Stricter liability for drivers

There is so much to be addressed.

Given the number of drivers who scream and shout that all cyclists ought to cycle in the gutter, there are clearly some attitudes that need to be changed. I had a guy get out of his car and scream at me that its in the highway code that cyclists must be in the left hand lane all the time - he got confused and even more furious when I asked him how to turn right when there is more than one lane.

As a cyclist I understand that the liability is with me if I hit a pedestrian, so I have to take precautions and behave accordingly. I do not see why this should not apply to cars/lorries.

However lots of drivers appear to believe it is their god given right to be on the road and that we are an inconvenience. Stricter liability will start to affect such attitudes. Most people seem to respond more to potential costs/imprisonment than to education/awareness. Otherwise no one would drive above 20mph due to the reasons suggested by Mashtons father.

James

You confuse criminal liability and civil liability. We are talking about civil liability here. There cannot be strict liability under criminal law in a democracy.

There is no strict liability if you hit a pedestrian. The pedestrian has to show that you were negligent. If he does, you can reduce your liability to him by showing that he was contributorarily negligent.

The concenpt of strict liability in tort is a difficult one particularly for one such as you who does not appear to grasp the concept of negligence.