Nice idea in principle making the driver 100% liable for any collision but law of unintended consequences will encourage people to step in front of slow moving cars to make insurance claims for easy cash.
Nice idea in principle making the driver 100% liable for any collision but law of unintended consequences will encourage people to step in front of slow moving cars to make insurance claims for easy cash.
Nice idea in principle making the driver 100% liable for any collision but law of unintended consequences will encourage people to step in front of slow moving cars to make insurance claims for easy cash.
Nice idea in principle making the driver 100% liable for any collision but law of unintended consequences will encourage people to step in front of slow moving cars to make insurance claims for easy cash.
It works in Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany. Why not here?
Nice idea in principle making the driver 100% liable for any collision but law of unintended consequences will encourage people to step in front of slow moving cars to make insurance claims for easy cash.
It works in Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany. Why not here?
I very much doubt that's the case then if it's as simple as 'car driver always at fault' unless they also put up with loads of injury fraud.
This is a tiny example of street life in the early days of trams. It is possible to find quite a lot more examples. The mental divide people seem to have between pedestrian and vehicle seems so different from today. A lot of the time these days pedestrians are fearful of cars as their first port of call. Their expectation is that the car will hit them unless they constantly look out, and maybe be car driver has a mentality that says 'yes indeed, it's your look out'.
What ever happened to, Look Right, Look left, Look Right again and if all clear, cross the road.
Pedestrians seem to have forgotten this or can't be arsed, knowing that if they've stepped off the kerb, then the likely hood is, it'll be deemed the drivers fault!
This is a tiny example of street life in the early days of trams. It is possible to find quite a lot more examples. The mental divide people seem to have between pedestrian and vehicle seems so different from today. A lot of the time these days pedestrians are fearful of cars as their first port of call. Their expectation is that the car will hit them unless they constantly look out, and maybe be car driver has a mentality that says 'yes indeed, it's your look out'.
What ever happened to, Look Right, Look left, Look Right again and if all clear, cross the road.
Pedestrians seem to have forgotten this or can't be arsed, knowing that if they've stepped off the kerb, then the likely hood is, it'll be deemed the drivers fault!
Whatever happened to pedestrians have the right of way if they are on the road. Not many car drivers follow that rule or drive in a way that is safe. ie slowly on urban roads especially those with lots of pedestrians.
Nice idea in principle making the driver 100% liable for any collision but law of unintended consequences will encourage people to step in front of slow moving cars to make insurance claims for easy cash.
It works in Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany. Why not here?
I very much doubt that's the case then if it's as simple as 'car driver always at fault' unless they also put up with loads of injury fraud.
It's 100% the case. The UK is one of very few countries in Europe where presumed liability for accidents involving vehicles doesn't fall on the driver. Can't remember all of them, but I'm pretty sure Ireland is another, and Romania and/or Bulgaria
Nice idea in principle making the driver 100% liable for any collision but law of unintended consequences will encourage people to step in front of slow moving cars to make insurance claims for easy cash.
It works in Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany. Why not here?
I very much doubt that's the case then if it's as simple as 'car driver always at fault' unless they also put up with loads of injury fraud.
It's 100% the case. The UK is one of very few countries in Europe where presumed liability for accidents involving vehicles doesn't fall on the driver. Can't remember all of them, but I'm pretty sure Ireland is another, and Romania and/or Bulgaria
So how do they combat fraudulent claims? Or is that just an assumed cost of the policy?
We had a spate of people here claiming fraudulently by brake-testing those behind them. Same thing will happen if we adopt this approach without ensuring drivers are also protected against fraudsters.
This is a tiny example of street life in the early days of trams. It is possible to find quite a lot more examples. The mental divide people seem to have between pedestrian and vehicle seems so different from today. A lot of the time these days pedestrians are fearful of cars as their first port of call. Their expectation is that the car will hit them unless they constantly look out, and maybe be car driver has a mentality that says 'yes indeed, it's your look out'.
What ever happened to, Look Right, Look left, Look Right again and if all clear, cross the road.
Pedestrians seem to have forgotten this or can't be arsed, knowing that if they've stepped off the kerb, then the likely hood is, it'll be deemed the drivers fault!
Whatever happened to pedestrians have the right of way if they are on the road. Not many car drivers follow that rule or drive in a way that is safe. ie slowly on urban roads especially those with lots of pedestrians.
Whatever happened to the Green Cross Code? Crossing where safe or not behind obstructions? See plenty of pedestrians hiding behind vans or HGVs when crossing.
They teach hazard perception on driving tests so drivers know to watch out for any possible example of careless pedestrians but it is also good practice for pedestrians to be aware that they don't step out in front of a vehicle that is not expecting them to do so.
This is a tiny example of street life in the early days of trams. It is possible to find quite a lot more examples. The mental divide people seem to have between pedestrian and vehicle seems so different from today. A lot of the time these days pedestrians are fearful of cars as their first port of call. Their expectation is that the car will hit them unless they constantly look out, and maybe be car driver has a mentality that says 'yes indeed, it's your look out'.
What ever happened to, Look Right, Look left, Look Right again and if all clear, cross the road.
Pedestrians seem to have forgotten this or can't be arsed, knowing that if they've stepped off the kerb, then the likely hood is, it'll be deemed the drivers fault!
Whatever happened to pedestrians have the right of way if they are on the road. Not many car drivers follow that rule or drive in a way that is safe. ie slowly on urban roads especially those with lots of pedestrians.
Whatever happened to the Green Cross Code? Crossing where safe or not behind obstructions? See plenty of pedestrians hiding behind vans or HGVs when crossing.
They teach hazard perception on driving tests so drivers know to watch out for any possible example of careless pedestrians but it is also good practice for pedestrians to be aware that they don't step out in front of a vehicle that is not expecting them to do so.
It's the modern 'i can do what i want' culture. It's always somebody elses fault.
Nice idea in principle making the driver 100% liable for any collision but law of unintended consequences will encourage people to step in front of slow moving cars to make insurance claims for easy cash.
It works in Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany. Why not here?
I very much doubt that's the case then if it's as simple as 'car driver always at fault' unless they also put up with loads of injury fraud.
It's 100% the case. The UK is one of very few countries in Europe where presumed liability for accidents involving vehicles doesn't fall on the driver. Can't remember all of them, but I'm pretty sure Ireland is another, and Romania and/or Bulgaria
So how do they combat fraudulent claims? Or is that just an assumed cost of the policy?
We had a spate of people here claiming fraudulently by brake-testing those behind them. Same thing will happen if we adopt this approach without ensuring drivers are also protected against fraudsters.
I suspect it's built into the policy costs, yes. Don't think it's a particularly widespread problem - though it definitely exists - just like brakechecking does. Happens in the US - its been used as a plot device in many TV shows, film and books. Personally think it's a good idea - with liability going down the chain of vulnerability (ie cars, then motorcycles, then push bikes, then pedestrians)
Saw a video the other day where a cyclist nearly killed himself because he tried to illegally undertake a lorry. Maybe if the law was stronger against cyclists they would think twice before taking risks knowing they would be culpable under the law.
Saw a video the other day where a cyclist nearly killed himself because he tried to illegally undertake a lorry. Maybe if the law was stronger against cyclists they would think twice before taking risks knowing they would be culpable under the law.
I don't know about laws in other countries but doubt what has been said above. Here's why. First Common Law which provides in full the useful phrase: "The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof." Second, there's both the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 11 which states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence." Finally, and perhaps most importantly, The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe says (art. 6.2): "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". This convention has been adopted by treaty and is binding on all Council of Europe members. Currently (and in any foreseeable expansion of the EU) every country member of the European Union is also member to the Council of Europe, so this stands for EU members as a matter of course.
On that basis the claim that the driver is presumed guilty in Denmark, Germany and The Netherlands (and others) seems utterly improbable.
There is also the general principle that any law that will be exploited for criminal gain, or which will generally lead to innocent people being wrongly implicated, is a bad law.
I don't know about laws in other countries but doubt what has been said above. Here's why. First Common Law which provides in full the useful phrase: "The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof." Second, there's both the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 11 which states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence." Finally, and perhaps most importantly, The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe says (art. 6.2): "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". This convention has been adopted by treaty and is binding on all Council of Europe members. Currently (and in any foreseeable expansion of the EU) every country member of the European Union is also member to the Council of Europe, so this stands for EU members as a matter of course.
On that basis the claim that the driver is presumed guilty in Denmark, Germany and The Netherlands (and others) seems utterly improbable.
But is actually happening! They should have spoken to you before they changed their laws I guess.
I don't know about laws in other countries but doubt what has been said above. Here's why. First Common Law which provides in full the useful phrase: "The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof." Second, there's both the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 11 which states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence." Finally, and perhaps most importantly, The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe says (art. 6.2): "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". This convention has been adopted by treaty and is binding on all Council of Europe members. Currently (and in any foreseeable expansion of the EU) every country member of the European Union is also member to the Council of Europe, so this stands for EU members as a matter of course.
On that basis the claim that the driver is presumed guilty in Denmark, Germany and The Netherlands (and others) seems utterly improbable.
It doesn't matter how improbable it seems - it's the law. There is a slight wording phrasing that may make it a bit clearer though - it is ASSUMED that the driver/operator of the larger/more powerful vehicle is responsible - eg: in the event of a court case/insurance claim, the onus is on them to prove that they weren't at fault - rather than on the victim proving that they were
Sorry but isn't all of that to do with civil compensation claims where the balance of probabilities applies? Very different from criminal cases like causing death by dangerous driving which is what I thought we were talking about because there was an implication from Seth that he wanted drivers off the road whether it was their fault or not.
This is a tiny example of street life in the early days of trams. It is possible to find quite a lot more examples. The mental divide people seem to have between pedestrian and vehicle seems so different from today. A lot of the time these days pedestrians are fearful of cars as their first port of call. Their expectation is that the car will hit them unless they constantly look out, and maybe be car driver has a mentality that says 'yes indeed, it's your look out'.
What ever happened to, Look Right, Look left, Look Right again and if all clear, cross the road.
Pedestrians seem to have forgotten this or can't be arsed, knowing that if they've stepped off the kerb, then the likely hood is, it'll be deemed the drivers fault!
Whatever happened to pedestrians have the right of way if they are on the road. Not many car drivers follow that rule or drive in a way that is safe. ie slowly on urban roads especially those with lots of pedestrians.
Yes they do have right of way but that doesn't mean they shouldn't bother looking, which many don't and just assume the car has to stop, even if it's on top of them.
Comments
Pedestrians seem to have forgotten this or can't be arsed, knowing that if they've stepped off the kerb, then the likely hood is, it'll be deemed the drivers fault!
We had a spate of people here claiming fraudulently by brake-testing those behind them. Same thing will happen if we adopt this approach without ensuring drivers are also protected against fraudsters.
They teach hazard perception on driving tests so drivers know to watch out for any possible example of careless pedestrians but it is also good practice for pedestrians to be aware that they don't step out in front of a vehicle that is not expecting them to do so.
Second, there's both the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 11 which states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence." Finally, and perhaps most importantly, The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe says (art. 6.2): "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". This convention has been adopted by treaty and is binding on all Council of Europe members. Currently (and in any foreseeable expansion of the EU) every country member of the European Union is also member to the Council of Europe, so this stands for EU members as a matter of course.
On that basis the claim that the driver is presumed guilty in Denmark, Germany and The Netherlands (and others) seems utterly improbable.
http://www.cyclealert.com/presumed-liability-the-facts/
For those of you wishing for me to be Hung Drawn and Quartered, your wishes have been granted.
Execution to be carried out at Tyburn Tree Sunday at midday, all welcome.
Bloody courts!