Road Safety Petition- Strict Liability.

[spindrift]

Please note, this does not mean drivers will always pay out, liability
is limited if the other persons' behaviour was dumbass.



For anyone who hasn't seen this, here is the link to an excellent
petition on the PM's website -

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/roadsafety9/

The full wording is as follows:

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to improve road safety
by introducing strict liability for motorists in collisions

Youngsters are being asked to walk or cycle to school to be green and
reduce jams. Walking and cycling are generally safe but parents will
worry - if they are brave enough to let youngsters be independent.

The perception of safety has to be improved. Lower speeds and extra
road education will play a part but this petition is calling for a
change to strict liability laws on drivers' insurance policies.

At present, in a car-bike/pedestrian collision, the cyclist or
pedestrian (probably the worst injured) has to prove the motorist was
reckless. We want that burden of proof switched so the motorist -
choosing to use a ton of metal at speed - has to prove the cyclist or
pedestrian was at fault. This only applies to insurance claims. In
criminal law, drivers in collisions remain innocent until proven
guilty.

This rule exists in many EU countries with more walking and cycling,
and a better child road safety record, Let's raise driving standards
and create better road user attitudes."

[Sir Jeremy]

On 25 Sep, 15:15, spindrift > wrote:
> Please note, this does not mean drivers will always pay out, liability
> is limited if the other persons' behaviour was dumbass.
>
> For anyone who hasn't seen this, here is the link to an excellent
> petition on the PM's website -
>
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/roadsafety9/
>
> The full wording is as follows:
>
> "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to improve road safety
> by introducing strict liability for motorists in collisions
>
> Youngsters are being asked to walk or cycle to school to be green and
> reduce jams. Walking and cycling are generally safe but parents will
> worry - if they are brave enough to let youngsters be independent.
>
> The perception of safety has to be improved. Lower speeds and extra
> road education will play a part but this petition is calling for a
> change to strict liability laws on drivers' insurance policies.
>
> At present, in a car-bike/pedestrian collision, the cyclist or
> pedestrian (probably the worst injured) has to prove the motorist was
> reckless. We want that burden of proof switched so the motorist -
> choosing to use a ton of metal at speed - has to prove the cyclist or
> pedestrian was at fault. This only applies to insurance claims. In
> criminal law, drivers in collisions remain innocent until proven
> guilty.
>
> This rule exists in many EU countries with more walking and cycling,
> and a better child road safety record, Let's raise driving standards
> and create better road user attitudes."


No chance of this- political suicide by the time the Daily Wail has
got its teeth into it. New Labour are desperate for Middle England
votes and car drivers won't have it.

[Coyoteboy]

spindrift wrote:
> Please note, this does not mean drivers will always pay out, liability
> is limited if the other persons' behaviour was dumbass.
>
>
>
> For anyone who hasn't seen this, here is the link to an excellent
> petition on the PM's website -
>
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/roadsafety9/
>
> The full wording is as follows:
>
> "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to improve road safety
> by introducing strict liability for motorists in collisions
>
> Youngsters are being asked to walk or cycle to school to be green and
> reduce jams. Walking and cycling are generally safe but parents will
> worry - if they are brave enough to let youngsters be independent.
>
> The perception of safety has to be improved. Lower speeds and extra
> road education will play a part but this petition is calling for a
> change to strict liability laws on drivers' insurance policies.
>
> At present, in a car-bike/pedestrian collision, the cyclist or
> pedestrian (probably the worst injured) has to prove the motorist was
> reckless. We want that burden of proof switched so the motorist -
> choosing to use a ton of metal at speed - has to prove the cyclist or
> pedestrian was at fault. This only applies to insurance claims. In
> criminal law, drivers in collisions remain innocent until proven
> guilty.
>
> This rule exists in many EU countries with more walking and cycling,
> and a better child road safety record, Let's raise driving standards
> and create better road user attitudes."
>

Also utterly stupid because you cant have the law working one way for
money and the other for criminal law. I know plenty of instances where
stupid cyclists, like myself :), have done things to cause accidents
where the car driver would have had a hard time to PROVE their innocence
without witnesses or video evidence.

[Marc]

Coyoteboy wrote:
> spindrift wrote:
>> Please note, this does not mean drivers will always pay out, liability
>> is limited if the other persons' behaviour was dumbass.
>>
>>
>>
>> For anyone who hasn't seen this, here is the link to an excellent
>> petition on the PM's website -
>>
>>
>>
>> This rule exists in many EU countries with more walking and cycling,
>> and a better child road safety record, Let's raise driving standards
>> and create better road user attitudes."
>>
>
> Also utterly stupid because you cant have the law working one way for
> money and the other for criminal law.

Of course you can, it happens often. As an example I give you OJ
Simpson, found not guilty of murder in a criminal case and then found
liable for the deaths in civil court to the tune of $30,000,000.

[Marc Brett]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 11:32:24 +0100, Coyoteboy >
wrote:

>Also utterly stupid because you cant have the law working one way for
>money and the other for criminal law.

I'm sure both OJ Simpson and Ron Goldman's family would agree on that
point, for different reasons(!) Still doesn't make it utterly stupid
though -- it has proved its worth in the countries where it has been
implemented.

>I know plenty of instances where
>stupid cyclists, like myself :), have done things to cause accidents
>where the car driver would have had a hard time to PROVE their innocence
>without witnesses or video evidence.

For the avoidance of future confusion, remember: this proposal has
nothing to do with a driver's guilt or innocence.

[JNugent[_2_]]

marc wrote:
> Coyoteboy wrote:
>
>> spindrift wrote:
>>
>>> Please note, this does not mean drivers will always pay out, liability
>>> is limited if the other persons' behaviour was dumbass.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For anyone who hasn't seen this, here is the link to an excellent
>>> petition on the PM's website -
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This rule exists in many EU countries with more walking and cycling,
>>> and a better child road safety record, Let's raise driving standards
>>> and create better road user attitudes."
>>>
>>
>> Also utterly stupid because you cant have the law working one way for
>> money and the other for criminal law.
>
>
> Of course you can, it happens often. As an example I give you OJ
> Simpson, found not guilty of murder in a criminal case and then found
> liable for the deaths in civil court to the tune of $30,000,000.

That is not a good example and does not prove your point.

Had the criminal law allowed the civil court to order a retrial on the
criminal case, it's a safe bet that it would have done so. IOW, no-one
believes he was not guilty of the crimes (any more). The (incorrect)
criminal verdict has to stand for reasons not connected with the case.

[Marc]

JNugent wrote:
> marc wrote:
>> Coyoteboy wrote:
>>
>>> spindrift wrote:
>>>
>>>> Please note, this does not mean drivers will always pay out, liability
>>>> is limited if the other persons' behaviour was dumbass.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For anyone who hasn't seen this, here is the link to an excellent
>>>> petition on the PM's website -
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This rule exists in many EU countries with more walking and cycling,
>>>> and a better child road safety record, Let's raise driving standards
>>>> and create better road user attitudes."
>>>>
>>>
>>> Also utterly stupid because you cant have the law working one way for
>>> money and the other for criminal law.
>>
>>
>> Of course you can, it happens often. As an example I give you OJ
>> Simpson, found not guilty of murder in a criminal case and then found
>> liable for the deaths in civil court to the tune of $30,000,000.
>
> That is not a good example and does not prove your point.
>
> Had the criminal law allowed the civil court to order a retrial on the
> criminal case, it's a safe bet that it would have done so. IOW, no-one
> believes he was not guilty of the crimes (any more). The (incorrect)
> criminal verdict has to stand for reasons not connected with the case.
If wishes were horses beggars would ride!

They aren't so they don't.
The point still stands.

[Martin Dann]

mb wrote:
> Sir Jeremy wrote:

>> No chance of this- political suicide by the time the Daily Wail has
>> got its teeth into it. New Labour are desperate for Middle England
>> votes and car drivers won't have it.
>
> "Ton of metal at speed" Sounds like the Daily Mail wrote it...

Yeahbut it is missing "Won't someone please think of the
children".

The daily wail could easily go either way with this one.

Martin.

[Marc Brett]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 14:26:36 -0500, "mb" >
wrote:

>> No chance of this- political suicide by the time the Daily Wail has
>> got its teeth into it. New Labour are desperate for Middle England
>> votes and car drivers won't have it.
>
>"Ton of metal at speed" Sounds like the Daily Mail wrote it...

No kidding. Ironically, it sounds like a typical speedophile
distortion. The weight of an average car is more than a ton, and still
rising year on year.

[Rob Morley]

In article >, marc
says...
>
> Of course you can, it happens often. As an example I give you OJ
> Simpson, found not guilty of murder in a criminal case and then found
> liable for the deaths in civil court to the tune of $30,000,000.
>
That's the difference between "beyond reasonable doubt" (>90%) and
"probable cause" (>50%).

[p.k.[_2_]]

spindrift wrote:
> Please note, this does not mean drivers will always pay out, liability
> is limited if the other persons' behaviour was dumbass.
>
>
>
> For anyone who hasn't seen this, here is the link to an excellent
> petition on the PM's website -
>
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/roadsafety9/
>
> The full wording is as follows:
>
> "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to improve road safety
> by introducing strict liability for motorists in collisions

I don't see how that would work:

"In tort law, strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party
without a finding of fault (such as negligence or tortious intent[1]). The
plaintiff needs to prove only that the tort happened and that the defendant
was responsible. Neither good faith nor the fact that the defendant took all
possible precautions are valid defenses. Strict liability often applies to
those engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous ventures."

Key phrase: "plaintiff needs to prove only that the tort happened and that
the *defendant was responsible* "

The onus would still, in English law, to show that the driver was
responsible. The idea of the driver needing to show reckless behaviour by
the cyclist goes far beyond the well understood doctrine of Strict
Liability. English Common Law is VERY different from continental Napoleonic
(codified) law and there is no automatic read across of terms or principles.

pk

[spindrift]

if, in every case, a judge weighed up who was right and who was wrong,
there would be no problem.

However, the vast majority of cases do not reach court and, more often
than is fair or just, the motorist is assumed not to be at fault.

Strict liability is a presumption of liability BEFORE the case reaches
a court of any sort - civil or criminal.

As stated on the petition, the current burden of proof of liability
rests with the cyclist or pedestrian - they need to make a case
against the insured party in order to claim on the motorists'
insurance. If they choose to do this, and the insurance company
contests it, then the case goes to civil court, and a judge will
decide which party has been careless/reckless.

However, most cases do not get this far - either no claim is made, or
a claim is made and abandoned, and the cyclist or pedestrian is
assumed to be to at fault.

Strict liability would reverse that. The motorist is - in insurance
terms - automatically liable. If the motorist wishes to contest the
case, they have to take the issue to court to try to prove the cyclist
or pedestrian was careless/reckless.

I believe that, in Europe, this test of recklessness is dropped in the
case of a child aged one to nine. The thinking is that they are not
fully able to assess a road situation: the motorist should have
altered their driving behaviour to take into account the possibility
that children were likely to be present and/or (if they had seen them)
likely to act in an unpredictable manner.

As for the confusion between criminal and civil cases, a European
judge operating under Roman law might possibly take strict liability
into account in a criminal case - I simply don't know! In Britain,
with a criminal court jury, strict liability would only have an effect
if it had changed public perceptions and attitudes, and this could be
reflected in how the prosecution presented a case. As always, a final
decision of criminal guilt would rest with a jury.

Interestingly, in the recent case in which two UK motorists caught by
a speed camera tried to claim they could not be forced to incriminate
themselves, the European Court of Human Rights judgement noted that
people "who choose to keep and drive cars" have implicitly "accepted
certain responsibilities" under UK law.

I'm not a lawyer but, surely, strict liability would simply be an
extension of this aspect of that judgment.

As far as acceptance in the UK is concerned, there is possibly a good
case here for a case to be taken to the European Court of Human Rights
- why should we be worse off than cyclists/peds in Holland and
Germany?

http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t=8270&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=20eb3ffc86dfc0d854fdacd75716c628

[Coyoteboy]

spindrift wrote:
> if, in every case, a judge weighed up who was right and who was wrong,
> there would be no problem.
>
> However, the vast majority of cases do not reach court and, more often
> than is fair or just, the motorist is assumed not to be at fault.
>
> Strict liability is a presumption of liability BEFORE the case reaches
> a court of any sort - civil or criminal.
>
> As stated on the petition, the current burden of proof of liability
> rests with the cyclist or pedestrian - they need to make a case
> against the insured party in order to claim on the motorists'
> insurance. If they choose to do this, and the insurance company
> contests it, then the case goes to civil court, and a judge will
> decide which party has been careless/reckless.
>
> However, most cases do not get this far - either no claim is made, or
> a claim is made and abandoned, and the cyclist or pedestrian is
> assumed to be to at fault.
>
> Strict liability would reverse that. The motorist is - in insurance
> terms - automatically liable. If the motorist wishes to contest the
> case, they have to take the issue to court to try to prove the cyclist
> or pedestrian was careless/reckless.
>
> I believe that, in Europe, this test of recklessness is dropped in the
> case of a child aged one to nine. The thinking is that they are not
> fully able to assess a road situation: the motorist should have
> altered their driving behaviour to take into account the possibility
> that children were likely to be present and/or (if they had seen them)
> likely to act in an unpredictable manner.
>
> As for the confusion between criminal and civil cases, a European
> judge operating under Roman law might possibly take strict liability
> into account in a criminal case - I simply don't know! In Britain,
> with a criminal court jury, strict liability would only have an effect
> if it had changed public perceptions and attitudes, and this could be
> reflected in how the prosecution presented a case. As always, a final
> decision of criminal guilt would rest with a jury.
>
> Interestingly, in the recent case in which two UK motorists caught by
> a speed camera tried to claim they could not be forced to incriminate
> themselves, the European Court of Human Rights judgement noted that
> people "who choose to keep and drive cars" have implicitly "accepted
> certain responsibilities" under UK law.
>
> I'm not a lawyer but, surely, strict liability would simply be an
> extension of this aspect of that judgment.
>
> As far as acceptance in the UK is concerned, there is possibly a good
> case here for a case to be taken to the European Court of Human Rights
> - why should we be worse off than cyclists/peds in Holland and
> Germany?
>
> http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t=8270&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=20eb3ffc86dfc0d854fdacd75716c628
>

But just because its hard for the cyclist to provide evidence that it
was the drivers fault, its just as hard for the driver to prove the
opposite. It makes no sense "automatically" making it assumed to be
anyones fault, assume its 50:50 and make the people equally reponsible
for proving otherwise. If you dont do that the law/insurance is biased
towards one to start, which is fundamentally wrong.

You cannot have criminal law saying one thing but insurance companies
saying another - thats just contradictory. The case should rest on the
evidence, it should be up to both parties to provide that evidence
whether it be for insurance or prosecution. That is all that is fair. As
a driver as well as a cyclist, I would not be happy knowing I was guilty
until proven innocent when it comes to my insurance. It wouldnt make
me treat cyclists any different, i dont believe I drive dangerously
around cyclists and therefore I wouldnt think i needed to change my
approach to them? I think most people would assume the same.

[David Damerell]

Quoting Coyoteboy >:
>opposite. It makes no sense "automatically" making it assumed to be
>anyones fault, assume its 50:50 and make the people equally reponsible
>for proving otherwise. If you dont do that the law/insurance is biased
>towards one to start, which is fundamentally wrong.

I would agree completely unless - by some mischance - the weight and speed
and probability of being hurt were also biased somehow.

>You cannot have criminal law saying one thing but insurance companies
>saying another

You already do any time "beyond reasonable doubt" gives a different answer
to "balance of probability".

>whether it be for insurance or prosecution. That is all that is fair. As
>a driver as well as a cyclist, I would not be happy knowing I was guilty
> until proven innocent when it comes to my insurance.

That's OK, you're neither guilty or innocent, those being aspects of
criminal law.
--
David Damerell > Kill the tomato!
Today is First Gloucesterday, September.

[Marc Brett]

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:10:15 +0100, Coyoteboy >
wrote:

>But just because its hard for the cyclist to provide evidence that it
>was the drivers fault, its just as hard for the driver to prove the
>opposite.

In most cases, not so. The driver is more likely to be uninjured,
conscious, not transported to hospital, ambulatory and able to gather
witness statements. The schmuck lying in a pool of blood on the tarmac
is at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to gathering evidence for
his subsequent claim.