On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 7:11:10 AM UTC-7, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 09.10.2019 um 15:59 schrieb jbeattie:
On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 12:52:32 AM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 9/10/19 1:02 pm, John B. wrote:

The answer is fairly simple, simply pass a law that in a
collision the larger vehicle, subject to proof otherwise, is
deemed to be at fault and is financially liable for any and all
resulting costs. Including replacement parts or vehicle,
hospital and medical costs, loss of income, and even funeral
costs if necessary.

While this may not be politically possible in Australia it does,
in Thailand, appear to reduce bicycle accidents and according to
my neighbor, the policeman, most small motorcycle - auto crashes
have been found to be the fault of the motorcycle.

Yes, I think it would be political suicide in Australia, at least
at the moment. The very mention of similar ideas (strict
liability) results in much foaming from the mouth and calls for
bicycling licenses and registration, or bicycle prohibition from
the roads.

It would be polarizing anywhere. As a general rule in the US states,
the violation of a traffic law raises a presumption of negligence. So
if a driver violates a law and causes an injury, the driver is
presumed to be at fault. Same goes with cyclists.

This promotes compliance with the traffic laws by cyclists and
drivers. Why would you want to presume a driver is at fault for
merely driving a car and not violating any laws?

In Europe (including UK), motorized vehicles are classified as
"dangerous machinery" and hence are liable for damage caused even if no
operating error is involved and nobody is at fault. This liability
obviously is superseded by a direct liability due to negligence on
behalf of the other party. One condition of operating dangerous
machinery in the public is also the existence of an appropriate
liability insurance.

The "larger
vehicle" rule would favor a lot of road users who have proved (to me)
that they do not follow the laws, including skateboarders and
escooter "drivers."

In Europe, an Escooter is classified as "dangerous machinery" due to
being propelled by a motor and the bicycle is not due to being propelled
by muscle only.

A bicycle, being a larger vehicle, would be presumed at fault. One
of my greatest hazards around here are pedestrians who just step off
curbs, against lights, looking down at cell phones.

This trick seems to have worked against a cyclist in London recently
even without the bicycle being classified as "dangerous machinery".

Those seem more reasonable. Instead of strongly enforced traffic laws, here in California they simply put traffic lights everywhere impeding traffic for no reason at all in many cases. Intersections will often had a forward traffic light, a left turn traffic light and in some cases even a right turn traffic light and so it isn't a surprise when people will NOT allow traffic in from non-lighted cross streets even in stopped traffic.