RTA Liability report

[horizon]

I'm a sceptic when it comes to "Presumed Liability". How can a justice system ever presume one party guilty when two people have had an accident and one has come off worse? How can one be presumed guilty before the evidence is gathered? I know it is meant to make motorists think more clearly about the risks they take with the welfare of others, and if that was all it did it would be a good thing. But it could also lead to my wife being presumed liable if someone cycles out of a side road into the path of her car on one of the days she is driving in to work. If she were not at fault but had no witnesses she could be presumed liable whilst being completely innocent. Replacing one sort of injustice with another is not progress.

Oddly enough when I'm cycling I check every side road as I go by in case of motor vehicles pulling out. If there is one, I catch his/her eye to make sure we understand our intentions. I'm sorry your wife is reluctant to do the same for cyclists. Given the likely consequences for her of a collision in terms of injury (nil) and legal action (nil) for killing the cyclist I can understand that other things weigh more heavily on her mind (hair dressing appointment etc).

Motorists who have fogotten the importance of thinking ahead and anticipation of other road users can get extra training and I would recommend your wife does so.

PS pwa: if it helps, I can say that a friend of ours was killed by a car when he was walking (possibly hitch-hiking) along the A303 a few years back and possibly wandering into the carriageway. It was dark, he was drunk. The general consensus amongst our mutual friends was that while tragic, he was largely to blame. I don't know the legal outcome. OTOH, on the unpavemented roads around here, drivers I believe have an absolute duty of care and yes, maybe 40 mph is too fast around blind bends. It may not be black and white but I think we're a long way from it even being mildly grey yet.

[pwa]

Horizon

your last post was offensive. You imply that my wife, who you do not know, is more likely to be concentrating on her hairdressers appointment than on her driving. She happens to be a careful driver with a strong social conscience who does look out for hazards as she drives (you are not the only one who does that) and she does not deserve your silly sexist comment.

When I drive at night on dark roads I look out for the unexpected. Even if it is not human obstacles, it can be dark cattle in the middle of the road. You are not the only one who thinks about what could be round the next corner.

It seems, on this thread, that any suggestion that a driver is not always the one at fault must be a sign that the person with that view is a less careful driver. That is a lazy assumption.

[MartinC]

...........................................We are all parties to a contract to behave in a certain way. All of us.

That's a contract that motorists have decided they're entitled to impose on everyone else. Show me the constitutional (or other) basis we've been through to establish it. All I can see is the great British middle class sense of entitlement.

There's a much simpler and fairer principle. Those who bring the risk to the environment and benefit from doing so are the ones who should bear the responsibility (including the financial one).

[pjclinch]

Meanwhile other countries rely on the exact same types of legislation which you consider likely to end society as we know it. In reality, these countries are not known as places where motorists are persecuted. They are known as places where vulnerable road users are better protected.

This is the nub of it.

It's been very well tried out in quite a lot of places and it works. People that drive cars in places like NL (and I have some of them in the family, so people I actually know personally, not notional examples or friends-of-friends) don't moan how they're unfairly persecuted by the liability laws, and they can also ride their bikes a lot more easily and pleasurably than we can here in to the bargain.

Ignoring real-world successes and failures according to how we like the cut of their jibs, rather than how well they work, is just plain dopey.

Pete.

[pwa]

Martin C

I presume you don't drive or fly, and I respect your decision. The contract I spoke of is, of course, unwritten, but it is there all the same. Children at school are taught it when road safety is talked about. Learner drivers are taught it. Parents tell their children how to cross the road, waiting until it is safe. It is close to being a consensus. The basic idea is that we all should stick to the rules and look after each other (which I try to do but some don't) and if something goes wrong we will not be held liable unless we have done something wrong.

I don't think any of that is middle class (and I'm not used to thinking of myself as middle class).

[pjclinch]

It seems, on this thread, that any suggestion that a driver is not always the one at fault must be a sign that the person with that view is a less careful driver. That is a lazy assumption.

For the severalth time, fault and liability are not the same thing. If I'm the one in charge of the killing machine then I brought death in to the set of possibilities, so I am then liable for any deaths caused. I may not be at fault, and not guilty of anything, but I brought the death potential along to the party.

This is not "war on the motorist". I, as a motorist, understand that when I drive my car among pedestrians and cyclists that it is my decision to have the heavy steel mass there and that if anyone gets killed or badly injured it will almost certainly be about my car, even if it wasn't me that made the dumb move that got someone under the wheels. Because I (and my insurance company underwriting me) alone in that situation have the potential to cause very serious harm, I bear liability.

You really need to push on beyond the flawed notion that liability and guilt are synonymous and anything else is morally appalling. You are trying to view a very skewed landscape as a level playing field, I suspect because if you put a driver by a motorist by a pedestrian you've just got interchangeable people, but out on the roads the things they're on and in change the nature of things very fundamentally. In mainland Europe this is recognised with pragmatic, working laws.

Pete.

[pjclinch]

The basic idea is that we all should stick to the rules and look after each other

But who makes the rules, and are they good ones? You could argue that being obliged to tug your forelock to your feudal betters is sticking to the rules so you get looked after, but I for one am glad we're past that.

If you're on the continent the rules for liability are different. They are generally followed. They work. And it seems that the more vulnerable parties are better looked after as a result, while the less vulnerable are not obviously persecuted to the extent they're shouting about it very loud.

Pete.

[AlaninWales]

Anyone who thinks they can drive a car in such a way that they can never run over / collide with a pedestrian or cyclist who does something wrong is deluding themselves. Unless, that is, they have returned to the era of having someone walk in front of the car with a red flag.

It is not just the drivers of motorised vehicles who have responsibilities on the roads. It is everyone who uses them. Children are exempt from that responsibility, but it rests with their parents / guardians instead. We are all parties to a contract to behave in a certain way. All of us.

This is the p;ea of the lazy driver, obsessed with his 'right' to travel at a speed he chooses without thought of what others might be about to do.
It is lazy because you have not thought through the situation of those others on the road apart from children, who may be unable to enter into your supposed "contract". Would you have anyone incapable of reading and comprehending the Highway Code banned from walking along public roads? Would you have the blind banned because they cannot see you coming? Would you have people with alzeimers banned from going out in public without an escort? Of course there are other people that are unable to enter your "contract". You may be able to spot unaccompanied children (or would you ban them too?) but you cannot spot whether a pedestrian has read and signed your "contract".- yet you feel entitled to pass them in such a manner that if they behave unexpectedly, you might hit them (and place the blame on them ). This is exactly how the drivers who pass too close to cyclists think - 'the cyclist should be riding in a straight line so I can blast past at three inches'. It is exactly the argument used by a driver who killed a cyclist whilst overtaking on a blind bend "I cannot help it if a cyclist falls off in front of me". As I said, you are part of the problem, because you use the same excuses.
It is obsessed with your supposed 'right' to travel at speed, because you introduce the straw-man idea of requiring a red flag walker in front of the vehicle. I do not need someone walking in front with a red flag, I simply ensure that I have seen the piece of road I am about to drive down and if there are places a vulnerable road user (VRU) could be hiding I either give them a wide enough berth to allow for the appearance of said VRU or if that is not possible (oncoming traffic or road width) then I slow down so that should someone move out from the blind spot, I can stop:. This does not mean driving slowly, it means slowing down when there is any uncertainty about whether the road will remain clear; I assume any parked car or blind entrance will hide someone about to step into the road and drive accordingly. That is the careful and competent driving which should be expected of all drivers.

[bovlomov]

This is not "war on the motorist". I, as a motorist, understand that when I drive my car among pedestrians and cyclists that it is my decision to have the heavy steel mass there and that if anyone gets killed or badly injured it will almost certainly be about my car, even if it wasn't me that made the dumb move that got someone under the wheels. Because I (and my insurance company underwriting me) alone in that situation have the potential to cause very serious harm, I bear liability.

This is the most persuasive argument I have read for presumed liability.

As for pwa's 'contract': I can't think of any area of life where there is such a contract between citizens. What goes on between citizens in public spaces is etiquette, manners, convention and peer pressure. The contracts are those between the citizen and state, in all its forms. Looking at it like that, it is easier to understand presumed liability. The motorist has a contract with the state to enable him to drive his motorised vehicle along the highway, that already requires third party insurance. It isn't such a leap to add a clause for presumed liability.

[reohn2]

Meanwhile other countries rely on the exact same types of legislation which you consider likely to end society as we know it. In reality, these countries are not known as places where motorists are persecuted. They are known as places where vulnerable road users are better protected.

This is the nub of it.

It's been very well tried out in quite a lot of places and it works. People that drive cars in places like NL (and I have some of them in the family, so people I actually know personally, not notional examples or friends-of-friends) don't moan how they're unfairly persecuted by the liability laws, and they can also ride their bikes a lot more easily and pleasurably than we can here in to the bargain.

Ignoring real-world successes and failures according to how we like the cut of their jibs, rather than how well they work, is just plain dopey.

Pete.

Very +1
It always amazes me(perhaps it shouldn't)just how stupid and short sighted the UK is when a simple gaze across the water to northern Europe shows such a good example of civilised and non aggressive road use.
The despicable UK class system is never more apparent than when using our roads,every time I go for a ride I'm subjected to some form of abuse by motorists intent on bullying me.
Admitted that's a minority of motorists but it just adds to the stress and takes away some of the pleasure of cycling for me.
With that kind of backdrop it's no surprise to me that when asked why they don't cycle,people will reply that the roads are 'too dangerous'.
It never fails to amaze me how stress free I feel when driving or cycling on the continent,the ego/bad attitude doesn't seem to exist IME,and the likes of mobile phone use whilst driving is practically non existent.
Could it be their attitude to life generally or the fact that should they be caught the penalties are far more harsh and to collide with a cyclist or vulnerable road user will attract even harsher penalties?
Or are Europeans just more civilised than UK nationals?

An incident of note,we were driving down an urban street in Belgium when two couples began crossing some ways in front,as we approached them I slowed down Mrs R2 remarked that they hadn't quickened their step(or scurried out of the way?),I said 'why should they,they've as much right to the road as us'.
It's an indication of the UK mind at work and what it expects of vulnerable road users(I might add Mr's R2 is one of if not the most mild mannered people I've ever met).
The expectation in UK society that the roads should be cleared so the all powerful motor car is unimpeded has been driven into us from a very early age,might is right is a very real concept in the UK mind,we scurry out of the way out of fear of the consequences and in such a way as to be very grateful when one of these monsters shows pity,slows and allows us to step onto their turf to cross.
The whole thing is on it's head,it fosters aggression and expectation of the motorist to be superior,even to the point where people feel extremely vulnerable when on foot,let alone venturing on a bicycle amidst these uncaring,unfeeling monsters.
Add to that that cyclists are also expected to protect ourselves by wearing HiViz jackets and helmets so they can be seen and will be protected when and if they're knocked off!
I've yet to see a Dutch cyclist wearing such attire and very,very few French or Italians.

[pwa]

AlaninWales

please get out of your head the notion that I am trying to justify bad driving. I despise it as much as you do.

All road users have responsibilities. We agree that drivers have a duty of care. They must follow the rules of the road, and they must watch out for vulnerable road users. All agreed. I do not want careless driving to go unpunished. But, in our efforts to punish offenders, I don't want us to cast our nets so wide that we take in the innocent.

Pjclinch

of course I get your distinction between "liability" and "fault" or "guilt", but for me they are tied together. I was brought up to believe that if I did my best to do the right thing, nobody could find fault with me. It feels wrong to consider a system that puts liability on one side.

Finally, I believe that, like it or not, we are almost all part of the system that puts a great mass of moving metal on the roads. We all buy stuff from shops. We all buy stuff made in factories. We all cycle on roads made with materials carried in lorries. Motorised traffic (of which there is certainly more than there needs to be) makes the cogs go round. The traffic is ours, made by us. We should try to make it work better for everyone out there, but not by lumping the offenders in with the non-offenders.

[pjclinch]

of course I get your distinction between "liability" and "fault" or "guilt", but for me they are tied together.

in other words, you don't actually get it, or don't accept the possibility that your way of seeing it isn't the only reasonable one.

I was brought up to believe that if I did my best to do the right thing, nobody could find fault with me. It feels wrong to consider a system that puts liability on one side.

But where there is a distinction between fault and liability people can find you liable but not at fault. This is only wrong if you can't separate the two, and it's your problem that you can't. Millions of people do, and have a system which verifiably works that uses it.

Finally, I believe that, like it or not, we are almost all part of the system that puts a great mass of moving metal on the roads. We all buy stuff from shops. We all buy stuff made in factories. We all cycle on roads made with materials carried in lorries. Motorised traffic (of which there is certainly more than there needs to be) makes the cogs go round. The traffic is ours, made by us. We should try to make it work better for everyone out there, but not by lumping the offenders in with the non-offenders.

how many times does it have to be repeated? Since liability and fault ARE NOT THE SAME then the issue of "lumping the offenders in with the non-offenders" disappears. The people capable of causing the most harm carry the liability, the people who are in the wrong carry the guilt.

Pete.

[AlaninWales]

AlaninWales

please get out of your head the notion that I am trying to justify bad driving. I despise it as much as you do.

All road users have responsibilities. We agree that drivers have a duty of care. They must follow the rules of the road, and they must watch out for vulnerable road users. All agreed. I do not want careless driving to go unpunished. But, in our efforts to punish offenders, I don't want us to cast our nets so wide that we take in the innocent.
.

Then why do you use the same excuses (someone might unexpectedly jump out in front) and straw-man arguments (driving with the expectation that VRUs may do something daft will require a red flag carrier to walk in front) that the careless drivers use?

An incident of note,we were driving down an urban street in Belgium when two couples began crossing some ways in front,as we approached them I slowed down Mrs R2 remarked that they hadn't quickened their step(or scurried out of the way?),I said 'why should they,they've as much right to the road as us'.
It's an indication of the UK mind at work and what it expects of vulnerable road users(I might add Mr's R2 is one of if not the most mild mannered people I've ever met).
The expectation in UK society that the roads should be cleared so the all powerful motor car is unimpeded has been driven into us from a very early age,might is right is a very real concept in the UK mind,we scurry out of the way out of fear of the consequences and in such a way as to be very grateful when one of these monsters shows pity,slows and allows us to step onto their turf to cross.
The whole thing is on it's head,it fosters aggression and expectation of the motorist to be superior,even to the point where people feel extremely vulnerable when on foot,let alone venturing on a bicycle amidst these uncaring,unfeeling monsters.Add to that that we're also expected to protect ourselves by wearing HiViz jackets and helmets so they can see us and we'll be protected when and if they knock us off!
I've yet to see a Dutch cyclist wearing such attire and very,very few French or Italians.

Two days ago whilst driving up the lane, I encountered a large oncoming tractor. Clearly there was not enough room for us to pass each other so I immediately checked behind, engaged reverse and drove 50 yards back to a passing place - something expected of drivers around here
Yesterday whilst driving up the lane I saw ahead a dog-walker and a pony rider walking towards me engaged in conversation. I stopped and reversed (half a car length) to a passing place; they did not speed up at all (which was pleasing since most walkers dive for the hedges here if a car appears - their experience tells them to do so) but did thank me as they passed . I suspect the presence of the pony made the difference (most drivers here will stop for horses).

[horizon]

Horizon

your last post was offensive. You imply that my wife, who you do not know, is more likely to be concentrating on her hairdressers appointment than on her driving. She happens to be a careful driver with a strong social conscience who does look out for hazards as she drives (you are not the only one who does that) and she does not deserve your silly sexist comment.

Yes, it was sexist and offensive. That's unusual for me if I may say so. So what triggered it? The notion that a motorist is not to blame if a cyclist comes out of a side road without stopping or looking. What you state so calmly and logically is a fundamental view held by most motorists. But cyclists do look. Why? Because the consequence of not doing so is so terrible. So why can't motorists? Because the consequences are so negligible - for them. I find that offensive. What is wrong with slowing down slightly at a junction in a busy built-up area? Why aren't motorists taught to do this?

When I'm overtaken closely at high speed by motorists, I find it deeply offensive, not just dangerous. Most motorists do not come on this forum. That's a shame because we rarely have the chance to thrash out these issues. You've (bravely IMV) stepped forward. But it's a can of worms.

[reohn2]

....... like it or not, we are almost all part of the system that puts a great mass of moving metal on the roads......

It's that system so many of us find to be at fault,at fault being skewed in favour of the mighty and their right because of that might.
The law is being abused wholesale because the 'system' you mention allows it to happen,for the system itself now cowers in fear of the might of these unstoppable motor users,it's become expected that the motorist has right because of his/her might.
As I posted just above,the whole thing is on it's head,it should the responsibility of the drivers to reel in their 100+ hp motors and wait for the the VRU's not the situation we find ourselves in presently.
They are the ones with the potential killing machines(1,700 per annum,and treble that injured annually on UK roads),so their's is the greatest responsibility.