A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Strict liability



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 4th 18, 10:50 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default Strict liability

On 10/4/2018 4:33 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 11:39:05 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/30/2018 7:13 PM, jbeattie wrote:
If a motorist violates a traffic law, he's presumed to be at fault. If a motorists simply fails to exercise due care, he's at fault. It's not hard to prove that a motorist is liable in the ordinary traffic accident scenario. ... I think the current system works fine.


I resisted giving my opinion until others had their chance.

IMO, the current system does _not_ work fine. First, you say that (in
Oregon) a motorist could be 49% at fault but suffer no penalty? Even in
a perfectly unbiased legal system, that would seem unfair. But in the
American system (which varies by state) the frequent assumption is that
bicyclist has no right to be there. To me, that seems terrible.


What scenario are you imagining? There are existing right of way laws that cover most every "I didn't see him" scenario. If the cyclist was not following the right-of-way rules, why should he or she have the benefit of strict liability? How fair is that? You're driving a car through a green light and thwack, some dope on a bike runs in front of you, and you strike him. You're strictly liable(?).

We live in a society where "I didn't see him" is accepted as a valid
excuse for manslaughter. Where motorists can kill through egregious
violations of law or by inexcusable recklessness, yet be allowed to
drive again. Where death or maiming of cyclists and pedestrians under
those circumstances are brushed off as "unfortunate accidents."

I think that situation is bad, and that system is _not_ working well.
While I don't see strict liability as a silver bullet, I think it would
be a step in the right direction. Perhaps it might motivate insurance
companies to lobby for stricter licensing standards or tighter
enforcement. After all, it's not being proposed as a criminal standard.
It's civil, affecting mostly the economics of the situation, which is
mostly "whose insurance is going to pay the bill?" And more than
anything else, it's just flipping the current default assumption. It's
replacing "the guy weird enough to not be driving probably wasn't
careful enough" with "the person operating the deadly machine was
probably not careful enough."

I'll also mention that friends of ours in Zurich said that the
imposition of strict liability there made a tremendous difference in the
behavior of motorists. Admittedly, that's just their impression; but
they were very happy about it.


Laws are magical. You pass them and people just change. It's been that way with the close-passing laws, cell phone laws, maximum speed laws, no dancing on Sunday, etc., etc. It's like waiving a wand.


Again, I don't think it would be a silver bullet. I think any benefits
would be slow to come in America, and probably only after education
campaigns. Worse than that, I think it has almost no chance of getting
passed into law for the foreseeable future. But I do think it would
help, and I'd welcome it.


Strict liability is a tort concept and has nothing to do with criminal liability -- except that some regulatory laws don't require intent, like securities law violations. Negligence is rarely enough for a criminal assault charge. Imagine a slip and fall in your classroom because you failed to clean up spilled water adequately. You get thrown in jail for criminal assault because you should have been better with your mop.

And why should bicyclists be so revered? Let's send everyone to jail who negligently injures or kills someone more vulnerable. Send cyclists to jail who injure skateboarders, and skateboarders who injure pedestrians, and pedestrians who injure people in wheelchairs. Send all electric scooter users to jail just for existing. More people in jail! MAGA!

You would welcome that law right up until the time you hit some dope on a bike who was breaking the law. Then you would hate it and wonder how it passed. I can think of dozens of times I've dodged bikes doing impossibly stupid things. I do those stupid things on a bike knowing full well that if I get hit, it's my fault. I have no expectation of shifting civil or criminal liability to a motorist for the stupid things I do.

Also, my world is different from yours. I'm surrounded by bicycles. I see herds of cyclists every day, including cyclists I would like to shoot, assuming I could get the appropriate ODFW permits. I can't wait for the rain, wind snow and winter misery to return so its me and the much reduced herd of year round cyclists -- and the usual DUII cyclists on their BMX bikes who are always darting in and out of traffic like moths around a porch light.

And as for Oregon's version of comparative fault, it beats the common law before the mid-60s when ANY fault barred a plaintiff's claim. Our version works just fine and requires all parties to exercise care. You don't dart out in front of me, and I don't hit you. Seems like a fair exchange. If you're JRA, and I hit you in my car because I didn't see you, then strict liability or not, I'm going to be paying you. I'll try to find some fault on your part -- you didn't have a super-bright light, you didn't have a flippy flag, you weren't wearing a helmet (in some states), etc., etc. Strict liability or not, comparative fault will be a defense in a civil negligence action in the US.


-- Jay Beattie.


nice summary.

(I've written here about this incident previously)

My employee, moving quite fast on his fixie, blew a stop
sign and crunched in the side of a passing car with his
shoulder. Both rider and bike were fine, auto sustained just
over $1000 in body damage. Police were called, my employee
was cited and so, besides the traffic fine, paid the car
repairs. No one involved thought the outcome should have
been any different. Me too; it was properly resolved IMHO.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


Ads
  #12  
Old October 5th 18, 12:31 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default Strict liability

On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 2:50:29 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/4/2018 4:33 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 11:39:05 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/30/2018 7:13 PM, jbeattie wrote:
If a motorist violates a traffic law, he's presumed to be at fault. If a motorists simply fails to exercise due care, he's at fault. It's not hard to prove that a motorist is liable in the ordinary traffic accident scenario. ... I think the current system works fine.

I resisted giving my opinion until others had their chance.

IMO, the current system does _not_ work fine. First, you say that (in
Oregon) a motorist could be 49% at fault but suffer no penalty? Even in
a perfectly unbiased legal system, that would seem unfair. But in the
American system (which varies by state) the frequent assumption is that
bicyclist has no right to be there. To me, that seems terrible.


What scenario are you imagining? There are existing right of way laws that cover most every "I didn't see him" scenario. If the cyclist was not following the right-of-way rules, why should he or she have the benefit of strict liability? How fair is that? You're driving a car through a green light and thwack, some dope on a bike runs in front of you, and you strike him. You're strictly liable(?).

We live in a society where "I didn't see him" is accepted as a valid
excuse for manslaughter. Where motorists can kill through egregious
violations of law or by inexcusable recklessness, yet be allowed to
drive again. Where death or maiming of cyclists and pedestrians under
those circumstances are brushed off as "unfortunate accidents."

I think that situation is bad, and that system is _not_ working well.
While I don't see strict liability as a silver bullet, I think it would
be a step in the right direction. Perhaps it might motivate insurance
companies to lobby for stricter licensing standards or tighter
enforcement. After all, it's not being proposed as a criminal standard..
It's civil, affecting mostly the economics of the situation, which is
mostly "whose insurance is going to pay the bill?" And more than
anything else, it's just flipping the current default assumption. It's
replacing "the guy weird enough to not be driving probably wasn't
careful enough" with "the person operating the deadly machine was
probably not careful enough."

I'll also mention that friends of ours in Zurich said that the
imposition of strict liability there made a tremendous difference in the
behavior of motorists. Admittedly, that's just their impression; but
they were very happy about it.


Laws are magical. You pass them and people just change. It's been that way with the close-passing laws, cell phone laws, maximum speed laws, no dancing on Sunday, etc., etc. It's like waiving a wand.


Again, I don't think it would be a silver bullet. I think any benefits
would be slow to come in America, and probably only after education
campaigns. Worse than that, I think it has almost no chance of getting
passed into law for the foreseeable future. But I do think it would
help, and I'd welcome it.


Strict liability is a tort concept and has nothing to do with criminal liability -- except that some regulatory laws don't require intent, like securities law violations. Negligence is rarely enough for a criminal assault charge. Imagine a slip and fall in your classroom because you failed to clean up spilled water adequately. You get thrown in jail for criminal assault because you should have been better with your mop.

And why should bicyclists be so revered? Let's send everyone to jail who negligently injures or kills someone more vulnerable. Send cyclists to jail who injure skateboarders, and skateboarders who injure pedestrians, and pedestrians who injure people in wheelchairs. Send all electric scooter users to jail just for existing. More people in jail! MAGA!

You would welcome that law right up until the time you hit some dope on a bike who was breaking the law. Then you would hate it and wonder how it passed. I can think of dozens of times I've dodged bikes doing impossibly stupid things. I do those stupid things on a bike knowing full well that if I get hit, it's my fault. I have no expectation of shifting civil or criminal liability to a motorist for the stupid things I do.

Also, my world is different from yours. I'm surrounded by bicycles. I see herds of cyclists every day, including cyclists I would like to shoot, assuming I could get the appropriate ODFW permits. I can't wait for the rain, wind snow and winter misery to return so its me and the much reduced herd of year round cyclists -- and the usual DUII cyclists on their BMX bikes who are always darting in and out of traffic like moths around a porch light.

And as for Oregon's version of comparative fault, it beats the common law before the mid-60s when ANY fault barred a plaintiff's claim. Our version works just fine and requires all parties to exercise care. You don't dart out in front of me, and I don't hit you. Seems like a fair exchange. If you're JRA, and I hit you in my car because I didn't see you, then strict liability or not, I'm going to be paying you. I'll try to find some fault on your part -- you didn't have a super-bright light, you didn't have a flippy flag, you weren't wearing a helmet (in some states), etc., etc. Strict liability or not, comparative fault will be a defense in a civil negligence action in the US.


-- Jay Beattie.


nice summary.

(I've written here about this incident previously)

My employee, moving quite fast on his fixie, blew a stop
sign and crunched in the side of a passing car with his
shoulder. Both rider and bike were fine, auto sustained just
over $1000 in body damage. Police were called, my employee
was cited and so, besides the traffic fine, paid the car
repairs. No one involved thought the outcome should have
been any different. Me too; it was properly resolved IMHO.


I will occasionally do a PI case for a cyclist. I had one repeat customer who called me after her second accident. She had rear-ended a police car. D'oh! Not much I could do for her.

I tried one case for a cyclist who was hit while riding down a line of stopped traffic between the cars and the curb -- which was illegal at the time. One car opened a hole in traffic to allow entry by a car coming out of drive way, and whack, the cyclist rode right into the side of the entering car. I put on a whole dog and pony show with an expert police officer, Mia Birk of Alta Planning fame (then in the PDOT planning department), moaners and weepers, etc. Lost on a finding of 51% fault. The ****er is that a bike lane was put in about two years later and the law changed to allow passing on the right. Had my client just waited two years! I could a been a contender!

-- Jay Beattie.

  #13  
Old October 5th 18, 04:26 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Strict liability

On 10/4/2018 5:33 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 11:39:05 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/30/2018 7:13 PM, jbeattie wrote:
If a motorist violates a traffic law, he's presumed to be at fault. If a motorists simply fails to exercise due care, he's at fault. It's not hard to prove that a motorist is liable in the ordinary traffic accident scenario. ... I think the current system works fine.


I resisted giving my opinion until others had their chance.

IMO, the current system does _not_ work fine. First, you say that (in
Oregon) a motorist could be 49% at fault but suffer no penalty? Even in
a perfectly unbiased legal system, that would seem unfair. But in the
American system (which varies by state) the frequent assumption is that
bicyclist has no right to be there. To me, that seems terrible.


What scenario are you imagining? There are existing right of way laws that cover most every "I didn't see him" scenario. If the cyclist was not following the right-of-way rules, why should he or she have the benefit of strict liability? How fair is that? You're driving a car through a green light and thwack, some dope on a bike runs in front of you, and you strike him. You're strictly liable(?).


The opposite scenario seems to occur with some regularity - that is, for
example, the driver turns left into an oncoming cyclist and says "I
didn't see him!" The cop who arrives says "Gosh, it's a shame you didn't
see him. It's just an accident. It's nobody's fault." In some cases at
least, the cyclist is unable to collect damages because the cop said it
was nobody's fault.

I know that accidents happen and always will. But I do believe that far
too many drivers are far too cavalier. Their behavior is not appropriate
for someone imposing potentially fatal dangers on others. I can't think
of a factory situation where someone would be routinely permitted to
impose similar dangers while (for example) eating a sandwich, gazing at
a cell phone, operating beyond the limits of their visibility, etc.


We live in a society where "I didn't see him" is accepted as a valid
excuse for manslaughter. Where motorists can kill through egregious
violations of law or by inexcusable recklessness, yet be allowed to
drive again. Where death or maiming of cyclists and pedestrians under
those circumstances are brushed off as "unfortunate accidents."

I think that situation is bad, and that system is _not_ working well.
While I don't see strict liability as a silver bullet, I think it would
be a step in the right direction. Perhaps it might motivate insurance
companies to lobby for stricter licensing standards or tighter
enforcement. After all, it's not being proposed as a criminal standard.
It's civil, affecting mostly the economics of the situation, which is
mostly "whose insurance is going to pay the bill?" And more than
anything else, it's just flipping the current default assumption. It's
replacing "the guy weird enough to not be driving probably wasn't
careful enough" with "the person operating the deadly machine was
probably not careful enough."

I'll also mention that friends of ours in Zurich said that the
imposition of strict liability there made a tremendous difference in the
behavior of motorists. Admittedly, that's just their impression; but
they were very happy about it.


Laws are magical. You pass them and people just change. It's been that way with the close-passing laws, cell phone laws, maximum speed laws, no dancing on Sunday, etc., etc. It's like waiving a wand.


Sarcasm noted, but what does it mean? "No laws, man! We don't need 'em!
Let your hair grow long, make your own clothes, drop out and live in
peace!" Sorry, that doesn't work either. We need laws, and certain laws
can be improved.

Again, I think it's at least conceivable that if the liability laws
changed, insurance companies would exercise some economic clout.
Because, again, we're not talking about criminal issues, we're talking
about the assumptions on who will pay damages.

And please don't worry, Jay. I'm sure that even in (say) the
Netherlands, there are disputes involving lawyers. Their jobs are
secure. In practice, strict liability isn't 100% strict. Motorists can
still defend themselves against those evil cyclists who damage their
cars by not diving off the road when being passed.

Strict liability is a tort concept and has nothing to do with criminal liability -- except that some regulatory laws don't require intent, like securities law violations. Negligence is rarely enough for a criminal assault charge. Imagine a slip and fall in your classroom because you failed to clean up spilled water adequately. You get thrown in jail for criminal assault because you should have been better with your mop.

And why should bicyclists be so revered? Let's send everyone to jail who negligently injures or kills someone more vulnerable. Send cyclists to jail who injure skateboarders, and skateboarders who injure pedestrians, and pedestrians who injure people in wheelchairs. Send all electric scooter users to jail just for existing. More people in jail! MAGA!


Let's turn the question around: Why should motorists be so revered?
Again, whether or not you accept it, society's default assumption is
that the guy on the bike should have gotten out of the way. You can read
comments about almost any notable car-bike event and find people saying
"The roads were designed for cars, the guy should have been on a bike
path."

The idea, at least in my mind, is to turn that assumption around. A guy
driving a fork lift around a plant is expected to watch for factory
workers, wandering office workers, clueless factory tour participants
and more. If he screws up and hits an office worker who got lost, he's
pulled off the fork lift, at least in a big company. The union might get
him back on the fork lift, but it will take at least a safety committee
meeting and a stern lecture, and probably some re-training. It's much
different than "I didn't see him" and "Oh, then it's not your fault."

You would welcome that law right up until the time you hit some dope on a bike who was breaking the law. Then you would hate it and wonder how it passed. I can think of dozens of times I've dodged bikes doing impossibly stupid things. I do those stupid things on a bike knowing full well that if I get hit, it's my fault. I have no expectation of shifting civil or criminal liability to a motorist for the stupid things I do.


If some dope did break the law, I expect my insurance company would have
lawyers working to point that out. If the biker's offense was blatant
enough, I expect they would win.

OTOH, if I hit someone on a bike or walking who committed a minor
offense - say, a cyclist who didn't put his foot down at a stop sign, or
a pedestrian who stood just off the curb - I would deserve to be held
liable. However, I don't expect that to ever happen. After well over 50
years of driving, my traffic crash record is precisely zero.

And as for Oregon's version of comparative fault, it beats the common law before the mid-60s when ANY fault barred a plaintiff's claim.


Yep - and cutting off a hand for stealing a loaf of bread was better
than the older penalty of summary execution. But there was still room
for improvement.

Our version works just fine and requires all parties to exercise care.


I doubt there's a state in the U.S. where most motorists exercise proper
care. The main reasons they don't injure far more people are that most
people they encounter are, like them, in padded steel cans; and most
people have given up the idea of traveling without padded steel cans.

I think we can do much better.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #14  
Old October 5th 18, 06:04 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default Strict liability

On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 8:26:40 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/4/2018 5:33 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 11:39:05 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/30/2018 7:13 PM, jbeattie wrote:
If a motorist violates a traffic law, he's presumed to be at fault. If a motorists simply fails to exercise due care, he's at fault. It's not hard to prove that a motorist is liable in the ordinary traffic accident scenario. ... I think the current system works fine.

I resisted giving my opinion until others had their chance.

IMO, the current system does _not_ work fine. First, you say that (in
Oregon) a motorist could be 49% at fault but suffer no penalty? Even in
a perfectly unbiased legal system, that would seem unfair. But in the
American system (which varies by state) the frequent assumption is that
bicyclist has no right to be there. To me, that seems terrible.


What scenario are you imagining? There are existing right of way laws that cover most every "I didn't see him" scenario. If the cyclist was not following the right-of-way rules, why should he or she have the benefit of strict liability? How fair is that? You're driving a car through a green light and thwack, some dope on a bike runs in front of you, and you strike him. You're strictly liable(?).


The opposite scenario seems to occur with some regularity - that is, for
example, the driver turns left into an oncoming cyclist and says "I
didn't see him!" The cop who arrives says "Gosh, it's a shame you didn't
see him. It's just an accident. It's nobody's fault." In some cases at
least, the cyclist is unable to collect damages because the cop said it
was nobody's fault.

I know that accidents happen and always will. But I do believe that far
too many drivers are far too cavalier. Their behavior is not appropriate
for someone imposing potentially fatal dangers on others. I can't think
of a factory situation where someone would be routinely permitted to
impose similar dangers while (for example) eating a sandwich, gazing at
a cell phone, operating beyond the limits of their visibility, etc.


We live in a society where "I didn't see him" is accepted as a valid
excuse for manslaughter. Where motorists can kill through egregious
violations of law or by inexcusable recklessness, yet be allowed to
drive again. Where death or maiming of cyclists and pedestrians under
those circumstances are brushed off as "unfortunate accidents."

I think that situation is bad, and that system is _not_ working well.
While I don't see strict liability as a silver bullet, I think it would
be a step in the right direction. Perhaps it might motivate insurance
companies to lobby for stricter licensing standards or tighter
enforcement. After all, it's not being proposed as a criminal standard..
It's civil, affecting mostly the economics of the situation, which is
mostly "whose insurance is going to pay the bill?" And more than
anything else, it's just flipping the current default assumption. It's
replacing "the guy weird enough to not be driving probably wasn't
careful enough" with "the person operating the deadly machine was
probably not careful enough."

I'll also mention that friends of ours in Zurich said that the
imposition of strict liability there made a tremendous difference in the
behavior of motorists. Admittedly, that's just their impression; but
they were very happy about it.


Laws are magical. You pass them and people just change. It's been that way with the close-passing laws, cell phone laws, maximum speed laws, no dancing on Sunday, etc., etc. It's like waiving a wand.


Sarcasm noted, but what does it mean? "No laws, man! We don't need 'em!
Let your hair grow long, make your own clothes, drop out and live in
peace!" Sorry, that doesn't work either. We need laws, and certain laws
can be improved.

Again, I think it's at least conceivable that if the liability laws
changed, insurance companies would exercise some economic clout.
Because, again, we're not talking about criminal issues, we're talking
about the assumptions on who will pay damages.

And please don't worry, Jay. I'm sure that even in (say) the
Netherlands, there are disputes involving lawyers. Their jobs are
secure. In practice, strict liability isn't 100% strict. Motorists can
still defend themselves against those evil cyclists who damage their
cars by not diving off the road when being passed.

Strict liability is a tort concept and has nothing to do with criminal liability -- except that some regulatory laws don't require intent, like securities law violations. Negligence is rarely enough for a criminal assault charge. Imagine a slip and fall in your classroom because you failed to clean up spilled water adequately. You get thrown in jail for criminal assault because you should have been better with your mop.

And why should bicyclists be so revered? Let's send everyone to jail who negligently injures or kills someone more vulnerable. Send cyclists to jail who injure skateboarders, and skateboarders who injure pedestrians, and pedestrians who injure people in wheelchairs. Send all electric scooter users to jail just for existing. More people in jail! MAGA!


Let's turn the question around: Why should motorists be so revered?
Again, whether or not you accept it, society's default assumption is
that the guy on the bike should have gotten out of the way. You can read
comments about almost any notable car-bike event and find people saying
"The roads were designed for cars, the guy should have been on a bike
path."

The idea, at least in my mind, is to turn that assumption around. A guy
driving a fork lift around a plant is expected to watch for factory
workers, wandering office workers, clueless factory tour participants
and more. If he screws up and hits an office worker who got lost, he's
pulled off the fork lift, at least in a big company. The union might get
him back on the fork lift, but it will take at least a safety committee
meeting and a stern lecture, and probably some re-training. It's much
different than "I didn't see him" and "Oh, then it's not your fault."

You would welcome that law right up until the time you hit some dope on a bike who was breaking the law. Then you would hate it and wonder how it passed. I can think of dozens of times I've dodged bikes doing impossibly stupid things. I do those stupid things on a bike knowing full well that if I get hit, it's my fault. I have no expectation of shifting civil or criminal liability to a motorist for the stupid things I do.


If some dope did break the law, I expect my insurance company would have
lawyers working to point that out. If the biker's offense was blatant
enough, I expect they would win.

OTOH, if I hit someone on a bike or walking who committed a minor
offense - say, a cyclist who didn't put his foot down at a stop sign, or
a pedestrian who stood just off the curb - I would deserve to be held
liable. However, I don't expect that to ever happen. After well over 50
years of driving, my traffic crash record is precisely zero.

And as for Oregon's version of comparative fault, it beats the common law before the mid-60s when ANY fault barred a plaintiff's claim.


Yep - and cutting off a hand for stealing a loaf of bread was better
than the older penalty of summary execution. But there was still room
for improvement.

Our version works just fine and requires all parties to exercise care.


I doubt there's a state in the U.S. where most motorists exercise proper
care. The main reasons they don't injure far more people are that most
people they encounter are, like them, in padded steel cans; and most
people have given up the idea of traveling without padded steel cans.

I think we can do much better.


BTW, one place you could improve matters is with "negligence per se," which is a doctrine which holds that the violation of a statute is conclusive evidence of negligence. You break the law, you're negligent. In Oregon, violation of the law creates a presumption of negligence that can be overcome. In Washington, it is just evidence of negligence that can be totally disregarded by a jury assuming there is any evidence of due care. Anyway, you can put more teeth in the existing traffic laws in ways that are more fair than strict liability.

And speaking of stupid bicycle things, my son just about got head-on'd this morning going over the lip of a hill. https://tinyurl.com/yceohnna You cannot see over the lip of that next drop (its about 16%), and you need to cut to the left to line up with the pavement patch and then the smoother pavement of the left-side descent (scroll down, you'll see what I mean). So my son cuts to the left, hits the lip and there is a car hiding. Yikes! Luckily the car was creeping up the hill. It honked and disaster was avoided. The other fun part is that your handling is compromised because the pavement is broken-up and your wheels are off the ground a lot.

-- Jay Beattie.
  #15  
Old October 5th 18, 10:00 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Strict liability

On 10/5/2018 1:04 PM, jbeattie wrote:

And speaking of stupid bicycle things, my son just about got head-on'd this morning going over the lip of a hill. https://tinyurl.com/yceohnna You cannot see over the lip of that next drop (its about 16%), and you need to cut to the left to line up with the pavement patch and then the smoother pavement of the left-side descent (scroll down, you'll see what I mean). So my son cuts to the left, hits the lip and there is a car hiding. Yikes! Luckily the car was creeping up the hill. It honked and disaster was avoided. The other fun part is that your handling is compromised because the pavement is broken-up and your wheels are off the ground a lot.

We're good friends with a family that for about five years, has lived
atop a hill in Pittsburgh. The steepness of the hills is amazing, and
there are intersections featuring radical changes in gradient that are
very scary, both driving up and driving down.

I don't know about riding bikes on those particular hills. I've never
yet done it, and I may be beyond the age where it's possible. Oh, how
the pretty good climbers have fallen!

(Well, not literally, at least.)

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #16  
Old October 6th 18, 04:24 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
news18
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,131
Default Strict liability

On Thu, 04 Oct 2018 14:33:46 -0700, jbeattie wrote:


What scenario are you imagining? There are existing right of way laws
that cover most every "I didn't see him" scenario. If the cyclist was
not following the right-of-way rules, why should he or she have the
benefit of strict liability? How fair is that?


Easy to fix by having a dashcam recording your driving, which is easier
for a morot vehicle. A dash cam is a cheaper purchase than my annual
comprehensive third party insurance and the real problem is other
motorist.

Antedotal story is the neighbour who drives trucks for various
construction projects and frequently is out in the traffic. He's biggest
problem is a car jumping in front/swerving in front and then he having to
jump on the brakes. He is liable if he rear ends them and cop will issue
a ticket for it at te drop of a hat. The solution was to fit a cam to
record his driving. Rather than have to engage in "discussion", he just
shows the cam recording each time and they get the ticket.

I see the situation being the same these day for bicycle riders.

  #17  
Old October 6th 18, 01:32 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,270
Default Strict liability

On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 3:06:39 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Strict Liability in Cycling Laws:

https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi...6&context=ealr

Any comments from lawyers?

--
- Frank Krygowski


Not a lawyer.

Sometimes I think that stricter liability laws are needed for motor vehicles. Then again sometimes bicyclists need to be held accountable.

There was a case here about two weeks ago when a bicyclist ran a red light and paid the ultimate penalty. She was killed by a large truck that had the green light.

I see so many bicyclists blowing red lights or stop signs that I wonder why more of them aren't hit.

I've also seen many motorists do such idiotic dangerous things whilst driving that I wonder why there aren't more motor vehicle accidents too.

It's really too bad that so many users of the road won't follow the rules of the road or use simple common sense. Perhaps if they did the accident and fatality rates would drop significantly?

Cheers
  #18  
Old October 6th 18, 05:00 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Strict liability

On 10/6/2018 8:32 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 3:06:39 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I've also seen many motorists do such idiotic dangerous things whilst driving that I wonder why there aren't more motor vehicle accidents too.


Actually, one reason there aren't a lot more motor vehicle accidents is
that the normal rules of the road are pretty well designed. For example,
everyone driving the same direction drives on the same side of the road.
(That was once a novel concept.) And at intersections, lane choice is
governed by destination - that is, left turners are in the left lane,
right turners in the right lane, and so on. All this was worked out from
scratch by Mr. Eno somewhere around the year 1900.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Phelps_Eno

Relevance to bicycles? Many of the new "innovative" bike facilities
violate those very sensible rules. Bi-directional "protected" bike lanes
have half the cyclists entering intersections from the wrong direction
(and at the intersections, the "protection" vanishes). Even normal bike
lanes have straight-ahead cyclists riding to the right of right-turning
cars.

What could go wrong?


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #19  
Old October 6th 18, 11:44 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 547
Default Strict liability

On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 05:32:35 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 3:06:39 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Strict Liability in Cycling Laws:

https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi...6&context=ealr

Any comments from lawyers?

--
- Frank Krygowski


Not a lawyer.

Sometimes I think that stricter liability laws are needed for motor vehicles. Then again sometimes bicyclists need to be held accountable.

There was a case here about two weeks ago when a bicyclist ran a red light and paid the ultimate penalty. She was killed by a large truck that had the green light.

I see so many bicyclists blowing red lights or stop signs that I wonder why more of them aren't hit.

I've also seen many motorists do such idiotic dangerous things whilst driving that I wonder why there aren't more motor vehicle accidents too.

It's really too bad that so many users of the road won't follow the rules of the road or use simple common sense. Perhaps if they did the accident and fatality rates would drop significantly?

Cheers



As an addendum, I recently read a DOT report (DOT HS 812 232)
published in May 2016 that stated that:

"About one-fourth (24%) of the pedalcyclists killed in 2014 had BACs
of .01 g/dL or higher, and more than one-fifth (21%) had BACs of
..08 g/dL or higher."

Perhaps Strict liability would be a good idea.
--

Cheers,

John B.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What strict liability is not. Mrcheerful[_3_] UK 72 June 18th 13 08:32 PM
Strict Liability - mitigation - etc etc - Helmets and the legal system Anton Berlin Racing 5 February 12th 11 06:08 AM
Strict Liability ruled out Mrcheerful[_2_] UK 0 January 5th 11 09:20 AM
Road Safety Petition- Strict Liability. spindrift UK 15 September 27th 07 05:17 PM
Strict liability rules to change Jeff Jones Racing 2 January 18th 07 10:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.