preferred-google-button
log in
register

Presumed liability Road traffic act

Viewing 7 replies - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • October 6, 2014 at 2:12 am #816405
    0
    Sidi 700c

    3wheelsgood wrote:No, this is

    3wheelsgood wrote:
    No, this is not a good idea. The implication here is that This proposal would have all sorts of consequences and where would it stop? MTB vs Roadbike? Large person vs smaller? High IQ vs low IQ? Just because someone comes off second best in an incident does not preclude the possibility that they may have caused it to happen. Any legal process which relies on presumption, rather than evidence, is demonstrably flawed. The presumption of innocence is firmly enshrined in law and it would be tragic if we allowed any erosion of this, the most fundamental, tenet of our system.
    There is no case for making cyclists a special case. However, I look forward to a clear and well-defined list of ”hazardous vehicles” with an appropriate hierarchy of hazard which will, of course, tell all us muppets who to avoid and help to reduce insurance premiums, provide a safer travelling environment, resolve global conflict and end world poverty, hunger and disease.

    Hold on a second. Even the police will admit that up to %90 of all RTC’s here in the UK that involve a car and a cyclist will be caused by the car so i see nothing wrong with this at all.

    October 4, 2014 at 3:05 pm #816403
    0
    jacknorell

    3wheelsgood: You’re simply
    3wheelsgood: You’re simply wrong about how this works.

    In fact, we already have this principle with rear-end shunts, the following vehicle is presumed liable.

    Also, most of Europe has this, and it works pretty well.

    October 4, 2014 at 2:46 pm #816401
    0
    CXR94Di2

    3wheelsgood wrote:No, this is

    3wheelsgood wrote:
    No, this is not a good idea. The implication here is that This proposal would have all sorts of consequences and where would it stop? MTB vs Roadbike? Large person vs smaller? High IQ vs low IQ? Just because someone comes off second best in an incident does not preclude the possibility that they may have caused it to happen. Any legal process which relies on presumption, rather than evidence, is demonstrably flawed. The presumption of innocence is firmly enshrined in law and it would be tragic if we allowed any erosion of this, the most fundamental, tenet of our system.
    There is no case for making cyclists a special case. However, I look forward to a clear and well-defined list of ”hazardous vehicles” with an appropriate hierarchy of hazard which will, of course, tell all us muppets who to avoid and help to reduce insurance premiums, provide a safer travelling environment, resolve global conflict and end world poverty, hunger and disease.

    I disagree, at this stage presumed liability is a principle, details of legislation will be decided later

    I doubt any vulnerable road user (cyclist for example) would voluntary offer themselves for injury against a vehicle. , knowing full well that the merest small impact could lead to death.

    If presumed liability was placed into the road traffic act, drivers would be overly cautious and less inclined to take risks. If however a reckless cyclist made a silly maneuver then the driver would not be liable for the accident. It is making drivers think first about being more cautious when they come up on a vulnerable road user.

    October 4, 2014 at 12:14 pm #816399
    0
    3wheelsgood

    No, this is not a good idea.
    No, this is not a good idea. The implication here is that This proposal would have all sorts of consequences and where would it stop? MTB vs Roadbike? Large person vs smaller? High IQ vs low IQ? Just because someone comes off second best in an incident does not preclude the possibility that they may have caused it to happen. Any legal process which relies on presumption, rather than evidence, is demonstrably flawed. The presumption of innocence is firmly enshrined in law and it would be tragic if we allowed any erosion of this, the most fundamental, tenet of our system.
    There is no case for making cyclists a special case. However, I look forward to a clear and well-defined list of ”hazardous vehicles” with an appropriate hierarchy of hazard which will, of course, tell all us muppets who to avoid and help to reduce insurance premiums, provide a safer travelling environment, resolve global conflict and end world poverty, hunger and disease.

    October 3, 2014 at 1:40 pm #816397
    0
    Cyclosis

    Yup, this is excellent, I’ve
    Yup, this is excellent, I’ve already signed and I’d encourage anyone who cares about road safety (not just cycling) to do the same.

    October 3, 2014 at 1:33 pm #816395
    0
    Marauder

    Signed up thanks
    Signed up thanks

    October 2, 2014 at 6:35 pm #816393
    0
    Bob's Bikes

    Great idea can’t believe more
    Great idea can’t believe more people haven’t signed up.

  • Author
    Replies
Viewing 7 replies - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.