Road Safety Petition- Strict Liability.

Please note, this does not mean drivers will always pay out, liability
is limited if the other persons' behaviour was dumbass.



For anyone who hasn't seen this, here is the link to an excellent
petition on the PM's website -

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/roadsafety9/

The full wording is as follows:

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to improve road safety
by introducing strict liability for motorists in collisions

Youngsters are being asked to walk or cycle to school to be green and
reduce jams. Walking and cycling are generally safe but parents will
worry - if they are brave enough to let youngsters be independent.

The perception of safety has to be improved. Lower speeds and extra
road education will play a part but this petition is calling for a
change to strict liability laws on drivers' insurance policies.

At present, in a car-bike/pedestrian collision, the cyclist or
pedestrian (probably the worst injured) has to prove the motorist was
reckless. We want that burden of proof switched so the motorist -
choosing to use a ton of metal at speed - has to prove the cyclist or
pedestrian was at fault. This only applies to insurance claims. In
criminal law, drivers in collisions remain innocent until proven
guilty.

This rule exists in many EU countries with more walking and cycling,
and a better child road safety record, Let's raise driving standards
and create better road user attitudes."

On 25 Sep, 15:15, spindrift wrote:
Please note, this does not mean drivers will always pay out, liability
is limited if the other persons' behaviour was dumbass.

For anyone who hasn't seen this, here is the link to an excellent
petition on the PM's website -

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/roadsafety9/

The full wording is as follows:

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to improve road safety
by introducing strict liability for motorists in collisions

Youngsters are being asked to walk or cycle to school to be green and
reduce jams. Walking and cycling are generally safe but parents will
worry - if they are brave enough to let youngsters be independent.

The perception of safety has to be improved. Lower speeds and extra
road education will play a part but this petition is calling for a
change to strict liability laws on drivers' insurance policies.

At present, in a car-bike/pedestrian collision, the cyclist or
pedestrian (probably the worst injured) has to prove the motorist was
reckless. We want that burden of proof switched so the motorist -
choosing to use a ton of metal at speed - has to prove the cyclist or
pedestrian was at fault. This only applies to insurance claims. In
criminal law, drivers in collisions remain innocent until proven
guilty.

This rule exists in many EU countries with more walking and cycling,
and a better child road safety record, Let's raise driving standards
and create better road user attitudes."


No chance of this- political suicide by the time the Daily Wail has
got its teeth into it. New Labour are desperate for Middle England
votes and car drivers won't have it.

spindrift wrote:
Please note, this does not mean drivers will always pay out, liability
is limited if the other persons' behaviour was dumbass.



For anyone who hasn't seen this, here is the link to an excellent
petition on the PM's website -

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/roadsafety9/

The full wording is as follows:

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to improve road safety
by introducing strict liability for motorists in collisions

Youngsters are being asked to walk or cycle to school to be green and
reduce jams. Walking and cycling are generally safe but parents will
worry - if they are brave enough to let youngsters be independent.

The perception of safety has to be improved. Lower speeds and extra
road education will play a part but this petition is calling for a
change to strict liability laws on drivers' insurance policies.

At present, in a car-bike/pedestrian collision, the cyclist or
pedestrian (probably the worst injured) has to prove the motorist was
reckless. We want that burden of proof switched so the motorist -
choosing to use a ton of metal at speed - has to prove the cyclist or
pedestrian was at fault. This only applies to insurance claims. In
criminal law, drivers in collisions remain innocent until proven
guilty.

This rule exists in many EU countries with more walking and cycling,
and a better child road safety record, Let's raise driving standards
and create better road user attitudes."


Also utterly stupid because you cant have the law working one way for
money and the other for criminal law. I know plenty of instances where
stupid cyclists, like myself , have done things to cause accidents
where the car driver would have had a hard time to PROVE their innocence
without witnesses or video evidence.

Coyoteboy wrote:
spindrift wrote:
Please note, this does not mean drivers will always pay out, liability
is limited if the other persons' behaviour was dumbass.



For anyone who hasn't seen this, here is the link to an excellent
petition on the PM's website -



This rule exists in many EU countries with more walking and cycling,
and a better child road safety record, Let's raise driving standards
and create better road user attitudes."


Also utterly stupid because you cant have the law working one way for
money and the other for criminal law.

Of course you can, it happens often. As an example I give you OJ
Simpson, found not guilty of murder in a criminal case and then found
liable for the deaths in civil court to the tune of $30,000,000.

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 11:32:24 +0100, Coyoteboy
wrote:

Also utterly stupid because you cant have the law working one way for
money and the other for criminal law.

I'm sure both OJ Simpson and Ron Goldman's family would agree on that
point, for different reasons(!) Still doesn't make it utterly stupid
though -- it has proved its worth in the countries where it has been
implemented.

I know plenty of instances where
stupid cyclists, like myself , have done things to cause accidents
where the car driver would have had a hard time to PROVE their innocence
without witnesses or video evidence.

For the avoidance of future confusion, remember: this proposal has
nothing to do with a driver's guilt or innocence.

marc wrote:
Coyoteboy wrote:

spindrift wrote:

Please note, this does not mean drivers will always pay out, liability
is limited if the other persons' behaviour was dumbass.



For anyone who hasn't seen this, here is the link to an excellent
petition on the PM's website -



This rule exists in many EU countries with more walking and cycling,
and a better child road safety record, Let's raise driving standards
and create better road user attitudes."


Also utterly stupid because you cant have the law working one way for
money and the other for criminal law.


Of course you can, it happens often. As an example I give you OJ
Simpson, found not guilty of murder in a criminal case and then found
liable for the deaths in civil court to the tune of $30,000,000.

That is not a good example and does not prove your point.

Had the criminal law allowed the civil court to order a retrial on the
criminal case, it's a safe bet that it would have done so. IOW, no-one
believes he was not guilty of the crimes (any more). The (incorrect)
criminal verdict has to stand for reasons not connected with the case.

JNugent wrote:
marc wrote:
Coyoteboy wrote:

spindrift wrote:

Please note, this does not mean drivers will always pay out, liability
is limited if the other persons' behaviour was dumbass.



For anyone who hasn't seen this, here is the link to an excellent
petition on the PM's website -



This rule exists in many EU countries with more walking and cycling,
and a better child road safety record, Let's raise driving standards
and create better road user attitudes."


Also utterly stupid because you cant have the law working one way for
money and the other for criminal law.


Of course you can, it happens often. As an example I give you OJ
Simpson, found not guilty of murder in a criminal case and then found
liable for the deaths in civil court to the tune of $30,000,000.

That is not a good example and does not prove your point.

Had the criminal law allowed the civil court to order a retrial on the
criminal case, it's a safe bet that it would have done so. IOW, no-one
believes he was not guilty of the crimes (any more). The (incorrect)
criminal verdict has to stand for reasons not connected with the case.
If wishes were horses beggars would ride!

They aren't so they don't.
The point still stands.

mb wrote:
Sir Jeremy wrote:

No chance of this- political suicide by the time the Daily Wail has
got its teeth into it. New Labour are desperate for Middle England
votes and car drivers won't have it.

"Ton of metal at speed" Sounds like the Daily Mail wrote it...

Yeahbut it is missing "Won't someone please think of the
children".

The daily wail could easily go either way with this one.

Martin.

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 14:26:36 -0500, "mb"
wrote:

No chance of this- political suicide by the time the Daily Wail has
got its teeth into it. New Labour are desperate for Middle England
votes and car drivers won't have it.

"Ton of metal at speed" Sounds like the Daily Mail wrote it...

No kidding. Ironically, it sounds like a typical speedophile
distortion. The weight of an average car is more than a ton, and still
rising year on year.

In article , marc
says...

Of course you can, it happens often. As an example I give you OJ
Simpson, found not guilty of murder in a criminal case and then found
liable for the deaths in civil court to the tune of $30,000,000.

That's the difference between "beyond reasonable doubt" (90%) and
"probable cause" (50%).