Drivers in the Dock

Just seen this in the sunday paper....

Drivers in the Dock, Friday 13th Nov ITV1
"The battle for control of the nation's roads seems loaded in favour of motorists, but vengeance might be on the cards for put-upon cyclists. Fiona Foster reports on proposals to improve cyclist's safety, not least a suggestion that drivers' insurers should be responsible for all accidents. The motorists' lobby will doubtless find themselves in the throes of road rage just listening to these ideas."

There are lots of threads about this on here, jemjah, and bear in mind that it usually gets misreported. Of course, no-one is proposing to make drivers 'responsible' for all crashes. Rather, in layman's terms, the idea is that, as the vast majority of crashes is caused by motorists, they should bear the burden of proof in a crash. This sort of system works quite well elsewhere. I'm no lawyer and there are a few more things to be said about it that I don't understand, but that's the gist of it.

I realise this, it's just there's a programme on it at 8pm on friday. i just wrote what the Times said about the programme in it's tv guide...

OK, didn't mean to come across wrongly! When you post in an existing thread, more people are likely to see it who have been following that thread (but you probably know this).

So if I pull away from a green light at 2 in the morning and a RLJ smashes into my car who do I get to pay for the damage if the cyclist has no insurance?

Puts flame suit on and sits in the corner......

you are right, should have posted it in n existing thread.... my brain is a bit slow tonight!

jemjah, nothing wrong with posting in a new thread about something that is so very poignantly important to you.

thank you, but oliver is right, i wasn't really thinking! should have thought really, as i posted it due to all the recent discussions! it's been a long weekend....

So if I pull away from a green light at 2 in the morning and a RLJ smashes into my car who do I get to pay for the damage if the cyclist has no insurance?

Puts flame suit on and sits in the corner......

The proposed law change was reported so badly it's understandable there's confusion.

The cyclist would be at fault in your example, and would be subject to criminal and civil law.

The proposal is a sensible, workable suggestion. It would save lives, reduce premiums and prevent senseless deaths and injuries.

If a motor vehicle hits a pedestrian, cyclist, equestrian or disabled person, the non-motorised user is far more likely to be injured. This ought to mean that drivers have a greater duty of care for non-motorised users’ safety. However, this is not currently recognised in law.

Although the current civil liability system requires negligence to be proven, this creates an inherent balance against pedestrians and cyclists who, due to their greater vulnerability, are far less likely to recall how the collision occurred with the clarity needed to be a “good witness” in court.

Hence non-motorised crash victims often find it very difficult to obtain compensation for damages. This current situation regularly leads to grave injustice, far more serious than anything that could possibly result if the burden of proof were reversed in such cases.

The law on driver insurance schemes should therefore be amended so that non-motorised road users will be able to claim injury damages from drivers who hit them, unless it can be shown that the non-motorised road user behaved recklessly.

In deciding whether a person has acted recklessly, their mental and physical characterisitics should be taken into account, so that groups such as children, people with learning difficulties and disabled people who may not have appreciated the outcomes of their actions would be able to claim damages.

Drivers would not be criminalised under these proposals, which are in line with laws already in place in other European countries. They would merely be required to drive safely, and to take the requisite care around children and other people who can be expected to act unpredictably.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4686

It's the essence of law IMO, to help give the weaker party in a situation the means to a fair case, this law is merely trying to improve the balance.

As usual though it has some terrible reporting that is not just misleading but incorrect, I'm not sure if newspapers are allowed to report things incorrectly or they cn claim they did not understand the law.

Even broadsheets reported this as "Drivers to be blamed ALL THE TIME" which is a crock.

Shitstirring. It's what newspapers do best.

Shitstirring. It's what The Daily Mail does the best.

be more specific ;p

Bump, just for anyone with nothing better to do on a friday night!

Shitstirring. It's what newspapers do best.

never a truer sentence spoken.

the idea is sound, driver are guilty until proven innocent, just like with peds.

just starting

Really scientific stuff by the looks of it!

Watching it right now, seems 50/50 to me

Not suprise by the taxi driver in the slightest.

not that enlightening either

just caught the end of it.... slightly tabloidesque, but at least it helps highlight the issue of road safety and due consideration to cyclists

never a truer sentence spoken.

the idea is sound, driver are guilty until proven innocent, just like with peds.

The idea is shit. Innocent until proven guilty. That is the way our system of law works and that is the way it should remain.

The idea is shit. Innocent until proven guilty. That is the way our system of law works and that is the way it should remain.

Sigh.

This has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, as I thought I had explained.

We could discuss the proposal, or we could rock gently backwards and forwards and dribble and soil our pants with faecal matter and moan about summat that ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN YOU DRIBBLING COCKWIT BELMTARD SHITCLOWN.

Curious as to where you managed to see that I was disagreeing with you? YOU FUCKING IRRITATING CUNT BUBBLE.

self pwnage