Strict liabiliy campaign group in England??

[BigonaBianchi]

http://www.roadshare.co.uk/

I'm aware there is one in scotland, but unsure if it extends to england. Is there a group in england campaigning for this ?

 

[classic33]

Scotland only sofar, with eyes to the South.
Scottish law is easier to get it written into they feel.

 

[Tin Pot]

Presume the driver is at fault in all bike/car incidents?

 

[BigonaBianchi]

Just wondring why there isn't a facebook group or similar to push for this in the UK?

 

[classic33]

And the cyclist in all cyclists-pedestrian collisions.

 

[classic33]

Just wondring why there isn't a facebook group or similar to push for this in the UK?

The differences in Scottish law makes it easier for them to start there. They feel.

 

[BigonaBianchi]

Hmm....maybe i'll stay here then

 

[classic33]

Hmm....maybe i'll stay here then

Give them time.

 

[CopperBrompton]

I think Presumed Liability would be both fairer and an easier sell. It's actually what they have in the Netherlands (though the presumption is, Dutch friends tell me, extremely strong - and Strict Liability applies where the cyclist is a child).

 

[Tin Pot]

And the cyclist in all cyclists-pedestrian collisions.

What's wrong with the existing method of determining liability?

 

[snorri]

Scottish law is easier to get it written into they feel.

"They" who are leading the campaign live and work in Scotland so it would be only natural to work with local law regardless of the relative difficulty of making change.
It is presumed liability that is being sought, not strict liability, but don't ask me to explain the legalities.

Whoever heard of such a thing as Scots being in a group which might influence affairs south of the border anyway?

 

[mjr]

What's wrong with the existing method of determining liability?

It has a rather bad habit of splitting it too close to 50-50 if it's not completely beyond debate.

 

[CopperBrompton]

What's wrong with the existing method of determining liability?

If you want to influence driver behaviour, the presumption that they are at fault in any collision with a cyclist unless they can prove otherwise has been demonstrated to be an extremely effective tool.

The argument against it, of course, is that you'll get chavs deliberately colliding with cars to get compensation, but these days it's pretty trivial to install camcorders in cars that come on with the ignition and automatically (or at the press of a button) save the footage leading up to a collision.

 

[Tin Pot]

Seriously?

If there is no evidence of wrong doing, we should make the driver pay?

All cars should be fitted with camcorders to evidence bike accidents?

I'm out of this thread!

Enjoy!

 

[CopperBrompton]

If there is no evidence of wrong doing, we should make the driver pay?

Strict Liability means the driver pays regardless; Presumed Liability means the driver is presumed to be at fault unless they can show otherwise. If you want to see how this works in practice, take a trip to the Netherlands. Drivers are extremely cautious and patient around cyclists.