Would you support an assumed liability rule for speeding drivers?

JayPS 2288

I started a parallel thread in the cycling forum in which I posed the question as to whether or not people would support assumed liability against vulnerable road users as they have in many other jurisdictions in the rest of Europe. This is has turned out to be a good discussion.

I would like to pose the question here as to whether or not there should be assumed liability for speeders.

My proposal would be “If a motorist is found to have been speeding in the lead up to an accident, that driver shall be deemed liable, unless there is evidence clearly attributing fault of the other driver “.

This would be a wonderful idea to eliminate the scourge of speeding. Speeding accounts for so many accidents and deaths on our roads.

mikeecho

I stopped reading after the word cycling.

Maybe I should go to the cycling forum and talk about how great cars are.

JayPS 2288

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118980519#Comment_118980519

I bet you think you’re so cool and edgy with that reply.

JayPS 2288

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118980519#Comment_118980519

It’s not a cycling thread. I’m not advocating cycling. Read the OP.

I’m asking if you’d be supportive of assumed liability for drivers found to be speeding in the run up to an accident, regard of whether the third party is a unicyclist or a HGV driver.

mikeecho

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118980521#Comment_118980521

Awwww.. are you triggered.

JayPS 2288

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118980531#Comment_118980531

???

Eoinbmw

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118980527#Comment_118980527

In the instance of a non fatal fender bender type accident how would they determine speed?

whippet

the concept is nonsense. You can't exonerate someone's negligence when someone else does something that may or may not have contributed to a loss.

It is almost like victim blaming. No different to cyclists / pedestrians / motorists doing something stupid and then trying to find fault with something / someone else to justify their abdication of personal responsibility

JayPS 2288

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118980542#Comment_118980542

Hence my clause, if blame can be clearly attributed, then it’s clear cut.

If the driver was speeding then they are automatically liable in the absence of hard evidence.

Allinall

How would you have hard evidence that they were speeding?

whippet

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118980557#Comment_118980557

no need for any 'assumed liability' then - if they are to blame they are liable. If the other party contributes to the damage they are also liable .. it is simple.

JayPS 2288

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118980572#Comment_118980572

In an ideal world speed cameras would be more ubiquitous and on every stretch of road.

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118980557#Comment_118980557

Then there's no need for presumed liability. If proof is available, presumed liability is not applicable. It's proved liability then.

CiniO

Let's take 4 case scenarios.

Driver A driving on main road with speed limit of 80km/h. Driver B pulls out of side road and fails to give way to driver A which ends up in a accident.

case1: Driver A was doing 75km/h - fault should be fully assigned to driver B.

case2: Driver A was doing 90km/h - here yes - speeding offence was commenced, but its effect on accident was negligible, so still full fault on driver B (in other words should driver A be driving 10km/h slower accident would still happen, and it's result would be similar).

case3: Driver A was doing 120km/h - fault should be on both drivers in that case, as if driver A wasn't speeding then quite likely accident could be avoided or if not its effects would be much less severe.

case4: Driver A was doing 200km/h - here it should be purely driver A fault, as driver B could reasonably not expect anyone moving at such speed, so he could have not even seen driver A.

That's my opinion anyway, but I think it pretty much already works that way in Ireland, doesn't it?

10-10-20

Case 5 is my favourite:

Case 5: Driver A was doing 75km/h - fault should be fully assigned to driver B. BUT, driver B then discovers by using 5G cellular mast data that driver A had been speeding in the lead up-to the accident but not at the point of the accident, so seeks to have this considered as an demonstration that driver A should be liable as he had this wonderful "assumed liability" prior to the incident.

I'm sure some barrister will make a land-grab on that basis.

It’s pretty much a close relation to thought crime. So it’s a feic off no from me.

There are enough accidents on the road caused by provable speeding, inattention etc without makeyuppy bulksh1t,

Spook_ie

Let's be honest here, the assumed liability thread for cyclists is probably based on the premise that those with insurance should pay i.e the motorist because a lot of VRUs don't/can't be bothered with any kind of liability insurance.

JayPS 2288

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118984495#Comment_118984495

Why should a cyclist have insurance and why should they be bothered about it?

because a lot of VRUs don't/can't be bothered with any kind of liability insurance.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118984495#Comment_118984495

As apparently 1 in 13 drivers is uninsured, it shows that a lot of drivers "don't/can't be bothered with any kind of liability insurance".

However, if a driver crashes into someone or something, the cost is far far greater than the cost were they to cycle into someone or something. It is for this reason that it has been mandatory to hold at least third party insurance here when you wish to drive.

But, yeah, go on ahead and have your rant!

Spook_ie

Typical comment, I should have expected from you Seth. Just need AJR to turn up now with his 98% of urban drivers speed comments.

However from

https://www.bikecitizens.net/presumed-liability-shrinks-cycling-levels/

• Cyclists and pedestrians are far more prone to head injuries, which can affect their recollection of the accident.
• The driver can typically fall back on the insurer to deal with all compensation claims levied against him. Cyclists need to proactively seek representation, exposing themselves to significant financial risks

Presumed liability simply shifts the burden of proof – from the more vulnerable road user to the the driver. It does not abolish fault for the cyclist or pedestrian, nor does it automatically hold the driver liable. Rather, in an effort to level the (legal) playing field, it presumes that the driver is liable for the accident, which he can disprove in court.

Regarding the bolded statement. however it does automatically presume that they are liable and I believe the burden of proof should lie with all parties involved.

Ash.J.Williams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058243354/would-you-support-an-assumed-liability-rule-for-speeding-drivers

no

Seth Brundle

Typical comment, I should have expected from you Seth. Just need AJR to turn up now with his 98% of urban drivers speed comments.

I'm not part of a tag team with AJR. I merely responded to your post which implied that VRUs don't want insurance cover simply because they can score from the drivers policy. You made a lazy assertion based on zero facts when the reality is that if and when a VRU makes a claim it is because they were injured in some shape or form by the driver. I get it - you have a bias against people on bikes. But don't make bullsh1t claims about them alleging them to be insurance scammers.

Joe 90

A simple rule on insurance would be this. If you want to be able to claim on insurance you should have insurance yourself.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118986295#Comment_118986295

Would that mean you'd need insurance if you want to be able to walk anywhere?

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118981288#Comment_118981288

none of those really illuminate the debate about presumed liability because all your examples are driver on driver incidents, which is not what presumed liability is about.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118986295#Comment_118986295

Should I need insurance to walk on the footpath in case like the other morning some idiot in a car decides to left hook me as I pass the entrance to a business and ends up nearly hitting me?

Maybe I should go fully comp there as if it had happened on the out bound journey the kids would have been with me on the way to school, 3rd party would only iron out the dent from that drivers car had he hit me.

maestroamado

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058243354/would-you-support-an-assumed-liability-rule-for-speeding-drivers

This is indeed a very good question... i drive abroad a bit... i have never noticed a train of cyclists in rows of two... also a pedestrian abroad claim will diminish considerably if there is an incident where they are stupid enough to walk or cycle in front of a vehicle on the road... pedestrians have total right on crossings... we should have more but our infastructure will not allow so they nearly always at traffic lights...

Gumbo

If you pull out in front of somebody, it’s your fault. Whether they were speeding or not is irrelevant, it’s your fault for not reading the road correctly.

JayPS 2288

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119001466#Comment_119001466

Sometimes speeding will exasperate the situation. Speeding will therefore be a contributory factor.

Gumbo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119001744#Comment_119001744

If person A didn’t pull out, no accident. Liability ends there.

ED E

Join Date: April 2022

Checks out