[Closed] E-petition for strict liability on drivers

Isn't that exactly what craigxxl did moan about? You might not agree with his stance but it seems pretty clear to me.

otherwise people go to prison for things they didn't do.

If a driver gives you plenty of space acknowledge them for doing so.

this is exactly why it's necessary. Cyclists are not regarded as human beings by most motorists, just "pillocks" who are delaying them/getting in their way/etc

Wtf? Are you suggesting that I consider all cyclists to be pillocks? A pillock is a pillock regardless of transport, obviously. Put one on a bike he is just as likley to do pillocky things as he is in a car.

Pillocks on bikes DO exist. Of course they do. If one rides into me as I drive somewhere, I don't want to be held at fault automatically. How is that fair?

It's not quite the same as rear ending someone as one of your responsibilities as a driver is to be far enough away from the car in front to cope with anything. As the driver in front you cannot take any responsibility for what happens behind you so it can't be your fault. As a cyclist, I CAN and MUST take responsibility for riding safely, just as I must as a driver. We are BOTH under obligation.

Pillocks on bikes DO exist. Of course they do. If one rides into me as I drive somewhere, I don't want to be held at fault automatically. How is that fair?

If a driver gives you plenty of space acknowledge them for doing so. Bet next time they come across another cyclist they'll do the same again. Blame them for everything and you'll get the opposite reaction.

If one rides into me as I drive somewhere, I don't want to be held at fault automatically. How is that fair?

Provided you can prove they were riding like a pillock, then they will be liable, eg. someone rides througha red light and gets hit, has no lights on at night etc. etc.

All that is being asked for is a [b]presumption[/b] that, where a more vulnerable road user is hit by a less vulnerable one, the liability will lie with the latter, and it will be up to the latter to prove the former was at fault. Why is this such a big problem in the UK, when it seems to work fine in much of the rest of Europe?

wah wah. In case you haven't noticed, life ain't fair. Personally I couldn't give a **** about you being slightly inconvenienced if the law also means another cyclist somewhere else avoids being hit and injured/killed.

Hang on - you want me to accept being indicted for something I haven't done? Cos I'm not. Slightly inconvenienced? I could be bankrupted ffs. And if you think this is going to actually stop people from being knocked off their bikes you are living in dreamland.

it will be up to the latter to prove the former was at fault.

So how am I going to do that?

Reinforce the notion that cyclists are guests on the roads and only allowed there if they bow and scrape.

Well no, it's courtesy. I thank shop assitants for serving me politely, I thank call centre workers for dealing with me politely. I don't do this to try and get them to serve me, my money does that. I just do it because I'm nice. Likewise saying hi to walkers I pass.

Woah zilog did you just ninja edit out a quote from me then?

yeah, way to go. Reinforce the notion that cyclists are guests on the roads and only allowed there if they bow and scrape

Hang on - you want me to accept being indicted for something I haven't done? Cos I'm not. Slightly inconvenienced? I could be bankrupted ffs. And if you think this is going to actually stop people from being knocked off their bikes you are living in dreamland.

i can just see it now as the where theres a claim theres blame bottomfeeders are gonna be rich ,rich i tell you

just imagine once its assumed liability theres going to be a whole raft of morons riding into cars for a laugh

Are horseriders insured to ride their horses on roads?

And if you think this is going to actually stop people from being knocked off their bikes you are living in dreamland

its not going to bring about road based peace and harmony but it should make atleast a few drivers think twice before doing stupid manoeuvres around vulnerable road users

A bit like pulling out of a t junction and taking out a motorcyclist? Is that the kind of stupid to which you refer? It happens

Hang on - you want me to accept being indicted for something I haven't done? Cos I'm not. Slightly inconvenienced? I could be bankrupted ffs. And if you think this is going to actually stop people from being knocked off their bikes you are living in dreamland.

Indicted? This is civil law, not criminal. For criminal cases beyond reasonable doubt would still apply. And I'm not sure how a 3rd party claim against your car insurance would bankrupt you.

just imagine once its assumed liability theres going to be a whole raft of morons riding into cars for a laugh

Evidence?

Are horseriders insured to ride their horses on roads?

As with cyclists, some will be, some won't be. If they collide with a pedestrian on their horse, they will be liable under the proposed rules.

Again, can someone explain to me why this system works fine in France/Germany/Holland/Denmark/etc, but why it won't work in the English-speaking EU countries?

Why is this such a big problem in the UK, when it seems to work fine in much of the rest of Europe?

Because this Country's roads turn its users into utter bell-ends.
Donk mentioned earlier that cyclists wouldn't deliberately put themselves in danger, yet I do see road users doing this all the time; putting themselves in more danger just to prove a point.

Couple that with this little nugget of information from the Torygraph;

Whiplash now accounts for 78pc of all personal injury claims in the UK, compared with just 3pc in France.

and it wouldn't surprise me if presumed liability led to people deliberately throwing themselves over the bonnets of unsuspecting motorists. 💡

Indicted? This is civil law, not criminal. For criminal cases beyond reasonable doubt would still apply.

Yes, for civil cases the burden of proof is much less.
Another reason why this is a bad idea.

just imagine once its assumed liability theres going to be a whole raft of morons riding into cars for a laugh

(I would have thought - yes there'll still be some I guess but I don't think strict liability will bring it all about)
Btw I'm talking about purposely causing a crash, the many many opportunist whiplash claims from unintended accidents are just insurance fraudsters, many otherwise law abiding people seem to consider this fair game, I don't.

Whiplash now accounts for 78pc of all personal injury claims in the UK, compared with just 3pc in France.

Again, [url= http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/298630/6mph-the-whiplash-limit ]German law has an answer[/url]:

In Germany the courts take the opposite approach. Insurers will not accept injury claims if evidence shows the collision between two vehicles occurred at speeds below 10kmh or 6.25mph.

Claimants in Germany also have to get two medical opinions to prove they have suffered whiplash.

There is, however, a big difference in risk of life-limiting injury between exaggerating musculoskeletal sprains sustained in a motor vehicle collision and deliberately getting run over, so I don't feel whiplash and presumed liability are exactly comparable.

Evidence?

theres the odd one or two that do it in cars iirc its what puts our premiums up every year this claim culture!!

in fact the new flash you out of a junction scam has just been cottoned onto by the insurers as opposed to the organised lets get someone to run into the back of me crew , which seems to have fallen out of favour

Indicted? This is civil law, not criminal.

Yes, I mean indicted in the non-legal sense but I should have said sued I suppose. And it's a fair point, I'm insured so I'll only face a rise in premiums and possibly points, so not bankruptcy but still far from fair.

What's to stop scrotes riding around quiet places looking for an unsuspecting driver to ride infront of and making a big claim against them? Could be a good living to be made there.

There is, however, a big difference in risk of life-limiting injury between exaggerating musculoskeletal sprains sustained in a motor vehicle collision and deliberately getting run over, so I don't feel whiplash and presumed liability are exactly comparable.

Yet people are so stupid that they will deliberately put themselves in danger to make a point.
Saw a motorist turn right from a minor to major in Cambridge the other day, in front of a cyclist.
Now the cyclist could have slowed down, or could have overtaken the car as it slowed to turn left, but instead the cyclist went with the car into the junction, positioning himself in the ever decreasing gap between the car and the kerb, just so he could bang on the car and give the driver the finger.

Because this Country's roads turn its users into utter bell-ends.
Donk mentioned earlier that cyclists wouldn't deliberately put themselves in danger, yet I do see road users doing this all the time; putting themselves in more danger just to prove a point.

I dont think some cyclists new to it do see themselves in danger

I think and its only my opinion that a lot of the folks on here are seasoned in their use of the roads both as cyclists and drivers, as such they see the danger from both sides , however to some degree cycling profficiency has gone out the window its a case of bob in halford buy a helmet and away you go ,the helmet publicity of it will save your life has just made them ****ing invincible

you couldnt do that on a motorbike and have absolutely no road awareness whatsoever but buy a bike and anyone driving miss daisy can quietly meander along the road till they get hit by a large hardbody object

Of course this is tragic and TBH motorists should drive with consideration that the folk riding bimbling along on their new transportation method it might make sense to educate both parties not just blame one particular set of road users right off the bat

edit, motorbike comment above of course theres the 16-18 yo subset who thrash the bollocks off their 50cc bikes till they meet some kind of demise or take someone else out

Yet people are so stupid that they will deliberately put themselves in danger to make a point.

Drivers not agreeing with strict liability is fair enough you're entitled to your opinion but any cyclist who regularly rides the road who can't see the point once its explained to them...I just find that a bit strange. But hey I keep forgetting 1 shared pastime doesn't make us all alike

are you suggesting drivers don't?

Absolutely not, hence why I used the term "road users" as opposed to just "cyclists". 🙂

Drivers not agreeing with strict liability is fair enough you're entitled to your opinion but any cyclist who regularly rides the road who can't see the point once its explained to them...I just find that a bit strange. But hey I keep forgetting 1 shared pastime doesn't make us all alike

Yes, I can't get my head round this one either. It was also being discussed on the CTC forums (where you;d expect people to be much more pro-presumptive liability) and there was a similar range of opinion.

So far the arguments as to why presumptive liability works in Europe but won't in the UK seem to boil down to 'people will take the piss'. So, can anyone provide any evidence of this in eg. the Netherlands, or is it just English speakers who will abuse the system?

'people will take the piss'

question is would this change have a positive impact on the majority of your everyday user?

That's just a nice why of suggesting that it's ok for innocent motorists to get shafted as long as fewer guilty ones get away with it!

Even the bible is with me on this one. 💡

Even the bible is with me on this one.

The Bible also says 'an eye for an eye' which is why it's no longer the basis of our legal system.

The Bible also says 'an eye for an eye' which is why it's no longer the basis of our legal system.

Are you saying our legal system was based on a fictional work? never knew that, wonder what would happen if it had been based on 50 shades of grey?

Wow, I'm amazed that on a cycling forum there's so many against strict liability. For me it's about changing behaviour to make it safer for all vulnerable road users, cyclists and pedestrians.

If you are in charge of something that can kill or maim others, it's up to you to make sure you don't hit anyone with it. If that means driving more slowly, or not hurtling down pavements on your bike, then so be it.

If you accidentally shot someone who walked out in front of you, I think most peoples reaction would be to blame the person with the gun, not the dead man for not wearing a bullet proof jacket. As far as I'm concerned it's the same with hitting someone with your car or bike.

It will make it safer for us all. That seems like a good thing to me 🙂

[b]Cynic-al[/b] - do you have a copy of the proposed legislation? You speak with conviction about it but I thought it was really just an idea at present. I can't think, off the top of my head, of another situation in Civil law where strict liability applies in Scotland. I may just be being thick but since the burden of proof is only to Balance of Probabilities level, its not [i]that[/i] hard to prove anyway. Where strict liability applies in the Criminal courts it is usually because (i) it should be quite easy to show [i]you[/i] had complied with the requirement and (ii) it would be very difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone had not. Classic example being Motor Insurance.

[b]D0NK or others claiming strict liability applied in read end shunts[/b] - does it? I accept there is certainly a convention amongst insurers. I also think the courts would generally agree but is that based on specific legislation or assessment of the facts of the case? Or does it come from case law rather than legislation.

[b]ratherbeintobago[/b] - "is it just english speakers"... actually our legal systems are based on fundamentally different premises; most continental European countries operate on Inquisitorial Systems where the court is expected to establish facts. Our legal system are adversarial and the court is only making a judgement on which argument is stronger not who is right! So there may be a fundamental reason why it is less appropriate in the UK.

[b]zilog / ScoobysM8[/b] - why will motorist take more care? it won't really hurt them financially their insurers will pay. Since hitting a bike is likely to damage your car anyway its not like they don't already have an incentive to avoid the crash.

Do we need this? Is there actually a body of evidence that suggests that cases which make it to court for civil claims are predominantly found in the motorists favour? I'd be a little surprised at that as with a Balance of Probability claim it is not too hard to build up a picture where its unlikely that a sensible cyclist would have intentionally have put themselves in harms way. The court only needs to decide then if it is [i]more likely[/i] that the cyclist acted irrationally or the driver had (caused) an accident - a good lawyer shouldn't really struggle to present a case that you are a careful and competent cyclist and the most likely cause is the driver - if that is the case. Witnesses etc whilst useful are not essential.

I thought it was being suggested a while back as a Criminal Law proposal? In many ways I am even less comfortable with that - but the "its only civil law" for compensation claims argument is fundamentally flawed.

ScoobysM8 - Member

Wow, I'm amazed that on a cycling forum there's so many against strict liability. For me it's about changing behaviour to make it safer for all vulnerable road users, cyclists and pedestrians.

I'd like the roads to be safer full stop.
I believe the best way of doing this is by changing the attitudes of all road users.
Strict liability may help towards changing the attitudes of some drivers, but it sends the wrong message to cyclists and reinforces the idea that we are not equal on the roads.
Without equality you'll never achieve harmony.

I believe the best way of doing this is by changing the attitudes of all road users.

Strict liability may help towards changing the attitudes of some drivers, but it sends the wrong message to cyclists and reinforces the idea that we are not equal on the roads.

Yup gives anyone on a push bike the right to say you hit me now your liable I'm going to sue your arse and have a 50 50 of the judge siding with me.......oh lordy what have i got to lose

sbob,I totally agree that strict liability on it's own isn't the answer. It's just one step in the right direction, along with things like Boris bikes, better infrastructure etc. All part of the shift in attitudes that is already happening despite motorists protestations. And yes, we are equal, with every right to be on the road. That's the point of the legislation as I see it.
But we are not equal in a collision. We are going to come off worst. So we have to protect the more vulnerable. Pedestrians first, then cyclists, cars last.

zilog / ScoobysM8 - why will motorist take more care? it won't really hurt them financially their insurers will pay. Since hitting a bike is likely to damage your car anyway its not like they don't already have an incentive to avoid the crash.

Sure, it's only going to hurt them financially in terms of their no claims bonus. But anything that moves towards making it socially unacceptable to mow down cyclists and pedestrians is a good thing

Wow, I'm amazed that on a cycling forum there's so many against strict liability. For me it's about changing behaviour to make it safer for all vulnerable road users, cyclists and pedestrians.

I am very much in favour of changing behaviour, I am just not convinced that this is a good way of doing it, or that it will even work.

If you accidentally shot someone who walked out in front of you, I think most peoples reaction would be to blame the person with the gun, not the dead man for not wearing a bullet proof jacket.

It depends on the circumstances as to whether or not the gun-holder was to blame, but in any case driving a car is a necessary part of modern society (as it stands), carrying a gun is not.

But anything that moves towards making it socially unacceptable to mow down cyclists and pedestrians is a good thing

I honestly do not think it is socially acceptable at the moment.

Wow, I'm amazed that on a cycling forum there's so many against strict liability.

Just because I am a cyclist does not mean I am blind to consequences of rules and legislation. I'm not a member of a tribe.

Sure, it's only going to hurt them financially in terms of their no claims bonus. But anything that moves towards making it socially unacceptable to mow down cyclists and pedestrians is a good thing

Are you stating here the legislation means that cyclists will be liable for running into pedestrians

I never figured out why cyclists use the term "ped" with destain like they are a lower group even

I never figured out why cyclists use the term "ped"

Easier to type and say.

compositepro - Member

Are you stating here the legislation means that cyclists will be liable for running into pedestrians

Yes

molgrips - Member

I am very much in favour of changing behaviour, I am just not convinced that this is a good way of doing it, or that it will even work.

The fact that the majority of countries in Europe have it is not evidence that it changes attitudes, but if everyone apart from Romania, Ireland, Malta, Cyprus and us has it, surely there's something to it.

Easier to type and say.

No I mean when your nearby and they are talking about how they nearly got taken down by a stupid Ped or how the ped was nearly handlebar fodder ,seems theres a different grouping of animals different rules if a pedestrian gets in your way eh,

I'm all for it if it stops cyclists mowing down pedestrians then..ill take the risk of being sued in case i ever hit anyone driving

What this thread ably reveals is that the vast majority of people against presumed liability have no idea what it actually means 😀

I can't think, off the top of my head, of another situation in Civil law where strict liability applies in Scotland.

My understanding is that there are a number of existing applications of strict liability in Scotland, including workplace regulations, consumer protection and control of animals.

why will motorist take more care? it won't really hurt them financially their insurers will pay.

I assume that your premiums are going to rise if you are found to be liable for an accident. Hitting people in the wallet is an effective nudge factor, so I think that strict liability could genuinely make careless motorists (and cyclists) think twice about how they behave around more vulnerable road users.

It's going to be an uphill struggle on this one, because Keith Brown (Minister of Transport) obviously has no interest in taking real action that is seen as a threat by the majority group of non-cycling voters (see the execrable "Nice Way Code" as an example of spending money on something that makes it look like you're doing something without actually achieving anything useful).
Originally KB rejected strict liability as unnecessary because cycling casualties were "falling anyway". Unfortunately a few weeks later the latest accident figures showed a significant rise in cycling casualties, so now he's rejecting it because

[strict liability] would remove the incentive for road users to act responsibly, which could have an undesirable effect on road safety and could add the compensation culture which has dogged the insurance industry in recent years.

Some more info about the campaign here:
http://www.cycling-accident-compensation.co.uk/strict-liability.aspx
(and yes, I am aware that a bunch of lawyers will have a vested interest in promoting a strict liability campaign. Doesn't mean it's not a good idea, though)

GrahamS - Member

What this thread ably reveals is that the vast majority of people against presumed liability have no idea what it actually means

Whilst I'm all for it, I do accept that there are some good counter arguments [url= http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki/dutch-cycle-because-strict-liability-made-everybody-drive-safely-and-play-nice ]http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki/dutch-cycle-because-strict-liability-made-everybody-drive-safely-and-play-nice[/url]

But if the Daily Mail is against it, then that's a clincher for me 🙂

Whilst I'm all for it, I do accept that there are some good counter arguments

I'm sure there are plenty but they tend to get drowned out by people wittering on about how they should be innocent until proven guilty and they don't want to end up in jail because a reckless cyclist crashed into them. 🙄

yup

If an accident happens it should be innocent until proven guilty.

You, sir, are legally illiterate. If you don't understand the difference between civil and criminal law, step away from this thread. M'kay?

There's a great explanation of strict liability here, and why cycle campaigners are better off focusing on other things.

http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2012/01/campaign-for-sustainable-safety-not.html

Personally I've got nothing against strict liability as a concept, but as this thread makes clear, it's a very hard sell.