At present, the UK is out of step with Europe as one of only five EU countries (along with Cyprus, Malta, Romania and Ireland) that does not operate some form of strict liability regime for vulnerable road users. Strict liability is already established in other areas of UK law. As a consequence, our current system expects those injured or the families of those killed to go through an often harsh and protracted process to gain much needed treatment, care or compensation. On the Continent, strict liability regimes are seen as an integral factor of cycle safety and Scotland has the power to introduce this principle into civil law to demonstrate its credentials as a civilised, cycle-friendly nation. It is no coincidence that countries operating a Strict liability regime in Civil Law are often those with safer roads for vulnerable road users.
I am sure there is. The example you used is on spot if you asked me, for if one was to just think with rational thoughts, the fact that strict liability on roads within both the civil and criminal situations has a accessible to responsibility of one's action, taking the burden off of the victim in the case. Although it's true that every legal theory in a given province is at least a little different, but the main thought should be, in the objective setting, of course strict liability is much better, and presumed liability is a harmful idea of law and response to disputes.
I had not heard of this idea before you posted this question, so I googled the question and see that Scotland has a number of organisations campaigning to introduce a strict liability law. I see that Lord Denning is said to have suggested 30 years ago that this should be introduced, on the grounds that the liability for any accident should be on the person in charge of the dangerous vehicle, not the vulnerable user who is injured, REGARDLESS of fault. This would be quite a change in the law, as currently UK law is set up to determine fault. This liability would also extend to cyclists who injure pedestrians, whereas currently, cyclists are not required to be insured to use the roads (or footpaths).
Regardless of fault, I am not sure if there is any objective evidence about "strict liability" making roads safer for vulnerable users in countries that apply it. The UK, including Scotland is near the top of the road safety league, although pedestrian deaths in England are higher, pro rata, than in Northern Ireland. It might thus be difficult to determine whether or not the law of "strict liability" made a difference to the number of cyclists (or pedestrian) deaths and injuries, separately from other provisions, such as separation of vehicles travelling at different speeds or provision of separate facilities or even the number of cyclists and pedestrians actually using the roads.
All countries in the EU provide road safety statistics and these are collated centrally for use. I think IRTAD may hold these (not sure). The OECD also has centrally collated statistics. This question might be a very good Ph.D. study if the NHS were prepared to fund someone to look into it.
We have a trend of cyclist fatalities per billion kilometres cycled in the Netherlands. The fatality risk has been gradually decreasing. Strict liability was introduced in the Netherlands in 1990. There is a debate about the effect: http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/strict-liability-in-the-netherlands/
The data do not show an additional decrease around 1990 after the law was introduced. Nevertheless, I agree with this policy. Cycling has many advantages and is something governments want to encourage. And to quote the above referred website: “Strict liability tries to be a fair answer to the inequity in the consequences of a crash”.
I think it's hard to identify vulnerable road users? I don't regard it as an relative concept rather an absolute one. And it should be identified by cases.However,Strict liability rules are generally applied in most continental law system.In mainland China, accoring to Road Traffic Safety Law,the viechels will shoulder at least 10 percent of damage cost because of the no-fault liability cause.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Botany
- Pharmaceutical Botany
- Plant Extracts