Forum menu
Say these hypothetical incidents happen in the absence of witnesses. Who is deemed culpable if the driver cannot prove, say, that the cyclist went through a red light and hit him?
RTC investigators tend to rely on evidence other than witness reports.
Yep - not unreasonable if the excuse used is icy roads or getting blinded by the sun IMHO.driver slides on ice bike slides on ice both hit..neither speeding both driving appropriately
oxymoron
❓
It is either an "excuse" or it is not.
And you accuse me of contradiction
And RTC investigators address every collision whilst the evidence is still there to be collected do they?
I'm not in favour of any assumption of blame or liability where there is less than 100% guarantee that all necessary evidence will be available. Address that hurdle then fair enough, but not until.
BUT. Have you ever tried driving at 20mph? It's really quite hard to do below 25mph, you spend more time looking at the speedo than you do at the road.
Really? I'm not a hugely experienced driver and I don't find it remotely difficult to do 20 through the zones round here.
If you have trouble staying below then leave it in 2nd!
Seriously - all collisions someone has made a mistake otherwise there would be no collisions.
Mechanical faults? Car hits a nail. Tree blown over in the wind. Bridge collapses. Meteor strike.
Graham - still too close to the other vehicle if those things make them hit another vehicle. OK ocasional acts of god but most of what people call accidents actually is the result of a mistake
I fail to see why ice is both an excuse and also not an excuse
tempting though it is to debate which of the definitions you actually meant with the word excuse i will forgo the pin dance tonight
TJ [aracer possibly?]i think we are confusing the fact that all accidents are theoretically avoidable [ dont be there stay at home, don't drive when there may be ice, use ice tyres or chains etc, stay still at all times..if we did this we would never collide] with blame here.
You can be doing 3 mph and just slide on ice. you could come round a bend at 15 mph in a 60 mph zone and find a tree across the road.
All avoidable in theory but not in reality if you have the misfortune of being there. It just depends on the scenario and how absolute you wish to be..sometimes there are just "no fault" accidents.
Why should the burden of proof be on the "least vulnerable"? I'm failing to see a logical argument to support this. If I'm driving or cycling along a road and a random pedestrian steps out in front of me. why should I be "at fault" unless I can find a witness to support my version of events?TandemJeremy - Member
If both are fault then liability is shared - apportioned as it is now.all that it means is a reversed burden of proof when a vulnerable road user it hit by one less vulnerable.
That would make primary position about 2 fooot from the central reservation/whit lines ..that would please the drivers 😉
Again in your example you would not be at fault or have to show anything - collision occurs in the road - pedestrian at fault. No witness needed.
To protect the vulnerable thats why. Car drivers kill cyclists, cyclists do not kill car drivers - and its only civil not criminal.
Its also about sending a signal to be careful of vulnerable road users. One of the obvious contrasts is that in other European countries cyclists are given priority an treated cautiously - here they are not.
Junkyard - all of those examples you give there is fault - if it could be avoided then there is a mistake been made.
TJ - I have a far better answer which should save a lot of time:
Why should the burden of proof be on the "least vulnerable"? I'm failing to see a logical argument to support this. If I'm driving or cycling along a road and a random pedestrian steps out in front of me. why should I be "at fault" unless I can find a witness to support my version of events?
Strange how it works so well in lots of other countries then.
Define "works so well".aracer - MemberStrange how it works so well in lots of other countries then.
As its civil it balance of probabilites not beyond reasonable doubt
Define "works so well".
Less cyclist casualties, cyclists treated with respect and given priority.
everything can be avoided TJ but it will take hindsight to achieve this.
You're assuming cause and effect?TandemJeremy - MemberLess cyclist casualties, cyclists treated with respect and given priority.
Its a part of it Druidh. it sets a tone / promotes an attitude.
You're saying that you have no evidence whatsoever that assumed liability has any impact on road safety?
Junkyard - all of those examples you give there is fault - if it could be avoided then there is a mistake been made.
I've said it before TJ it's your absolute statements that make it so hard to have a reasoned conversation with you.
Can we agree that there are [i]some[/i] (rare) accidents that could not be [i]reasonably[/i] avoided by road users devoid of psychic ability.
Is your MP on the list?
Well I'll be damned. I wrote to mine asking him to attend the debate yesterday, and he actually showed up. I'm not sure how to process this, I think I need to have a little sit down... 😯
If I'm driving or cycling along a road and a random pedestrian steps out in front of me. why should I be "at fault" unless I can find a witness to support my version of events?
Because when a pedestrian [i]looks[/i] like they might step out in front of you your response is likely to be more cautious. So a few drivers are going to be out of pocket. Cry me a ****ing river 🙄
You can be doing 3 mph and just slide on ice. you could come round a bend at 15 mph in a 60 mph zone and find a tree across the road.
@3mph you're unlikely to damage anyone or anything, but hey! someone made the vehicle move, right? other than 'derestricted' roads, ie single track lanes, i've yet to find an open 60mph road that has a bend tight enough on it for you not to be able to see a tree across the road in a vehicle travelling at 15mph, and even if you can point to such a road, it's still currently incumbent on a driver to be able to stop within the distance you can see. these examples aren't all that great if you're trying to prove something TBH.
you forget, what's proposed is civil - ie who coughs up from who's insurance. insurers do 'knock for knock' under the current system, and will continue to do so. in a lot of cases it's not worth their while to slug it out in court.
there's a point here a lot of you have missed...
All car drivers are obliged to carry insurance (with the associated legal back up), how many cyclists are actually going to be able to fight their case anyway if it's dubious whose fault it is?
So car drivers have nothing to worry about
thats a part of the point of the assumed liability. Insurance at the moment can fob you off - little you can do. Once its incumbent on them to show they are not at fault its much easier to get the compo you are owed. Abuse is not an issue in other countries where this works
Don't get me wrong, I'm a supporter of assumed liability, just a bit sceptical of how it'll actually make any difference when it one persons word against the other.
It can but help though...
how many cyclists are actually going to be able to fight their case anyway
All the ones who have legal cover on their insurance for a start - ie most of them.
i've yet to find an open 60mph road that has a bend tight enough on it for you not to be able to see a tree across the road in a vehicle travelling at 15mph
Wow I can think of hundreds of national speed limit country lanes where this would be the case - you would be madman to do 60 mph on them though it is legal. If you want every driver to drive so they can stop in the distance they can see it is going to be a very slow method of transport- what 3 mph whenever there is a pedestrian there who may randomly step into the road for example who is only say 2 foot from the kerb.
the original 3 mph involved both vehicles sliding on ice so both are moving.
I agree only non stationary bodies collide but to decide in advance of the accident which non stationary body was to fault seems to be a daft way of deciding who /what was to blame in an accident.
I can see why folk would want to do it but I dont think it is that great an idea and it is never going to be made law here anyway
I am not sure how you are proving it is not abused abroad TJ...obviously the insurance system is abused here to some degree[ whiplash injuries etc] currently and this will be abused as well
I'll try again...
If I'm driving [b]or cycling[/b] along a road and a random pedestrian steps out in front of me. why should I be "at fault" unless I can find a witness to support my version of events?
I'd have thought that it would be fairly simple to compile a table of road accident statistics involving cyclists and pedestrians, sort it by accidents per head of population and then everywhere below a certain rate would be those countries with assumed liability?druidh - Member
You're saying that you have no evidence whatsoever that assumed liability has any impact on road safety?
And I'll tell you again. Thats not how it works. If the incident is in the road then you will not be found at fault. You had right of way.
Liability is assumed [i]unless there is evidence to show otherwise[/i].
Seriously Druidh - you have the wrong end of the stick about this. It does not give carte blanche to cyclists and pedestrians to throw themselves in cars.
Druidh - that will be so. the countries with assumed liability do have lower cyclist injury rates. However no causal link can be shown.
I know that - there is no need to repeat it. However, I'll ask again - why? To what benefit? What logical argument can you put forward for assuming anything in the event of a lack of evidence?TandemJeremy - Member
Liability is assumed unless there is evidence to show otherwise.
Cool. Do you have somewhere I can look this up?TandemJeremy - Member
Druidh - that will be so. the countries with assumed liability do have lower cyclist injury rates.
Ah - so maybe it's just that they drive on the other side of the road?However no causal link can be shown.
hmmmm... I wonder if it's weak mps getting their faces known on a current out-there issue and bandying around the usual bumphf. Every cyclist knows the seriousness of these issues. MP's care for face- value and kudos. I'm interested to see what happens with this as I'm naturally cynical..
I know that - there is no need to repeat it.
Why repeat the same fallacy then if you understand this point??
druidh
If I'm driving or cycling along a road and a random pedestrian steps out in front of me. why should I be "at fault" unless I can find a witness to support my version of events?
The reason for it is to protect the vulnerable and to redress the inbuilt bias. Car drivers kill cyclists and pedestrians. It sends a signal to car drivers that they need to look out for and consider vulnerable road users.
Every cyclist knows the seriousness of these issues. MP's care for face- value and kudos.
Maybe... maybe some MPs... are also... [i]cyclists[/i]?
Nah, that's clearly ridiculous, carry on.
TJ - sorry for disagreeing with you again (and thanks for explaining AL) but I think druidh has a perfectly valid point:
What logical argument can you put forward for assuming anything in the event of a lack of evidence?
Plus we may all like sending signals to car drivers but is that really the basis for law?
The concept of guilty until proven innocent is new and strange to me too.
TJ which other countries have this road legislation?
Right - the simple answer on assumed liability is that there is an inbuilt bias against the more vulnerable road user on the basis of the likelihood of them being the victim compared to the likelihood of them winning a claim for compensation. Assumed liability attempts to correct this - on average the liability is attributed correctly more often.
Yes there will be some cases where the driver is found responsible for a RTC they didn't cause, but there will be less of them than currently are found not liable for RTCs they are responsible for. Isn't that better justice?
holland but comparing their cycling culture to ours would be like comparing their hills to ours
TJ there was no fallacy he knows what the term means he needs to understand why- many of us are confused as to why without any knowledge of the events at all we automatically assume one vehicle is guilty and we wonder why this is fair.
We all want safer roads and this may work but so would many other "fairer" options
EDIT:
on average the liability is attributed correctly more often.
I have no idea how you would prove this to be the case. I am not saying it is true or false just that I dont understand how you could prove it one way or the other. someone decides who is to blame how do we then judge it has been attributed correctly when they have already ruled?
The concept of guilty until proven innocent is new and strange to me too.
It's civil law - there is no guilty or innocent, just liability.
Its only a valid point if you don't want to stop the killing and want to remain second class citizens on the roads.
Its tried and tested and works well over most of Europe - the reason is clear - if you don't want to see it then its up to you.
Its to protect the vulnerable. Its to redress the balance. Lots of law is weighted. Its pragmatic.
car drivers kil cyclists and pedestrians. Cyclists don't kill car drivers. Car drivers do not fufill their duty of care towards vulnerable users - assumed liability makes them do so
Surely liability implies responsibility, and responsibility suggests somebody was in the wrong whilst the other innocent?
hugor - MemberThe concept of guilty until proven innocent is new and strange to me too.
TJ which other countries have this road legislation?
Its civil law - no guilty or innocent.
Most of Europe. All the low countries, france, Germany IIRC. Its not even controversial there. its just accepted.
JunkyardTJ there was no fallacy he knows what the term means he needs to understand why
he said "why would he need a witness" - the answer is he wouldn't. thats the fallacy
If this were to come into play, some of the nob car drivers who use their invulnerability to force my hand when I'm commuting by bike might change their behaviour. That's good enough for me.