Safe Speed Forums

I take your point about the difference between culpability and liability, but your earlier description (the mitigation) still doesn't tie up.

IMO: making folks liable who aren't at any fault, as well as removing liability for those who are at fault, is not the sign of an enlightened society.

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

It is a purely pragmatic arrangement predicated on the relative vulnerability of motorised and other road users. It does not lead to major injustices in those jurisdictions where it is practiced. It neither makes people who are not at fault liable nor removes liability from those who are at fault; it merely changes the burden of proof.

_________________
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

Absolutely!

Strict liability for all!

That should calm everybody down a fair bit!

For instance I cringe at the speed some cyclists go through hyde park at in close proximity to pedestrians/dogs, happy to see them done if they collide with somebody that steps out in front of them if they can't prove they couldn't have avoided the collision.

Damn! There goes my chance to accuse you of hypocrisy!



OK, what about cars and lorries? Or cars and motorbikes?

Lorries



Cars.

Obviously a 1.1 litre Nissan Micra smacking up a 2.2 litre triumph Rocket or vice versa would need some technical decision so it's not all black and white, but you get the picture.

Hmmm.

It just seems really complicated compared to blaming the person who was at fault (or even better, just trying to prevent future reoccurrences).

If as you say, if a really small car hits a really big motorbike, do we call it quits?

I'm sure any grey areas could be resolved with a bit of thinking, but to me the principle is sound.

It would calm pretty much everybody right down I reckon.

Not quite, it assumes a burden of proof. Given that, I don't believe there hasn't been any injustices.

I don't see anything pragmatic about abrogating one's responsibilities.
If we're truly worried about the vulnerability of road users, well you can see what I already said about that here (jaywalking).

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

In maritime law, the responsibility lies with smaller vessels to keep out of the way of larger vessels - because of the laws of physics.
With the railways, it's your fault if you get hit by a train - because of the laws of physics.
But on the roads, the laws of physics have to take a back seat to someone's assumed right of way

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Sail before steam isn't it?



If you go on a railway without proper authorisation you are trespassing.



Yup the roads are a public space, it's the motor vehicle that's the alien. You need to be licensed and part of that agreement is that you don't kill people.

Sorry squire, not reading your banter. How can you assume a burden of proof?

_________________
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

Not on the open sea it doesn't. That rule only applies to a ship who is "constrained by her draught" so as to be unable to follow the normal rules of the road.

_________________
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

Anyone with that sort of attitude who lived in the 18th or 19th century would have been likely to have met their end under hoof or wagon wheel.

And what are drivers if they're not members of the public? On second thoughts, don't answer that one.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Apologies for the temporary thread locks. A foible caught me out whilst I was doing maintenance.

I don't know, but that's what weepej is calling for!

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

No he, and I, would like to impose the burden of proof on the motorist. Assume nothing

_________________
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

No it wouldn't. It would make some road users more and some less responsible for their actions. Not a good idea. We should all strive to be equally responsible.

Right Weepy - analyse this one - woman walks out of specsavers shop in PEDESTRIAN ZONE ,with large eyepatch .As she does so , yoof on bike neatly knocks her down ,but for reactions of her hubby ( a car driver) .
So in your opinion ,woman would be at fault for thinking she could walk safely ,free from fear of yobby bikers in a PEDESTRIAN ZONE .
That's my take on your way of thinking .The woman was my wife . The yob got away ,because I couldn't catch him on foot .If I had ,he'd perhaps be needing Big Tone's help .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

anyway, back on topic..

I think we are all in agreement that if you hit a stationary vehicle, you are a bit of a c*ck.

Some kids throw a rock at a truck. Rock breaks window and truck stops. Vehicle following truck hits truck and someone dies.

The kids are not directly responsible for killing the passenger, but them hossing rocks at the traffic didn't do anything to help matters. One might well imagine, that if the cops holding the kid, they might think that they can get a prosecution.