Campaign for strict liability on roads in Scotland

doozerie

Interesting website this one, they are calling for strict liability for road users in Scotland:

No-fault liability definition: “where a person is held responsible not for his failure to display the diligence of a reasonable man, but because he is in control of a source of danger to  other people’s lives, health or property”


The campaign is focused on changing civil law in Scotland to introduce a system of strict liability so that cyclists and other vulnerable road users who are involved in road traffic accidents are compensated fairly and quickly. Strict liability establishes a hierarchical structure to identify responsibility in the event of a road traffic accident, bringing certainty to the legal process.



At present, the UK is out of step with Europe as one of only five EU countries (along with Cyprus, Malta, Romania and Ireland) that does not operate system of strict liability for vulnerable road users and yet it is not unprecedented in UK law.

Personally I'm undecided on whether strict liability is a good thing but they put the case well in some of the stuff I've read on the website. They also point out that it wouldn't stop at strict liability of motorists in incidents involving cyclists, it would also mean strict liability of cyclists in incidents involving pedestrians, which seems fair (to me) rather than limiting it to one road user group only, but which might be a concern for some.

Their Busting the Myths page addresses some of the typical questions that arise around this topic, including the age-old "road tax" one.

I can't tell from the website when this campaign started, but their Facebook page seems to have started in April of this year. Will be interesting to see how they get on.

doozerie

Ah, a road.cc article dated April 16th talks about the start of the campaign, so it appears to be relatively recent alright:

A firm of solicitors in Scotland has launched a campaign to have the country’s civil law changed to introduce a system of ‘strict liability’ liability in incidents involving motor vehicles and more vulnerable road users such as cyclists. The Road Share campaign, devised by Cycle Law Scotland, is backed by organisations including CTC Scotland, Pedal On Parliament and Lothian cycle campaign group Spokes, among others.

Under such a system - more accurately termed 'presumed liability,' although 'strict liability is the one used in the campaign - a hierarchy is established that places a presumption of liability that favours the more vulnerable road user – for example, where a cyclist has been struck by a car, the motorist is presumed to be liable, unless they can prove that the cyclist was at fault. The system only applies to civil cases, not criminal ones.

The firm says that introducing the system it proposes would meant that victims would receive compensation more quickly, the burden on the courts would be reduced, and road users’ attitudes would change, with a consequent improvement in safety.

The body behind the campaign, as mentioned in first sentence above, also explains why there is the likes of a "No Win No Fee" link at the bottom of the main campaign web page.

check_six

I tried to get a discussion rolling on this a couple of weeks ago...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=84173294

Hope your one goes a bit further!

tomasrojo

I think 'strict liability' is used incorrectly here, as it usually is. Ukyclerules.com has discussed it at length in the past. It's more 'presumption of liability' or something like that, as described above: the more vulnerable party isn't automatically and irrevocably in the right, just assumed to be in the right in the absence of more evidence.

HivemindXX

It's good that the first myth addresses what presumption of liability actually means however I am 100% certain that this won't stop me having multiple conversations which start something like

"So now, when I'm going through a green light well within the speed limit and some cyclist comes flying off the footpath and goes through the red right in front of me if I hit him I'm totally to blame?"

I'm also quite confident that no amount of explaining will stem the tide of Daily Mail / Top Gear fed misinformed outrage.

I think they should get rid of the word 'strict' in there but I doubt it would make much difference really.

Of course I'm not a big fan of the current situation which, barring witnesses, a motorist can largely get away with hitting a cyclist simply by lying about what happened. See the Single Witness Suicide Swerve.

doozerie

I've just been having a glance through the Facebook page above and despite not being convinced of the appropriateness of "strict liability" (or, more correctly, "presumption of liability") I find myself bristling at those arguments against it that I've been encountering. Rather than it being an interesting debate it seems like some people are simply happier to turn it into an us versus them argument where the only outcome they'll be happy with is total domination over the other side. It's quite ridiculous.

As one example, this radio "discussion" between someone representing Cycle Law Scotland and the president of the AA (Edmond King) possibly represents the extremely polite end of the "fcuk you very much" style of "debate". King starts out by saying that as well as being president of the AA he is also "a keen cyclist", a statement that is all too often on a par with "well I'm not a racist myself, but…", and immediately chooses the emotive route by referring to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" - this despite guilt having absolutely nothing to do with this debate, so references to it seem designed to entirely derail discussion rather than contribute to it. He churns out the other usual stuff too, such as the likelihood that cyclists would collide with parked cars for financial gain (certainly a possibility but I wonder whether he is equally concerned about the presumption of liability of the rear car in a collision with another car being a gateway to money for unscrupulous motorists, or the likelihood of pedestrians throwing themselves onto the bonnets of stopped cars in the same vein), suggesting that this whole initiative is just a money-making racket by lawyers (I can't understand that one since a quicker and simpler civil case should mean less income for the lawyers involved), and even manages to squeeze in the statement that such a law would not help the cyclist or the motorist (he doesn't elaborate, it seems like listeners are meant to accept this as true simply because he says it). He also never touches on the topic of whether this law would benefit pedestrians in collisions with cyclists - admittedly he is there only to represent the interests of motorists, not pedestrians, but it seems representative of a very blinkered view of things by him generally.

There was no discussion there really, King seemed to be there simply to sneer at the audacity of anyone that challenges the current status quo. "Debate" like that makes me wonder why some people seem so fearful of the proposed change of law. I can understand it raising concerns initially, nobody wants to be automatically presumed liable in the event of a collision, but unless you can come up with valid reasoned justifications for those concerns then you have to accept that it may just be an irrational fear on your part. In the little that I've read and heard on the topic so far I've not encountered anything that I recognise as a valid basis for assuming that this law would unduly penalise the innocent. Any time I drive my car I don't sit there and fret about the possibility that the car in front will deliberately reverse into me in the hope of me being found liable by default, despite it being a distinct possibility, so I don't understand the fear of this proposed "strict liability" law either. By contrast, over the years I've come to believe that in a collision between a cyclist and a motorist the motorist is automatically given the benefit of the doubt - I always resisted that view, believing it to be purely cynical and simplistic, but my experiences suggest that, perhaps unless someone is badly hurt in such a collision, any perceived damage to the revered car is the main focus of attention and concern by motorist and gardai alike. Mutual respect between, and equal status of, motorist and cyclist seems badly lacking in society generally I think, and perhaps a law like this proposed one will play a part in highlighting that and promoting further discussion about it and that would be a good thing.

I have to admit too that the entrenched arguments against this proposed law make me more sympathetic to the campaign in favour of it. That's kinda petty I know, but pettiness abounds in this debate, I feel entitled to a little bit of it myself. Besides, I've now listened to "You and Yours" (the BBC radio programme from which the above discussion was taken) so I'm now officially an old fart and as such I can be as unreasonable as I like and still expect the world to bend to my will. I'm feeling more qualified by the day to apply for the role of the president of the AA.

tomasrojo

doozerie wrote: »

By contrast, over the years I've come to believe that in a collision between a cyclist and a motorist the motorist is automatically given the benefit of the doubt - I always resisted that view, believing it to be purely cynical and simplistic, but my experiences suggest that, perhaps unless someone is badly hurt in such a collision, any perceived damage to the revered car is the main focus of attention and concern by motorist and gardai alike.

I think there's some truth in that. The in-group/out-group distinction in action: judges and gardaí are motorists, so, taken as a group, tend to sympathise with people they perceive to be "like them".

n-dawg

Having lived in Scotland for almost 3 years now I would welcome this whole heartedly to protect mainly pedestrians but to some extent cyclists. I would be delighted if they introduced a system of assumed blame going: car/bus/truck > bikes > pedestrians. The only exception I would have to this is on motorways.

In Scotland drivers seem to take no responsibility for their actions around more vulnerable road users. I have seen cars accelerate and beep at 70+ year olds trying to cross the road. My girlfriend has also been hit on the back wheel at red lights by a police van who wanted to get her attention for cycling in the middle of the road (she was avoiding potholes and a large pedestrian crossing, think bottom of Grafton st).

I think a case that came to light today really sums up the Scottish attitude to vulnerable road users.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-22397918
300 days community service for killing a 75 year old cyclist (because she didn't have a helmet on) Note he killed another cyclist in 1995...

tomasrojo

I have a Dutch friend in her mid-30s who told me how a popular Dutch comedy lampooned the legislation that changed the presumption of liability at the time the legislation was passed.

And, many years later, I have come across it by accident this morning:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=h8FKHfh1L7Q

Linked from this recent article about “strict liability:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2013/06/13/are-dutch-motorists-strictly-liable-if-they-collide-with-a-cyclist/