're insurance will rocket even if you can prove it wasn't you're fault.[/QUOTE]
You mean more of the costs of motoring will be imposed on the beneficiaries not the bystanders?

 

[snorri]

[QUOTE 3649920, member: 9609"]in what way does it help? do accident rates go down, and if they do, why?[/QUOTE]
Motor vehicle users take more care in the presence of cyclists and pedestrians, cyclists take more care in the presence of pedestrians. Take a cycle tour in mainland Europe this year and you will see the difference.

 

[snorri]

[QUOTE 3649933, member: 9609"]you're insurance will rocket even if you can prove it wasn't you're fault.[/QUOTE]
No it will not, there will be fewer crashes, fewer and less expensive insurance claims, and a massive increase in motor insurance company profits and lower vehicle insurance premiums.

 

[Dan B]

[QUOTE 3650022, member: 9609"]No, at presant your insurance will go up whether or not you were at fault, (probably more so if you are at fault) but it will still go up. So I just don't see how PL will change attitudes, I just can't see your average tipper driver thinking to himself, 'i must take more care as the companies insurance is more likely to have to pay out'[/QUOTE]
The average private motorist, however, is quite likely to take more care if they know their insurer will start from the position that they are liable - remember Emma Way? No more rationalisation of the "he shouldn't be on the road, I pay road tax" type.

I don't know how the average tipper truck driver thinks. I'd like to hope that the prospect of becoming uninsurable and therefore unemployable might moderate his exuberant driving, but clearly it didn't for Barry Meyer.

 

[spen666]

I await your corrections to Wikipedia and elsewhere.

....

Ahh yes, wikipedia, that authoritative source of law that is relied upon daily by the Judges at the Supreme Court, down the Bailey etc.
I d recognized sources of legal commentary - you know like the ones the Judges, the courts and the English legal system rely upon.

but hey, never mind

 

[spen666]

...

But WTF are you taking about guilt instead of liability again?

If you look up on that legal source that is so well respected, wikipedia, I am sure you will find the difference between liability and guilt

You may even find an explanation as to why when answering your post about innocence until proven guilty, I am talking about guilt

 

[MontyVeda]

...

No such roads in the north that I've come across.

...

In recent years there's been a quite a few contraflow cycle lanes implemented on one way streets in Lancaster, and they're very handy for us cyclists. In recent years they [the council] do seem to have embraced the cycling thing at least so far as securing a few grants is concerned... there's also a plethora of 'pointless' splats of red tarmac mixed in with the decent cycle lanes which i suspect are there to simply 'up' the total length. It's not perfect but it's a lot better than it used to be. Can't really comment on the rest of 'the north' as it's a big place

 

[jefmcg]

The average private motorist, however, is quite likely to take more care if they know their insurer will start from the position that they are liable - remember Emma Way? No more rationalisation of the "he shouldn't be on the road, I pay road tax" type.

Yes, this is the point. So many drivers think it is our responsibility to keep out of their way, maybe PL would help them think otherwise.

 

[snorri]

[QUOTE 3650022, member: 9609"]so the only diff is drivers in other countries are focussed on PL ?[/QUOTE]
I didn't claim it to be a cure all, merely a means of improving the present situation for vulnerable road users.

 

[mjr]

Ahh yes, wikipedia, that authoritative source of law that is relied upon daily by the Judges at the Supreme Court, down the Bailey etc.
I d recognized sources of legal commentary - you know like the ones the Judges, the courts and the English legal system rely upon.

but hey, never mind

RIPA section 53 hasn't yet made an appearance in open court yet (unless you know different?) and do you subscribe to legal journals?

Anyway, guilt and presumed innocence aren't relevant because most here are talking about presumed LIABILITY.

 

[Pete Owens]

[QUOTE 3649871, member: 9609"]why would presumed liability make the roads any safer for cycling ? I welcome the idea that cyclist receiving compensation easier and quicker after being knocked off, but is any driver going to think to themselves I better be a little more careful near this cyclist in case my insurance company has to pay out - I doubt it.[/QUOTE]
It is subtle - but what you are doing is establishing on a legal basis a drivers duty of care to vulnerable road users - which if and when it is established as the norm will gradually translate into an attitude change among the popluation. This isn't at all radical - it would just make the operators of motor vehicles responsible for the safety of their operation in the same whay as the operator of any other piece of potentiually dangerous machinery.

It is better to think of pedestrians crossing the road rather than cyclists to add clarity. With the existing rules of the road motorists are assumed to have priority in the vast majority of situations. Unless you are at a set of traffic lights or a zebra crossing then it is entirely the responsibility of a pedestrian to judge when it is safe to cross the road. So long as a motorist is sober and driving within the speed limit, then if they hit a pedestrian on the carriageway it will be deemed to be the fault of the pedestrian for stepping into the path of the vehicle without looking. This is the way the law treats it - and as a result is the way drivers think - which means they take no particular care to notice the pedestrian traffic arround them.