Would you support an assumed liability rule for speeding drivers?

I stopped reading after the word cycling.

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

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

How would you have hard evidence that they were speeding?

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?

Anyone aware if what happens if you are in an accident and found to have drink taken? Even if the other person would have been 100% in the wrong otherwise?

If I am in an accident with you later that would otherwise be a 50:50, and the guards show up, breathalyze you and you are over the limit, then that's happy days for me. You're driving under the influence of alcohol and you will be found 100% liable in court (it wouldn't go to court - your insurance wouldn't even try to contest it)

Yes I knew the answer. You will be basically presumed to be liable if you had drink taken and you are involved in an accident.

Likewise if you are driving a car which is not roadworthy (in that case, the insurance may not even cover you). If your car is not roadworthy (e,g, evidenced by failing its NCT as dangerous) and someone crashes into you, well good luck on arguing that in court.