Presumed liability

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Foghat

Freight-train-groove-rider
I see play school must be shut if people are wasting time arguing against presumed liability.

You have to be a bit (for 'a bit' read 'very') thick to not realise and understand that adoption of presumed liability has a substantial net benefit on society.

So some scams may be perpetrated - big deal, that will drive more people to fit dashcams and more insurance companies to encourage their fitment, which will in time negate or at least substantially mitigate the (by comparison with the benefits) minor downside of increased insurance premiums.

Anyone who argues against presumed liability clearly can't be very interested in trying to make the world less car-centric.
 
Location
Hampshire
I've cycled in most European countries with a a presumed liability law and in my experience the drivers are considerably more careful and considerate of cyclists than they are here, I can't offer any proof but I'm pretty sure having that law contributes to this better attitude. Even when I've done something really daft like go the wrong way around a roundabout when coming out of a Lidl carpark in France all the drivers just stopped and waited for the idiot Brit to get out of the way, without even a single blast from a horn. Even in countries where you see some fairly reckless driving in general they're more careful around cyclists. I reckon I get a dangerously close pass about once a week here, the only ones I can remember from when abroad the cars have had a GB sticker on the back.
 

TheDoctor

Europe Endless
Moderator
Location
The TerrorVortex
There's a way around the 'crash for cash' scenario - a nationally-run accident compensation corporation (ACC) like they have in NZ. If you get injured, whoever causes it, there's compensation and help with rehabilitation and medical costs. It just happens.
This means there's no ambulance chasing lawyers. None. Compensation culture isn't a thing. A handy side-effect is that you don't need to buy car insurance - you can buy fully-comp, if you want to, but third-party cover is part of the ACC.
 

PK99

Legendary Member
Location
SW19
There's a way around the 'crash for cash' scenario - a nationally-run accident compensation corporation (ACC) like they have in NZ. If you get injured, whoever causes it, there's compensation and help with rehabilitation and medical costs. It just happens.
This means there's no ambulance chasing lawyers. None. Compensation culture isn't a thing. A handy side-effect is that you don't need to buy car insurance - you can buy fully-comp, if you want to, but third-party cover is part of the ACC.

That's an interesting scheme - it covers medical and other costs of ALL accidents in ALL circumstances and is paid for by employers, and tourists are also covered for medical costs of accidental injuries.
 
The idea that there will be more scams is interesting: we don't seem to have that problem here, and that's in a context where dash cams are unusual because of the legislation against photographing people without consent. (CCTV on public streets is equally unisual apart from around some government buildings).

On the other hand, I do think drivers are more cautious, even in places like Stuttgart where cars are king. When I learned to drive in Germany I was told that failing to check and stop for pedestrians at crossings was an immediate fail in my test, as was failing to stop for cyclists on cycleways crossing side streets, and "if a child appears out of the sky and you hit them, it's your fault".
 
The idea that there will be more scams is interesting: we don't seem to have that problem here, and that's in a context where dash cams are unusual
Yes. There is no evidence at all of increased scams in the many countries that have PL already (mostly western democracies not very unlike the UK).

The scams thing is just nonsense. (Why do people keep suggesting it? Just showing how clever they think they are? 🤦‍♀️ )
 

Chris S

Legendary Member
Location
Birmingham
Would the same people who are so concerned about 'protecting the vulnerable' also support 'presumed guilt' in rape cases?
 
@Chris S Would you honestly throw yourself in front of a car for the compo?

Have a look at the standard figures for personal injury (google will find them for you). Now tell me that I could pay you to break your arm, at those rates. (Then consider that in an RTA, you risk the injury being much worse than you planned.)
 
Our own experience of a country with Presumed liability (cut and pased from my blog many years ago):


Some time ago, Eldest Son had a very minor collision with a car on a Spielstrasse (shared space street, 7km/h limit). Being about six at the time, Eldest Son didn’t know that in Germany you give way to vehicles coming from the right, didn’t stop on a junction, and was clipped by a very expensive vehicle speeding up the hill. Eldest Son was fine, but Expensive Car had some minor damage.

Beautiful Wife learned to drive in Japan, and didn’t know that in Germany you should always call the police when you have an accident, so when the driver said “we don’t need to bother calling the police”,* gave her his address, then drove off saying he needed to go to an appointment, she accepted it.

A few weeks later a rather large bill arrived.

We have liability insurance, so we wrote to our insurance company and explained what had happened. They found it very amusing, wrote to the driver and reminded him about Strict Liability, in particular that if a car hits a child, the driver is always liable. (Driving over the speed limit was also a bit naughty, as was not calling the police, which in Germany made it a hit-and-run, but we’ll ignore that)

The driver tried to make much of the point that he technically had right of way on the junction, and his lawyers sent us a threatening letter with an even bigger bill in the hope we’d panic and pay up, which we passed on to the insurance company. They wrote to said Lawyers and asked them to kindly stop messing about, and that was that.

Had Eldest Son been injured, the rules would mean the driver of Expensive Car would be held responsible. whereas in the UK it would have meant a long legal battle for us to get compensation or simply not be held liable for scratching his paint. His insurance would have had to pay, at least partly, for treatment and rehabilitation, pushing up his premiums. Drivers -unfortunately- seem to be more aware of this than just the danger posed by a ton of metal to vulnerable road users, and it makes them slightly more careful. As I recently heard a policeman complain: “Unfortunately, as soon as you drive a car in Germany, you are assumed to be responsible if any accident happens” ** I’m still convinced that German drivers are more cautious around pedestrians and cyclists than British drivers, and I’m pretty sure it isn’t because German drivers have a better understanding of the value of human life.

It also sends a clear message that the law is there to protect more vulnerable people. I’d have thought this was a given in any civilised country, but that’s just me.

*A phrase rarely heard except from drivers involved a motor vehicle collision and from people with a black jumper, crowbar and torch, kneeling in front of a broken safe at midnight. They could be right, of course.

**And this was the policeman supposed to be telling us about pedestrian and cycling safety. The mind boggles…
 
Top Bottom