Browsed by
Tag: presumed liability

Let Scotland lead the rest of the UK by moving to presumed liability for vulnerable road users

Let Scotland lead the rest of the UK by moving to presumed liability for vulnerable road users

The UK was first country in the world to require drivers of motor vehicles to have insurance. When the Road Traffic Act (1930) introduced compulsory third-party insurance, it was intended to provide a means of assured compensation for the injured victims of road traffic collisions (then, as now, mostly pedestrians and cyclists).
“However, since then we have created a David v Goliath culture, where the odds are frequently stacked against the vulnerable, who have had the misfortune to have been hit by the driver of a motor vehicle. In many cases, it is impossible for them to claim compensation (to which are fairly and reasonably entitled) without resorting to litigation. This only adds to the distress for those who have been injured through no fault of their own.

We at Road Share think it is right for Scotland to lead the rest of the UK by changing its Civil Law to respect and protect the vulnerable in society by moving to a system of presumed liability. This change will support pedestrians and cyclists injured in road traffic collisions.

All political parties who care about social justice should incorporate the Road Share proposals for presumed liability in their 2016 manifestos. We can no longer sit back and watch our legal system fail the Nation’s pedestrians and cyclists. We need to ensure that fairness hdflive.com to the individual sits at the very heart of our civil legal system. At present, the process for obtaining compensation is heavily weighted against the injured individual who has to take on the might of the driver’s insurance company.
“Presumed Liability would encourage insurance companies to re-evaluate their prospects of success in showing that the injured party has been negligent in some way. This would mean that vulnerable road users would be compensated quickly and fairly, without resort to expensive Court actions. These Court actions affect everyone in terms of cost, time, money and, often for the injured party, a great deal of stress.

The Road Share campaign was initiated to highlight the shortcomings in civil law road traffic liability cases where there seems to be little recognition of the sheer disparity between a motorised vehicle, and walking or cycling regarding the ability to cause serious harm to others. Presumed liability allows for a recognition of who brings most harm to a collision and, thereby, shifts the burden of proof from the vulnerable to those with the potential to cause greater harm. If liability for a collision between a cyclist and motorist falls equally on both parties, or on one party more than the other, this can be accounted for within the framework of Presumed Liability. realrecipe.net It is not intended to unfairly blame the party with the greater potential to do harm. Therefore, Presumed Liability offers a fairer and more responsible approach to compensating vulnerable road users while, at the same time, ensuring that reckless cyclists and pedestrians, who are entirely “the author of their own misfortunes” are not compensated. At present, injured vulnerable road users very often face a David v Goliath battle against an insurance company. This must change.

Please show your support for Presumed Liability by signing our online petition.

Kim Harding is a member of the steering group of the Road Share campaign.

The post first appeared in Holyrood, Scotland’s fortnightly political and current affairs magazine that keeps people informed.

Possibly Related Posts: (automatically generated)

Cyclists must help themselves?

Cyclists must help themselves?

Hardly a week goes by without another victim blaming letter to the papers, the latest was entitled Cyclists must help themselves (quoted below in full):

Wearing a helmet while cycling may be a “peripheral issue”, according to W Henderson (Promote cycling, not use of helmets, Letters, July 27).

However, surely it is highly desirable in urban traffic? We do not enjoy the excellent traffic segregation and social cohesion of “Denmark and The Netherlands”, nor are we ever likely to. The antiquated and cramped fabric of our towns and cities and our unwillingness to think, and spend, boldly – it’s the British way after all – have seen to that.

No-one disagrees that cycling is good for you and should be encouraged and funded more, but if the increasingly shrill cycling lobby insist on their right not to do everything reasonable to be seen and be safe, then “strict liability” – the proposal that in the event of a collision the motorist is presumed to be at fault – cannot be seriously entertained. In particular, the perverse refusal to use high-visibility accoutrements, good lights and a warning bell is unacceptable and stupid. Legislation is the only way.

 

I am saddened by the knee jerk victim blaming attitude expressed in this letter. Repeated studies have failed to find evidence that wearing “Hi-visibility” clothing make any significant difference to the frequency of cyclist or pedestrian road casualties. It is important to note that the UK has one of the worst records in Europe for pedestrian safety. Before anyone said that the numbers of pedestrians killed or seriously injured on our roads is declining, this is entirely due to the fact that people are walking less, once that is taken in to account pedestrian KSI rates are rising.

The evidence from repeated studies of collisions involving motor vehicles and vulnerable road users, that in over 85% of cases it was the drivers that was solely at fault. In under 15% of cases was there joint liability between drivers and vulnerable road users, and in only about 1% of cases was the vulnerable road user solely at fault for the collision.

It really is time that we learned from other countries that there is a better way. All but five countries in Europe (those being the UK, Cyprus, Malta, Romania and Ireland) have some form of “strict liability”. Why is it that the opponents of the current campaign for introduction presumed liability in Scots civil law, are not holding up Romania as a beacon of freedom and liberty?

Possibly Related Posts: (automatically generated)

“Motorists and cyclists should both live up to their responsibilities” a reply

“Motorists and cyclists should both live up to their responsibilities” a reply

The following letter was published in The Herald on Monday 28 July 2014 from a Mr Stewart of Cumbernauld:

I NOTE with interest your report on the sentencing of drivers convicted of killing cyclists (“Motorists who kill cyclists let off lightly“, The Herald, July 22.)

Whilst many of us would agree that sentences for a wide spectrum of offences are inadequate, a figure in the article represent what might be expected: in 54 per cent of cases where a cyclist was killed by a motorist, the driver was charged. Simple statistics would predict a 50/50 ratio of culpability where two individuals were involved; that is, a cyclist and a driver. The law would take its course after an individual was charged and the result would depend on the evidence given in court.

In the article Chris Boardman was quoted as saying “our legal system doesn’t support fully enough the more vulnerable road user and it doesn’t reflect the responsibility people have when they drive a car”. Road users could be said to be more responsible than cyclists in that they have to pass a rigorous driving test and carry third-party insurance. We would all agree that this does not guarantee responsibility, but it is a grounding.

Cyclists, however, are largely not insured and do not have to pass a test of any sort. I can vouch as a driver that many cyclists do not respect, assuming they have read, the Highway Code. Some may have personal accident insurance but what about third party insurance? Can someone tell me why both insurance and a test are not mandatory for cyclists? They, after all, are road users who can err and cause an accident.

Of course cyclists are more vulnerable; what may be a simple bump between cars can easily mean a death where a cyclist is involved. There is equal onus on both to be careful and to abide by the Highway Code. Cyclists freely undercut motorists between vehicles and the kerb. This is one of the major causes of accidents and should not be allowed – except, of course, where there is a cycle lane.

Drivers have a horn, the purpose of which is to let other road users know you are there in circumstance where another may be unaware. In my experience many cyclists do not have a bell and if they do they do not use it appropriately. A bell is not adequate to alert other drivers.

There has been comment recently about presumed liability of drivers involved in cycling accidents, where there is inconclusive evidence. There should be presumed liability of all parties until the evidence or lack of it indicates otherwise, and to prejudice drivers is wrong.

 

This letter is wrong on so many points, but does tell us something about the attitudes which has lead to the lack of justice for vulnerable road users. The first error is the statement that “Simple statistics would predict a 50/50 ratio of culpability where two individuals were involved; that is, a cyclist and a driver”. This statement suggest that both are equally vulnerable which is clearly not the case and there is no evidence to support it. When was the last time you heard of a driver being harmed when in collision with a cyclist or pedestrian? There have been a number of research studies which have shown that in over 80% of cases the driver is wholly responsible for collisions with more vulnerable road users. In less than 20% of cases is there construable negligence by the cyclist or pedestrian, and even in these cases in less than 1% was the cyclist or pedestrian shown to wholly responsible.

Then we have the “cyclists don’t have to take a test and have third party insurance” argument, no consideration as to why that is. The reason the people are required to hold a licence, take a test and has compulsory insurance is because driving is funereally dangerous. That is not to say that cycling is completely safe, on rare occasions pedestrians are killed by cyclists, however, these cases account for only 0.4% of all fatal collision and in all cased the cyclists were prosecuted.

The reason that cyclists don’t have to take a test and have insurance, is because they do very little harm. This can be seen in the premiums which cyclist who do have third party insurance. Members of British Cycling and the CTC have 3rd party insurance cover up to £10m as part of their membership, which cost just £24 or £41 annual respectively. Also a number of household insurance policies offer similar levels of third party cover as part of the bundle, this show clearly that actuaries in the insurance industry believe that cycling poses very little risk to other.

On the other hand the cost of collisions involving motor vehicles in the exceeds £18bn every year. Therefore, society recognises that large, heavy objects travelling at high speeds represent a high degree of danger, and in an attempt to mitigate this all people wishes to use a motor vehicles in public places are required to have compulsory insurance. We are all human and prone to human error, the difference between someone in control of a bicycle weighing <15 Kg and a motor vehicle weighing>1 tonne, is the scale of damage which can be done to others.

While I am about it I might as well deal with the other common comment that cyclists are a danger to other because they ride on pavements and jump red lights. An analysis of police data involving collisions with pedestrians shows that 4% of injuries to pedestrians at red lights were attributed to cyclists, with 96% being attributed to motorists. The same report found that only 2% of injuries to pedestrians on the pavement could be attributed to cyclists, the other 98% were caused directly by motorists.

Then we have statement that “one of the major causes of accidents” is cyclists filtering through traffic, however, there no evidence to support this claim. There are large proportion of collision leading to death or serious injury which take at road junctions, but analysis of police data show that in almost 90% of case the motorist was at fault. Further more the only thing that the Highway Code has to say about filtering through slow-moving traffic, is “take care and keep your speed low” (Rule 88). Also, Rule 211 which tells motorists to “look out for cyclists or motorcyclists on the inside of the traffic you are crossing. Be especially careful when turning, and when changing direction or lane. Be sure to check mirrors and blind spots carefully.”

Finally there is a comment about presumed liability in where he suggests it should be presumed all parties should be equally liable, this is patently wrong, as I have shown above all road users are not equal and vulnerable road users need to be protected by the law. The UK is one of only five countries in Europe which does not have some form of Presumed Liability, the others being Cyprus, Malta, Romania and Ireland. Why aren’t those who oppose the introduction of Presumed Liability pointing to Romania as a shining beacon of liberty and freedom?

Possibly Related Posts: (automatically generated)

Cycling is not dangerous – it’s bad driving

Cycling is not dangerous – it’s bad driving

In the past I have written a number of posts about Strict Liability, It is something which I strongly feel is important as evidence from cycling groups on the Continent show stricter liability to be an integral part of cycle safety, increasing mutual respect between motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. The UK is only one of a small number of EU countries, along with Cyprus, Malta, Romania and Ireland that does not operate a Strict Liability system for road users.

In 1982 Lord Denning stated that:

In the present state of motor traffic, I am persuaded the any civilized system of law should require, as a matter of principal, that the person who uses this dangerous instrument on the road – dealing death and destruction all round – should be liable to make compensation to anyone who is killed or injured in consequence of the use of it. There should be liability without proof of fault.

To require an injured person to prove fault results in the gravest injustice to many innocent persons who have not the wherewithal to prove it.

 

Thirty two years on this state of injustice remains on our roads, it is time for change!

Below is a press release sent on behalf of the Road Share Campaign for presumed liability, if you would like to show your support for introducing a member’s bill for presumed liability between motorists,cyclists and pedestrians please sign this petition.

New research says cycling is not dangerous; a minority of bad drivers are responsible for road traffic collisions.
 
Commissioned by Cycle Law Scotland (CLS), the legal firm behind the Road Share campaign for presumed liability on Scotland’s roads, the research compares case data with publicly available statistics to provide a greater understanding of the causes and severity of road traffic collisions.
 
CLS then asked its own community of cyclists about their own ‘near misses’ to help paint a clearer picture of cycling on today’s roads.
 
The research found that out of the 151 cases handled by CLS between June 2011 and August 2013, incidents were dominated by drivers’ incompetent turning manoeuvres. Almost half of the incidents were due to drivers turning off the road of travel, or pulling on to it, or U-turning. If roundabouts are added, the proportion rises to 61% of the CLS incidents. Further analysis of statistics from the Department of Transport (DfT) and City of Edinburgh Council revealed very similar patterns.
 
Cyclist actions were a minority factor making up about a third of the DfT study of urban casualties and less than a fifth in the data available from Transport Scotland.

According to official figures released by Transport Scotland, in 2012, there were 9 deaths, 167 serious injuries and 901 total accidents involving pedal cyclists.
 
Malcolm Wardlaw, who carried out the analysis of the all the data available concluded that the main risk of collision is at junction, at least on urban roads. At junctions, vehicles turning off the road of travel are just as much a risk as those pulling out from side roads.
 
The evening rush hour period incurs a higher risk to cyclists than the morning peak period.

He said:

Whilst most drivers are safe and courteous, one of the striking observations that can be drawn from the CLS and public data available is that most cyclist casualties in road traffic collisions are due to errors by drivers. Cyclists are primarily the victims of bad driving and inflict negligible harm on others.

 

Founder of Cycle Law Scotland, Brenda Mitchell has 25 years’ experience as a personal injuries lawyer. She said:

We constantly see cases where the driver blames the cyclist, but when it is put to the test, it is bad driving that is to blame. If we seriously want to make Scotland a cycle-friendly nation, we have to start by understanding that good driving standards are fundamental.
 
My strongly held belief is that if we introduce a system of presumed liability in civil law, drivers will change their mindset towards cyclists on the road.

 

Concerned by the findings, Cycle Law Scotland carried out a survey of cyclists experiencing “near misses”.
 
Its research found that of the 137 people questioned in December 2013, 70% reported having experienced a ‘near miss’ within the previous four weeks.
 
The most common scenario was found to have occurred when a vehicle passed too close and clipped the bike. Once again, the most ‘at risk’ period was the evening rush hour and on roads where the speed limit is below 30mph, with junctions and roundabouts highlighted as particular blackspots.
 
Brenda adds:

I am concerned that the degree of danger facing cyclists on Scotland’s roads is not sufficiently understood. Bad drivers are the exception, but they can cause serious injury.
 
I am a massive supporter of cycling and want the right safety measures put in place. But while we don’t have – or accept – the full picture of cycling conditions and risks on our roads, the safety measures will never be sufficient.

 

So far, more than 5,350 people have signed a petition to see the introduction of presumed liability regime into Scots Civil Law. If adopted, it will mean that following a collision between a motorist and a cyclist or pedestrian, the motorist would be presumed to be liable for injury, damages or loss, unless they can prove otherwise, thereby shifting the burden of proof from the vulnerable (as it is currently) to the powerful.
 
Key findings from Malcolm Wardlaw’s research into CLS and public data:

  • Most cyclist casualties in collisions are due to errors by drivers.
  • he main risk of collision is at junctions, at least on urban roads.
  • 83% of cyclists involved in collisions recorded by Cycle Law Scotland were male. This dataset matches the national profile of cycling participation. The National Travel Survey reports males account for 80% of distance travelled by bicycle in the UK.
  • In 66% of all cases recorded by Cycle Law Scotland’s data the cyclist was wearing a helmet.
  • At junctions, vehicles turning off the road of travel are just as much of a risk to cyclists as those pulling out from side roads.
  • 75% of the accidents recorded took place on roads with a speed limit of 20-30mph.
  • In 35% of Cycle Law Scotland’s cases the cyclist was wearing bright, hi vis, fluorescent, reflective, light, yellow, lights or bright clothing. 32% wore other clothing and 33% recorded no information about their clothing.
  • Cyclists and pedestrians inflict negligible harm on each other.

 

If you would like to show your support for the introduction of a member’s bill for presumed liability between motorists,cyclists and pedestrians, into the Scottish Parliament: please sign this petition

Possibly Related Posts: (automatically generated)

Fairness and liability on the roads: part 3

Fairness and liability on the roads: part 3

Having written to my MSPs about Fairness and liability on the roads and received a number of replies, mostly along the lines of “I will forward the matter to my colleague Keith Brown, Minister for Transport, for his consideration”, I have been waiting for Mr Brown’s comments. Well, today my wait was ended by an e-mail from George Foulkes MSP, in which he forwarded to me a letter from the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Keith Brown MSP. I have transposed a copy below (with a couple of corrected URLs), if you would like to read the original it is here.

Thank you for your e-mail of 16 February to Stewart Stevenson MSP, on behalf of your constituent Kim Harding, regarding his concerns about compensation in road accident cases involving vulnerable road users.

As you may be aware the Scottish Government published the Cycling Action Plan for Scotland (CAPS) in June 2010. The overall vision for cycling is that “by 2020, 10% of all journeys taken in Scotland will be by bike”. The document outlines 17 separate actions to support cycling, working in partnership with key delivery agencies, including local authorities, Sustrans and Cycling Scotland. The full text of the CAPS document can be viewed on the Scottish Government website at: http://www.Scotland.gov.uklPublications/2010/064/25103912/0 [http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/06/25103912/0]

One of the CAPS actions relates to a legislative search by the Scottish Government on the operation of liability laws and how they work in other countries in Europe and around the world, and whether there is robust evidence of a directly link to levels of cycling and KSI’s [Killed or Seriously Injured]. This work will provide a comprehensive report on liability laws and how they affect cycling. A follow-up action contained in CAPS relates to identification of what kind of hierarchy, if any, might be established, and the consequent development of an educational awareness campaign for all road users. This work would be with a view to reducing the rate of cyclist KSls.

With regard to your constituent’s comments on the level of road casualty figures, you may be aware that Scotland’s Road Safety Framework to 2020 was published In June 2009. The Framework sets out Scotland’s vision and targets for the safety of all road users over the next decade together with a range of commitments to help the Scottish Government and its delivery partners meet the targets.

Reported Road Casualties Scotland 2009, published in November 2010, showed that we are making significant progress in reducing the number of pedestrian and cyclist casualties in Scotland with a fall of 42% and 21 % respectively between 1999 and 2009. However this does not mean we are complacent on this issue. The Framework recognises that pedestrians and cyclists are among the most vulnerable road users. We have made a number of commitments within the Framework document which we will undertake, with our partners, to support the interests of pedestrians and cyclists. These include ensuring that all road users receive appropriate education and training messages about cycling in the road environment; ensuring that cyclists are considered in new road and maintenance schemes; and encouraging local authorities to consider 20 mph zones in all residential areas. The Framework can be viewed on the Scottish Government website at: http://www.scotland.gov.uklPublications/2009/06/08103221 [http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/11/05111814/0]

The Annual Report 2010 on progress with the Framework, including measures undertaken to date to assist the needs of pedestrians and cyclists, can be viewed on the Transport Scotland website at: http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/strategy-and-research/publications-and-consultations/road-safety-report-2010

I hope the information above helps when responding to your constituent.

It is an interesting reply which shows that the Scottish Government is at least trying to improve Scotland’s road safety record. Reading Skimming through these documents, I find that:

  • while car users account for 64% of all casualties, a greater proportion of pedestrian (and cycling) casualties were killed or seriously injured.
  • children make a disproportionate number of pedestrian and cycling casualties
  • Scotland’s Road Safety Framework to 2020 aims to reduce: all Fatalities by 40% (and child fatalities by 50%), all Serious casualties by 55% (and child serious casualties by 65%)
  • and the Scottish Government would like to see, by 2020, 10% of all journeys in Scotland made by bike.

Finally in CAPS I found what I was looking for, Section 5.5 A “Hierarchy of Care” for all Road Users, had the information which was most relevant to my original letter:

Current Situation

There is no legal hierarchy of care for road users in existence in the UK. In the event of a road traffic accident going to court in a civil action 1, which is a devolved area, the responsibility to prove negligence (on the balance of probabilities) lies with the pursuer, who has to prove a number of elements to satisfy the requirement that the defender was negligent and caused material harm ( e.g. damage to property or personal injury).

The background to the current situation may be traced to a Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury which, after a thorough 5-year inquiry, recommended in 1978 in favour of a no-fault insurance scheme for road traffic accidents but against the introduction of strict liability. A no-fault scheme did not subsequently materialise, but the rejection of strict liability did prevail. This has in essence, been UK policy ever since. As such, the previous UK Government felt it was unfair to make motorists automatically liable for any accidents involving motor vehicles and a pedestrian or a cyclist. They felt it was a matter for the courts and that each case should be dealt with individually.

Existing Laws in other countries

The differences in laws between the UK and continental European countries have often been cited by cyclists as the main reason cyclists on the continent enjoy greater protection. However, this has often been combined with a number of other measures such as increased investment in cycle infrastructure so it will be difficult to isolate one particular factor influencing why these countries have higher cycling levels than the UK.

The fact that many of these countries have promoted cycling for a longer time has quite possibly also led to a cultural change whereby cyclists are automatically respected because many drivers are also cyclists themselves. The multitude of factors in play means that it is difficult to identify driver behaviour as being influenced by any one of them. Furthermore, there appears to be jurisdictions where absolute liability exists rather than strict liability and this may have a harsher impact on driver behaviour.

Accident rates for cyclists are lower in many European countries than in the UK and strict liability is in place in several European countries including France, Spain and the Netherlands, whereby the driver involved in an incident would have to prove he or she was not at fault for an incident involving a cyclist. This has, anecdotally, led to drivers having more respect for cyclists.

Proposals

There has been a suggestion by some stakeholders to establish a hierarchy of care whereby the emphasis is on the vehicle travelling at the higher speed. This would then make cyclists liable for collisions with pedestrians and may help in addressing concerns drivers have about cyclists seemingly being able to ‘flout’ the law. Cyclists can however, already be held liable for injuries caused by negligence or malice on their part (since negligence laws cover everyone).

A second proposal, made by Spokes (the Lothians Cycling Group) in its evidence to the TICC Committee’s inquiry into active travel, is to place the burden of proof in an incident on the heavier vehicle.

To inform future evidence-based policy making, Ministers have indicated that more research would be welcome and, therefore, we will undertake the actions listed below. We believe the results of this review will be crucial to any future debate on this issue.

Action 12: To undertake a legislative search to reveal the operation of liability laws and how they work in other countries in Europe and around the world, and whether there is robust evidence of a direct link to levels of cycling and KSIs.

Outcome 12: A comprehensive report on liability laws and how they affect cycling.

Action 13: To try and identify what kind of hierarchy, if any, might be established and develop an educational awareness campaign for all road users.

Outcome 13: A reduction in the rate of cyclist KSIs.

So there are a couple of action points, which suggests that something is being done with regard to fairness and liability on the roads, but by whom? A quick check of Annex 1 shows that:

  • Action 12 is the responsibility of the Scottish Government, time frame 2010-2012
  • Action 13 is the responsibility of the Scottish Government and stakeholders, time frame 2010-2012.

How far does that get us? Well, while it is the responsibility of the Scottish Government to produce a report on how liability laws affect cycling by the end of 2012, it is also the responsibility of the Scottish Government and stakeholders, to identify what kind of hierarchy there should be and campaign for awareness by all road users, if Outcome 13 is ever going to be achieved. Who are these stakeholders? Well, as I see it, the stakeholders are in effect anyone who walks (lets not forget that pedestrians are as vulnerable as cyclists and would equally benefit from increased legal protection) or cycles on Scottish roads. As everyone who lives in (or visits) Scotland, is a pedestrian at some stage, we are all stakeholders and therefore have an interest in seeing that there is a clear hierarchy of liability on the roads, with those capable of doing the greatest harm having the greatest responsibility and therefore the greater liability.

We all have a responsibility to keep up the pressure on the Scottish Government to do the right thing.

Possibly Related Posts: (automatically generated)

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!
%d bloggers like this: