Drivers face ban for drinking a pint

[Zaytsev]

That's right. If the driver is using the speed limit as a target rather than driving at a speed at which he or she can stop if a pedestrian walks into the road (which is not illegal, the pedestrian always has the right of way) then the driver has hwon themself to be incapable of operating a vehicle safely and should never drive again.

 

The fact that you automatically try to blame the pedestrian is telling, that's why we need Strict Liability in this country, where the motorist is assumed at fault in civil claims rather than the burden of proof resting with the vulnerable party.

 

This rule would apply all the way down the line, the operator of the larger vehicle is assumed at fault so if a cyclist hit a pedestrian the cyclist would be assumed at fault.

 

Meanwhile back in the real world............

 

The fact that you always blame the driver is telling.

[spindrift]

Meanwhile back in the real world............

 

The fact that you always blame the driver is telling.

 

The driver would not always be blamed.

 

This is factually inaccurate and creates animosity towards cyclists.

 

The proposed Strict Liability legislation will always allow a driver the chance to prove a cyclist's guilt.

 

Equally a cyclist who hits a pedestrian would be presumed guilty but will have the chance to prove otherwise.

 

Argue with what I say, not your random misinterpretations.

[Paul2412]

The UK is one of only 2 European countries without Strict Liability.

 

The experience if the countries that adopt the law is the roads get safer so premiums fall. Fewer people get hurt and drivers save money.

 

I'd like you to point me in the direction of a nation where:

 

a) Upon investigating an RTA involving a pedestrian, the driver of the vehicle is immediately banned for life regardless of who is at fault

b) Upon attending an RTA, the authorities assess which is the larger vehicle and immediately arrest the driver

[spindrift]

I'd like you to point me in the direction of a nation where:

 

a) Upon investigating an RTA involving a pedestrian, the driver of the vehicle is immediately banned for life regardless of who is at fault

b) Upon attending an RTA, the authorities assess which is the larger vehicle and immediately arrest the driver

 

Strict Liability has nothing to do with criminal law.

 

Here:

 

Government advisors are considering making car drivers' insurance companies legally liable for compensating pedestrian and cyclist victims of road crashes.

 

Widespread press reports have been arousing anti-cyclist sentiments as motor vehicle lobby groups mistakenly claim the change means drivers would automatically be considered at fault.

 

The changes, only affecting civil law cases, would make the most powerful vehicle in a collision liable, which would also make cyclists liable to pay compensation if they hit a pedestrian.

 

LCC has repeatedly lobbied for this law change, bringing it to the attention of national and regional government for over a decade.

 

The proposed system known as 'Strict Liability' is based on the principle that anyone who uses a vehicle that might become a dangerous object in a collision, should be liable to compensate for any injuries arising from the use of that vehicle on the road.

 

Strict Liability rules apply in the Netherlands and Germany where pedestrian and cyclist casualty rates are much lower than in Britain. These rules encourage road users to adopt a dute of care for others. Without them victims are often left with no resources to pay for rehabilitation after a crash.

 

Change to encourage more walking and cycling

The move is one of a raft of measures being considered to encourage more walking and cycling in the UK. Others include more 20mph residential speed limits, wider schools cycle training and provision for cyclists in major planning applications.

 

LCC communications officer Mike Cavenett said, "The current system isn't fair: if a pedestrian or cyclist is hit by a motor vehicle, they are far more likely to suffer serious injury than the driver or passengers. It seems reasonable that the people who use the most damaging vehicles should pay for most of the injuries caused.

 

"There is a bias against vulnerable road users which means, sadly, drivers are less likely to worry about collisions because they know they're very unlikely to be held accountable."

 

Current system biased against the vulnerable

LCC is fighting for the law to be changed so vulnerable road users can claim injury damages from drivers who hit them, unless it can be shown that the cyclist or pedestrian behaved recklessly.

 

Drivers would not be criminalised by the law change, but they would have an added degree of responsibility when driving a fast-moving vehicle in crowded city streets.

 

It is not yet clear if the government is prepared to adopt advice supporting this change in preparation of the proposed National Cycling Plan.

 

http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1525

[EmilyM]

Totally ridiculous. I should be able to enjoy a pint and then drive home as it has precisely zero effect.

QUOTE]

 

I'm sure if you hadn't eaten, and were already tired the pint would have some effect on your reaction time and judgement.

[Zaytsev]

Strict Liability has nothing to do with criminal law.

 

Here:

 

Government advisors are considering making car drivers' insurance companies legally liable for compensating pedestrian and cyclist victims of road crashes.

 

Widespread press reports have been arousing anti-cyclist sentiments as motor vehicle lobby groups mistakenly claim the change means drivers would automatically be considered at fault.

 

The changes, only affecting civil law cases, would make the most powerful vehicle in a collision liable, which would also make cyclists liable to pay compensation if they hit a pedestrian.

 

LCC has repeatedly lobbied for this law change, bringing it to the attention of national and regional government for over a decade.

 

The proposed system known as 'Strict Liability' is based on the principle that anyone who uses a vehicle that might become a dangerous object in a collision, should be liable to compensate for any injuries arising from the use of that vehicle on the road.

 

Strict Liability rules apply in the Netherlands and Germany where pedestrian and cyclist casualty rates are much lower than in Britain. These rules encourage road users to adopt a dute of care for others. Without them victims are often left with no resources to pay for rehabilitation after a crash.

 

Change to encourage more walking and cycling

The move is one of a raft of measures being considered to encourage more walking and cycling in the UK. Others include more 20mph residential speed limits, wider schools cycle training and provision for cyclists in major planning applications.

 

LCC communications officer Mike Cavenett said, "The current system isn't fair: if a pedestrian or cyclist is hit by a motor vehicle, they are far more likely to suffer serious injury than the driver or passengers. It seems reasonable that the people who use the most damaging vehicles should pay for most of the injuries caused.

 

"There is a bias against vulnerable road users which means, sadly, drivers are less likely to worry about collisions because they know they're very unlikely to be held accountable."

 

Current system biased against the vulnerable

LCC is fighting for the law to be changed so vulnerable road users can claim injury damages from drivers who hit them, unless it can be shown that the cyclist or pedestrian behaved recklessly.

 

Drivers would not be criminalised by the law change, but they would have an added degree of responsibility when driving a fast-moving vehicle in crowded city streets.

 

It is not yet clear if the government is prepared to adopt advice supporting this change in preparation of the proposed National Cycling Plan.

 

http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1525

 

Ahhhhh you're a cyclist, figures.

 

As for the LCC. LINK

[Paul2412]

Strict Liability has nothing to do with criminal law.

 

Here:

 

Government advisors are considering making car drivers' insurance companies legally liable for compensating pedestrian and cyclist victims of road crashes.

 

Widespread press reports have been arousing anti-cyclist sentiments as motor vehicle lobby groups mistakenly claim the change means drivers would automatically be considered at fault.

 

The changes, only affecting civil law cases, would make the most powerful vehicle in a collision liable, which would also make cyclists liable to pay compensation if they hit a pedestrian.

 

LCC has repeatedly lobbied for this law change, bringing it to the attention of national and regional government for over a decade.

 

The proposed system known as 'Strict Liability' is based on the principle that anyone who uses a vehicle that might become a dangerous object in a collision, should be liable to compensate for any injuries arising from the use of that vehicle on the road.

 

Strict Liability rules apply in the Netherlands and Germany where pedestrian and cyclist casualty rates are much lower than in Britain. These rules encourage road users to adopt a dute of care for others. Without them victims are often left with no resources to pay for rehabilitation after a crash.

 

Change to encourage more walking and cycling

The move is one of a raft of measures being considered to encourage more walking and cycling in the UK. Others include more 20mph residential speed limits, wider schools cycle training and provision for cyclists in major planning applications.

 

LCC communications officer Mike Cavenett said, "The current system isn't fair: if a pedestrian or cyclist is hit by a motor vehicle, they are far more likely to suffer serious injury than the driver or passengers. It seems reasonable that the people who use the most damaging vehicles should pay for most of the injuries caused.

 

"There is a bias against vulnerable road users which means, sadly, drivers are less likely to worry about collisions because they know they're very unlikely to be held accountable."

 

Current system biased against the vulnerable

LCC is fighting for the law to be changed so vulnerable road users can claim injury damages from drivers who hit them, unless it can be shown that the cyclist or pedestrian behaved recklessly.

 

Drivers would not be criminalised by the law change, but they would have an added degree of responsibility when driving a fast-moving vehicle in crowded city streets.

 

It is not yet clear if the government is prepared to adopt advice supporting this change in preparation of the proposed National Cycling Plan.

 

http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1525

 

That goes completely against your philosophy of "lifetime bans for killer drivers".

 

If you re-phrased to say "lifetime bans for killer drivers at fault through reckless or drink driving" then I'd agree with you.

[spindrift]

Cycling in Germany is very strange indeed. Drivers are super-cautious and careful. I guess it's because cycling rates are higher there so drivers may well also be cyclists so are aware of potential hazards. A day cycling on urban roads should be included as part of the driving test.

[Scozzie]

Ahhhhh you're a cyclist, figures.

 

that is a good point.

I drive past a cyclist every day.

the road is a single lane in each direction (national speed limit) lines in brownish grey bushes.

the cyclist wears dark brownish-greay clothes, doesn't wear a helmet, doesn't have lights or reflectors. (once when it was snowing, he wore light grey).

 

I call him the invisible man.

 

I would call him unroadworthy. he is hard to see and doesn't make an effort to be 'road safe'.

What happens if he is knocked off his bike? who would be to blame? a person in a car, freshly MOT'd, or an invisible, unsafe road user?

[spindrift]

You call a man you see every day the "invisible man"?