-
a motor vehicle will always be liable in case of collision with a bike or pedestrian, no matter who's fault
That kind of thing is the end of civilisation, and I can't see its being viable in a common law country. Mind you, all sorts of really horrible things are happening in common law countries these days, so all bets are off.
gbj_tester-
Jonathan Sumption's Rieth Lectures touch on this sort of thing. You might find them interesting.
-
You bring me back to my law school days. I could never understand how that common law thing could actually work. It's just too different from our system for me to comprehend how that functions IRL. I.e. Trial by jury in the US is a joke imo. It just seems like a way to maintain corruption.
What you state is being somewhat amplified by what I read in the thread @IrPOWERranger mentions above. It appears to be the road rage thread as well next to the Highway Code thread.
-
That kind of thing is the end of civilisation
Nope, public spaces dominated by arseholes in motor vehicles is the end of civilisation.
-
This assumes we ever achieved the state of civilisation.
hugo7
damskodonny
William.
dancing james
Wel I have never heard of the Dutch Reach. Must be because I'm Dutch so here's it's just the reach. But in all seriousness, this seems kind of ridicoulous, as Brun already stated. A £1.000 fine for something that is dificult to prove seems easy to evade.
What really helped to protect the vulnarable road users over here, is that in the 70s (following a multitude of traffic casualties, mostly minors) a new law stated that a motor vehicle will always be liable in case of collision with a bike or pedestrian, no matter who's fault the accident was. Of course exceptions exist (force majeur, is that the correct term?), but in essence a motor vehicle better keep their eyes open or they're fucked (liability wise).