Safe Speed Forums

- The UK is only one of four Western European countries that doesnt have 'strict liability' to protect cyclists and pedestrians.

- Strict liability entitles a crash victim to compensation unless the driver can prove the cyclist or pedestrian was at fault.

- Strict liability encourages more careful driving (and cycling, because a cyclist would be deemed to be at fault for crashing into a pedestrian).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_Bq1vxC ... r_embedded

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Yup.

http://sixthformlaw.info/01_modules/mod ... bility.htm

Again nope!
Your document primarily refers to "presumption of mens rea", not the totally different "presumption of liability".

I had expected that you would chalk this down to a simple accidental error of terms, but it actually seems you want to continue down your nonsensical path.

Here’s your problem!

There are plenty of sites that distinguish between “strict” and “presumption of”, go and Google it.
So will you remain by the notion that strict liability: always liable regardless, is exactly the same as presumption of liability: liable unless [your word] proven otherwise, or do you want to clarify what you are saying.

It is rather ironic that you, again, accuse others of the mistake that only you had been making.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

How will 'strict liability' help to protect cyclists & peds exactly?
I assume that you mean from your note about cyclists being more careful that motorists will to? Is that what you mean. If so then that implies that motorists are willing to take risks at the cost of damage to other road users and I don't see that.
People don't go out to have an accident.
People of all road user ability might take risks but never to hurt anyone intentionally. Other than perhaps when people enter into a 'red mist' and road rage results. We have seen that with many road users on YouTube : 'driver on driver', cyclist on driver and driver on cyclist and so on ... It is all appalling and each one involved needs to seriously re-think their attitude to how they travel and interact with others on the road. We need to be far more tolerant of each others abilities and inabilities, and encourage Councils (etc) to help provide better education, advice and guidance.
Making any one sector 'responsible' for another just segregates society, not bring it together to help each other. Making liability upon another just adds to insurance premiums or even starts them (perhaps peds will end up with insurance too!) To what end ? - well insurance companies get rich at the expense of everyone else apparently 'feeling safer' - really?
Managing risk well does not mean that we are all perfect and will never make a mistake ! of course things will happen and errors occur, but will it suddenly become preventable just because someone knows they will be held to account even if it was another fault? No, not at all, why?.. because they had no intention to go out and make that mistake.
To therefor deliberately apportion blame to (potentially) an innocent party is ridiculous, pointless and fails to make anything better. It will make people blamed feel aggrieved and detest others in society that get away with something that they in fact caused.
It usually takes two to fail to observe and anticipate well to contribute to an incident. One to fail to anticipate another possible action or inaction. The other failing to observe properly, and travel appropriately. Most cases both have some blame in reality even if there is a legal 'single blame' 'fault'.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

The last thing the UK needs is a bigger influx of the "over cautious". Speed cameras have increased the overcautious no end, on the roads, resulting in people more worried about breaking a speed limit and getting flashed than driving safely and taking notice of other road users around them.

We've had our first snow/sleet showers , in our area, today and the over cautious were noticebly there to upset the momentum by driving at 20MPH everywhere, on roads that were no more than wet and yet failing to use lights, indicators etc to help others.

A large number of the overcautious driving around at 20MPH because they are worried that they might be liable for every little thing that they could possibly imagine happening to them, will bring our roads into chaos.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

I agree under-confident motorists will and do add to the problems of safe travel, which will reflect in all their actions and reactions, or even in-actions. That is highly likely to lead to making some motoring situations worse which may endanger life at the most extreme.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Yup; you're mixing up strict liability with absolute liability:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability

Hmmm...

I don't think it's so black and white.

That cyclist in the video for instance, do you think riding like that is acceptable? He might not go out to have a crash, but he's behaving in a way that means it's pretty much going to happen.

I see quite a few people every day that behave similarly, little care of thought to other road users.

My point is one of direct 'intention', no of course no one goes out to have an accident - unless perhaps they are trying to create an insurance fraud incident or wish to cause deliberate harm to themselves or someone else.
Even a road rage incident those people never left home thinking - I am going to go out and create a scenario where I am going to thump someone etc., etc.

Those cyclists in the video are riding from a completely different cultural perspective and we cannot forget that when commenting on what they are doing. If they rode like that over here they'd probably be in an accident very quickly indeed because the expectations and predictability are different. They expect motorist to behave in a certain way and the motorists too expect cyclists to behave in a certain predictable way. How they justify not indicating seems exceptionally discourteous, but that is their culture and their mannerisms.

They have typically for decades given a priority to cyclists we haven't.
(marginally edited)

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

That's irrelevant. Within the link you gave:

There is no room for "unless the driver can prove the cyclist or pedestrian was at fault." It seems you don't even know what "strict" means!

Here is another source for the definition:

Again, no room for the critical factor 'unless'.

Another:

Again, no room for the critical factor 'unless'.


I did notice that you didn't acknowledge my link that explained your error. Here it is again:
http://ukcyclerules.com/2010/11/16/stri ... -cyclists/

There is no need for me to explain this to you, as it is all summarised within the link.


Here are some others for you to evade:
From the CTC: "(this arrangment is sometimes known, but not entirely accurately, as 'strict liability')"
From the CDF: "Press reports of a strict liability, regardless of fault, are probably a distortion."
From another cycling site: "are calling for the introduction of 'strict liability' when maybe they mean 'a presumption of liability'. The two are differing legal concepts."
From yet another cycling site: "‘Presumed liability’ is also sometimes referred to as ‘strict liability’, although the latter term is not quite correct under these proposals."


You might want to use the correct terminology. Extremely few people will accept changing the law to "strict liability"; "presumption of liability" will get much more support.
However, if you want to scupper the chances of a change in law then please do continue with your distortion. Perhaps it is better that I don’t correct you ?

Seriously, I won't bother responding any more, unless you post something of genuine relevance and substance. Or could that statement instead have been: "I will adopt a strict silence" ?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Going off topic but ... I have often thought it is unfortunate that motor horns sound so aggressive. I suppose it is necessary so that they sound an adequate warning in emergencies. But an additional gentler toned device which could signal your presence un-aggressively would be welcome. On a bicycle, for example, shout at a pedestrian "Get out of my way" would usually elicit the response you mention; whereas as gentle ting-a-ling on the bell isn usually welcomed

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown