Lambeth Bridge tipper truck fatality

[spen666]

Until the driver is automatically blamed there will be no real incentive for improvements, because weaseling appears to work almost all the time.

Have you really thought that through.

Guilt until proven innocent? Sounds like a breach of a fundamental human right.

 

[mjr]

Have you really thought that through.

Guilt until proven innocent? Sounds like a breach of a fundamental human right.

So you prefer the people on bikes or foot to be considered guilty until proven innocent, which seems to be what effectively happens now?

 

[spen666]

So you prefer the people on bikes or foot to be considered guilty until proven innocent, which seems to be what effectively happens now?

Erm,

I do not know how you can have any idea what I prefer.


I have merely stated what the legal position is. That is not an endorsement or otherwise of it. It is stating what the legal position is

 

[mjr]

I do not know how you can have any idea what I prefer.

You see that curly thing with the dot under it, looks like "?" - that means it was a question.

In any dispute between multiple parties, including road collisions, there is going to be some presumption of who is to blame: A, B, X or some mix of them. This is just a question of what it is. If anyone opposes the idea that the blame should rest initially on the largest vehicle's operator, they are effectively supporting the idea that some of the blame rests initially on one of the others.

 

[spen666]

You see that curly thing with the dot under it, looks like "?" - that means it was a question.

In any dispute between multiple parties, including road collisions, there is going to be some presumption of who is to blame: A, B, X or some mix of them. This is just a question of what it is. If anyone opposes the idea that the blame should rest initially on the largest vehicle's operator, they are effectively supporting the idea that some of the blame rests initially on one of the others.

You are talking about a completely different issue.

I am talking about guilt which is a criminal term you are talking civil liability which is a completely different issue.

 

[mjr]

I am talking about guilt which is a criminal term you are talking civil liability which is a completely different issue.

And @oldstrath was talking about blame, not guilt or liability. While they are different issues, they are not completely different and one cannot move from blame to guilt and then complain when others move back to blame.

 

[Tin Pot]

You need to clarify what you mean by only.

Everyone except you.

 

[oldstrath]

Have you really thought that through.

Guilt until proven innocent? Sounds like a breach of a fundamental human right.

Rebalancing the law to protect the vulnerable? Not sure why that should upset you.

 

[spen666]

Rebalancing the law to protect the vulnerable? Not sure why that should upset you.

Rebalancing the law or breaching a fundamental human right?

Innocent until proven guilty is a universally accepted right

Perhaps you should be locked up until you can prove you have not committed any crime. I mean its only rebalancing the law to protect the vulnerable

 

[mjr]

Innocent until proven guilty is a universally accepted right

Firstly, there is no "everyone is innocent" option for a road collision. It happened for some reason. At the moment, in theory, everyone and everything is considered equally guilty; in practice, the dead rarely defend themselves.

Secondly, universal "innocent until proven guilty" was lost when the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act was passed, if not before.

Perhaps you should be locked up until you can prove you have not committed any crime. I mean its only rebalancing the law to protect the vulnerable

Yep, that's exactly what can happen under RIPA: "In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section, if it is shown that that person was in possession of a key to any protected information at any time before the time of the giving of the section 49 notice [to provide the key], that person shall be taken for the purposes of those proceedings to have continued to be in possession of that key at all subsequent times, unless it is shown that the key was not in his possession after the giving of the notice and before the time by which he was required to disclose it" http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/53 - in other words, you have to prove that you don't have the key any more. How do you prove you don't have something? If you show absence of the key in any one place, they'll just suggest you had it stashed somewhere else - you're guilty until proven innocent and what's more, you can't really prove you're innocent.

 

[benb]

It's not a question of criminal guilt or innocence, but of which party is liable to pay damages.
That's why it's "liability" and not "guilt"

 

[spen666]

Firstly, there is no "everyone is innocent" option for a road collision. It happened for some reason. At the moment, in theory, everyone and everything is considered equally guilty; in practice, the dead rarely defend themselves.

Secondly, universal "innocent until proven guilty" was lost when the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act was passed, if not before.

Yep, that's exactly what can happen under RIPA: "In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section, if it is shown that that person was in possession of a key to any protected information at any time before the time of the giving of the section 49 notice [to provide the key], that person shall be taken for the purposes of those proceedings to have continued to be in possession of that key at all subsequent times, unless it is shown that the key was not in his possession after the giving of the notice and before the time by which he was required to disclose it" http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/53 - in other words, you have to prove that you don't have the key any more. How do you prove you don't have something? If you show absence of the key in any one place, they'll just suggest you had it stashed somewhere else - you're guilty until proven innocent and what's more, you can't really prove you're innocent.

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

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

 

[snorri]

Don't get me started on the cars that have "baby on board" or "little princess on board", presumably if anyone is in a collision with one of these the punishment will be worse. Sorry, I digress, just had to get that one out.

I don't know why they put them on a board anyway, they could so easily get a splinter in the bum.

 

[snorri]

[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 appears to help in every other country in Europe except Romania and another three that were strongly influenced by the UK in the not so distant past.

 

[spen666]

[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]
If your insurance company had to pay out, your future premiums would rocket. That is likely to have a sobering effect on your driving

Presumed liability if the details could be sorted out would be (in my opinion) a step forward