Stricter liability for drivers

I'm also a driver, because I can't move my whole family on bikes. I'm all for increased liability for motorists, even I'm often myself faced by wankers cyclist (mainly the angry, "I don't give a damn" type with hands in their pockets, listening to their mobiles). One of those "gangsta" twats crashed into me today on my way from nursery - with my daughter on the back of my bike. He had hands in his pockets. Couldn't react in time and t-boned me.

But the implication of the OP is that, had you been driving, you would be 'more' responsible for the said twat hitting you. Is it a size thing? Are Surly Big Dummy riders more responsible for other people crashing into them than the riders of reggla safeties. EEI, you say you are all for greater liability for drivers, but I suspect you mean that, as Robin Goodfellows suggests, the 'System' needs to work better to allocate the blame/fault, and not, as it does, appear to work in the favour of the driver. Might is not, after all, right.

OP, no. Don't sign.

I realize the consequences of an accident are in favour of a car driver if involved with a bike or pedestrian. That's a given. The notion that a greater injury potential means you are less responsible is a bit rubbish.

Somethings have changed in our attitudes over the last fifteen years. Some for the better, some not. The pedestrian has become king, the motorist the epitome of evil. Both cobblers. And the cyclist somewhere in between. It means that, as we all know, peds step out, sometimes Ipodded up, sometimes with their prams akimbo, sometimes just with a fuck you attitude, straight into the paths of other people going about their lives. This has been 'encouraged' by council road improvements that give, by the levelling of road surfaces and the merging of materials, give the impression that the road is the pavement. It confuses, deliberately, the right of way. And so the ped doesn't look. I have no idea why it is now acceptable to cross a road without looking, but it seems to be. And it is very bad.

In order, I ride bicycles, motorbikes, and drive cars. 95/4/1% in terms of journeys done, not miles covered. It depends on distance and load. I very rarely walk anywhere, or take public transport. If I step into the path of a car/van/lorry, I will be hurt. Road sense and risk assessment has so far stopped that happening. My duty to the rest of the world is to let it do it's thing, and to exercise my rights where I have them to do my thing, without hindrance or threat. The idea that I, as a bloke doing his thing, could be held 'more' responsible for someone else's stupidity or pig-headedness is a threat I don't want, thanks. And I vote against the motion.

Old git rant.

J-walking laws?

But the implication of the OP is that, had you been driving, you would be 'more' responsible for the said twat hitting you. Is it a size thing? Are Surly Big Dummy riders more responsible for other people crashing into them than the riders of reggla safeties. EEI, you say you are all for greater liability for drivers, but I suspect you mean that, as Robin Goodfellows suggests, the 'System' needs to work better to allocate the blame/fault, and not, as it does, appear to work in the favour of the driver. Might is not, after all, right.

What I mean is, a bigger shake up is needed. And, especially in this country, drivers need to be taught, that they're not primary road owners.

As a driver, I still manage to avoid collisions even with those bad cyclists (and trust me, it's not easy when you have a gang on MTB taking the whole road and waiting for a provocation), because I look up for them. I'm simply aware, that while in the car driving at 20mph, I can do more harm to them, then they can to me. That's why I think drivers should be liable. This will make people think ahead.

Right now many drivers have this attitude, that pedestrians, cyclists and even motorcyclist are intruders in their space, which obviously isn't true.

Very very well said Kris.

I remember reading in another thread that the vast majority of people disqualified from driving are able to get it over turned because it will put them under significant hardship (correct me if I'm wrong). This is the kind of thing I think needs to be changed. If you're not safe on the road and can't follow the rules, you shouldn't be there as it's simply a matter of time until you seriously injure someone. It's a privilege, and not a right; that's what needs to be reinforced, as it was with drink driving, and now needs to be with regard to cyclists. This is the kind of stricter liability I would be in favour of, rather than a size based hierarchy which would invariable penalise all road users involved in collisions with total morons. It would take dangerous people off the road, and hopefully get other road users to consider their actions as well.

However, I am concerned though that stricter liability won't necessarily make motorists think that much more... Being a dillignet driver who looks out for cyclists and checks mirrors before moving is a totally new driving experience to many people and changing the penalties doesn't necessarily mean they will be able to change their behaviour. A one off decision not to drink and drive is one thing as it's a decision you make once, and then stick too. It's quite different to remaining alert and giving cyclists the space they need on a longer car journey.

^hope I'm not coming across as the Daily Mail up there, not meaning to.

I totally agree with David on the need to reduce the fear felt by people who would cycle if they felt safer, and the need to re-think transport culture away from the car. The mindset does needs to change.

Just un-easy about a change to 'guilty until proven innocent' that greater liability implies. notalawyer

That's four assertions- you have evidence to back each one up?

Do you remember the advertising campaign that used the stats of deaths at different speeds. Something like: "1 in 2 killed at 40mph, 1 in 5 killed at 30mph, 1 in 20 killed at 20mph" ?

That was based on actual statistic research that was carried out by my father. He investigates road accidents for a living.

36x18, you realise it already exists for peds, right?

Drivers are more concern about hitting peds as they know they might get in trouble if it turn out that they have a chance to prevent a collision but didn't do anything.

Obviously it never looked like it here, but the driving standard is still a lots better than says, Peru.

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.

Most people seem to respond more to potential costs/imprisonment than to education/awareness.

I believe that too, anything that might rob them £100 (which is probably the normal price to fill up your cars) may make them more aware.

I still want anyone who got caught with a mobile to get a £1,000 fine though.

Going back to the original point about Strict Civil Liability, I touched on this on my website recently and asked readers if they wanted it to ask for it by writing to their MPs. One of them did and got a response not just from their MP but from the Secretary of State for Transport Norman Baker (mine didn't even write back the lazy bat) You can see his response here:

http://www.massivemtber.co.uk/?p=908

IMO his reponse says pretty clearly that strict civil liability for motorists is not going to happen, but at least, if you're going to campaign for it, you know the playing field from the start.

Good luck!

When I was talking to other cyclists at the traffic lights every now and then (especially those who cycle close to the kerbs), it became clear to me that there's confusion to where a bicycle belong, more than half of them know it's not the pavements (some were bewildered by the fact it's illegal).

But nearly a majority felt that they're 'trespassing' on the road simply because it look quite clear that motorised vehicles belong on it, so they stick very close to the kerbs hoping to not annoyed the motorists who use those particular road, and they're motorists themselves too.

The Stricter Liability would in my opinion, help change people outlook that bicycles actually do belong on the road as there's a law protecting them that if they got hit, they're giving the benefit of doubt.

36x18, you realise it already exists for peds, right?

Ed, I didn't. I live under a rock. Can you post a link to some info, all I've found is from 2002;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2097872.stm

More up to date and on topic, but little mention of ped laws;

http://www.access-legal.co.uk/legal-news/strict-liability-shat-is-it-cyclists-really-want-lu-2985.htm

On a similar note I think that the offences of "causing death by careless driving" and "causing death by dangerous driving" ought to be abolished.
It is next to impossible to get a conviction because the prosecution have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the driving was substandard to a criminal degree. It's a very difficult thing to prove apparently. Even when it is proved the sentences are ridiculously lenient.

I would like to see them instead prosecuted with a simple manslaughter charge - a new offence of vehicular manslaughter if really necessary. Then it would only be necessary to prove that the driver caused the death, and it doesn't matter how. It also allows variable sentencing depending on the level of culpability, which as far as I know is entirely down to the judges opinion of the evidence.

In minor collisions I would like the law to be changed/enforced so that the moment a driver says "I didn't see you/him/her" it is taken as an irrevocable admission of guilt to a charge of driving without due care and attention, leading to automatic conviction.

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.

That was based on actual statistic research that was carried out by my father. He investigates road accidents for a living.

I doubt there are many people who investigate them for a hobby. What's his view on this whole driving thing? Have the campaigns worked? Does he cycle, by the way?

I like BQ's idea that SMIDSY would be an automatic admission of guilt of DWODCAA, perfectly logical.

Agree that BQ suggetion makes sense,skully. It should mean that and would in most other spheres. I will mention that to ctc's roger geffen who is leading their campaign 'stop SMIDSY" http://www.stop-smidsy.org.uk/

My original post was to suggest that LFGSS support the campaign for stricter driver liability which I believe would improve conditions on the road, addressing peoples fear so encouraging cycling. (I perhaps muddied the issue by mentioning 20mph in the op.)

There are over 20,000 members of LFGSS, bigger than major cycling advocacy groups, This is a powerful voice and it has been wonderful on the rare occasions when we have got behind an issue (such as **Eilidh Cairns memorial) **

I accept now that unless velocio personally takes up a cause or campaign there isn't really a mechanism for making decisions and deciding to support a specific campain. I do wonder if we can do this better...

I think that the issue of stricter liability for the more potentially dangerous vehicle has been a little confused in this thread. For a start, this would have no bearing on criminal liability. The change would only affect those seeking compensation as a result of injury.

In my opinion (and from my experience) the number of cyclists being able to bring forward a claim for their injury would not dramatically increase if the law did change in this way.

I think that the real benefits would be psychological ones i.e. making drivers more aware that they are responsible for their actions, plus shifting society away from being so 'motor-centric'.

I agree with the bulk of David's OP, but I think we need to look for a different way to get this result, rather than trying for a dramatic change the law which is unlikely to happen.

I emailed Roger Geffen, CTC's campaigns manager this question

Is a drivers plea excuse of SMIDSY ever considered by the court as driving without due care and attention? If not why not?

Here is his response:
Probably. There are huge numbers of “careless” driving cases, mostly heard in magistrates courts, so there is doubtless a huge amount of inconsistency in how they are handled, and there’s no way of monitoring the trends. However I’d be surprised if the Smidsy argument was NOT used at least sometimes by prosecutors as evidence of at least “careless” driving, and probably occasionally as “dangerous” driving too.

*But you’re probably also right that in many other cases the prosecutors fail to make this argument, and SMIDSY ends up being a successful excuse.

*Seems that it is worth raising awareness of this with prosecutors if CTC hs not already done this

DWODCAA...

Only just heard of this, what does it stand for?

Driving Without Due Care And Attention.

Gotcha, ta!

I asked Roger about contacting the CPS regarding the SMIDSY/DWDCAA link. Here is his response:

'The one central opportunity to press this message would be to get it included in CPS’s guidance on prosecuting bad driving. However, last time this guidance was revised (c4 years ago), we had a massive crack at influencing it and got absolutely nowhere. We even tried unsuccessfully to mount a judicial review of its failure to reflect the law correctly in terms of how it explains the difference between “careless” and “dangerous” driving (for instance, pulling out of a side-road into the path of a cyclist still counts as an example of “careless” driving!). Yet our legal challenge was turned down on the basis that the CPS’s prosecution guidance doesn’t purport to be a statement of the law, so strictly speaking it couldn’t be held to be a [I]mis[/I]-statement of the law! Consequently, CPS prosecutors are still prosecuting bad driving offences on the basis of guidance which I would still maintain is legally incorrect.

We clearly need to do a hell of a lot of work public, political and media awareness of the problem of the injustices cyclists (and indeed pedestrians) face on the roads, and hence to build up the pressure for change in the way this country does traffic policing, prosecution and sentencing, and ultimately the law itself (including stricter liability). This is what our Stop Smidsy campaign (www.stop-smidsy.org.uk) is designed to do. And even if (when!) we succeed in getting the CPS guidance rewritten next time around, it will doubtless still take a lot of local follow-up campaigning activity to get this and other similar points picked up in the way CPS officers handle individual cases.'

There's no evidence that CTC have teamed up or even talked to the motorcycling lobby about SMIDSY. Whilst there is probably no love lost between motorcycle and bicycle campaign groups, SMIDSY has been a big issue for motorcyclists too, and they should be linking with groups like MAG, BMF and the motorcycle press to make their influence greater.