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
  #1  
Old September 30th 18, 08:06 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Strict liability

Strict Liability in Cycling Laws:

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

Any comments from lawyers?

--
- Frank Krygowski
Ads
  #2  
Old October 1st 18, 12:42 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 547
Default Strict liability

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 15:06:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Strict Liability in Cycling Laws:

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

Any comments from lawyers?


I think I've mentioned before that Thailand has a similar practice in
that the larger vehicle is deemed to have been at fault subject to
proof of malfeasance on the part of the other vehicle.

In other words if, as in the study, you enter an intersection with the
right of way and someone hits you they will bear the costs of
replacing equipment, medical costs, and if you die they will be
required to pay compensation to your family as well as all funeral
costs.

I'm not sure but from reading the news I believe that failure to pay
can result in a criminal charge of vehicle homicide or something
similar.

Given that Thailand has the second highest level of vehicle accidents
in the world it apparently doesn't have much effect on numbers of
"accidents" but it does simplify the aftermath.
--

Cheers,

John B.
  #3  
Old October 1st 18, 07:41 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,261
Default Strict liability

On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 12:06:39 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Strict Liability in Cycling Laws:

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

Any comments from lawyers?

--
- Frank Krygowski


On another site Dutch cyclists have said that even in Holland cars are now assuming right-of-way and forcing bicyclists off of roads.
  #4  
Old October 1st 18, 07:43 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,261
Default Strict liability

On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 11:41:57 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 12:06:39 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Strict Liability in Cycling Laws:

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

Any comments from lawyers?

--
- Frank Krygowski


On another site Dutch cyclists have said that even in Holland cars are now assuming right-of-way and forcing bicyclists off of roads.


I should add that my cop pal who was stationed in Italy said that bicyclists even there were treated as in the way. All over the world people believe that the expense of cars gives them more right to the roads.
  #5  
Old October 1st 18, 07:55 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Emanuel Berg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,035
Default Strict liability

sltom992 wrote:

I should add that my cop pal who was
stationed in Italy said that bicyclists even
there were treated as in the way. All over
the world people believe that the expense of
cars gives them more right to the roads.


Also the perceived security and privacy behind
the windshield makes for immature barking and
bad blood around the world.

--
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
  #6  
Old October 1st 18, 11:59 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,153
Default Strict liability

On 01/10/18 09:13, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 12:06:39 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
Strict Liability in Cycling Laws:

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


Any comments from lawyers?



The same reasoning does not apply to car accidents. 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.



Mike Hall was participating in a "race" from the Indian to Pacific
ocean, and was hit by a motorist in the early hours one morning, and killed.

His bicycle was road worthy and head and tail lights were working
properly. He was allegedly wearing legwarmers with a reflective stripe,
and more.

The driver was not charged with anything.

Read about it here...

https://cycle.org.au/index.php/artic...ikehallinquest

Then there was this
https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/cement-truck-driver-luke-stevens-found-not-guilty-over-death-of-cyclist-richard-pollett/news-story/28af7cc2ceba59042b158426ae46811b?sv=1fc61a8720cda8 485f9a3cb4dedd27cc&nk=023da7ccd7024e8cdf535d862bee f30c-1538434560

And I can recall numerous other cases where the car operator has
appeared to fail to exercise due care and attention, but is not charged,
like
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4951312/Footage-shows-moment-cyclist-hit-car-Melbourne.html


If it was so simple to find fault as you seem to indicate, why don't our
(Australian) cops charge the drivers, and if they do, why do our juries
find the drivers not guilty?

--
JS
  #7  
Old October 2nd 18, 03:54 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
news18
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,131
Default Strict liability

On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 08:59:57 +1000, James wrote:


If it was so simple to find fault as you seem to indicate, why don't our
(Australian) cops charge the drivers, and if they do, why do our juries
find the drivers not guilty?


Because the private motor vehicle is elevated to god like status in
Australia. SARCIts phiffle to worry about a few deaths casusg any
inconvenience to private mtorists/sarc.

Not helped that one can openly espose assaulting bicyclists with impunity
here/there.

  #8  
Old October 2nd 18, 03:57 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default Strict liability

On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 4:00:12 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 01/10/18 09:13, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 12:06:39 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
Strict Liability in Cycling Laws:

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


Any comments from lawyers?



The same reasoning does not apply to car accidents. 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.



Mike Hall was participating in a "race" from the Indian to Pacific
ocean, and was hit by a motorist in the early hours one morning, and killed.

His bicycle was road worthy and head and tail lights were working
properly. He was allegedly wearing legwarmers with a reflective stripe,
and more.

The driver was not charged with anything.

Read about it here...

https://cycle.org.au/index.php/artic...ikehallinquest

Then there was this
https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/cement-truck-driver-luke-stevens-found-not-guilty-over-death-of-cyclist-richard-pollett/news-story/28af7cc2ceba59042b158426ae46811b?sv=1fc61a8720cda8 485f9a3cb4dedd27cc&nk=023da7ccd7024e8cdf535d862bee f30c-1538434560

And I can recall numerous other cases where the car operator has
appeared to fail to exercise due care and attention, but is not charged,
like
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4951312/Footage-shows-moment-cyclist-hit-car-Melbourne.html


If it was so simple to find fault as you seem to indicate, why don't our
(Australian) cops charge the drivers, and if they do, why do our juries
find the drivers not guilty?


Fault, not criminal liability. Strict liability is a tort concept and not a criminal concept. Except for infractions and regulatory violations, most US criminal laws require some sort of intent or a surrogate for intent like recklessness. Negligently hitting someone with your car does not amount to a crime in the US -- unless the driver was drunk/high or acting recklessly.. People in cars get hit by other cars all the time. They get killed and no one is charged with a crime. Bicyclists hit pedestrians and kill them. https://whotv.com/2018/07/14/no-char...ed-pedestrian/ https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...n-central-park The fixie guy is gonna get it! https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ople-had-zero/

-- Jay Beattie.
  #9  
Old October 4th 18, 07:38 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Strict liability

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.

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.

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.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #10  
Old October 4th 18, 10:33 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default Strict liability

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.
 




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 09:00 PM.


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.