Working for change » Safer Streets » Stricter liability » Supporters
Supporters
Who else wants it?
In the present state of motor traffic, I am persuaded that any civilised system of law should require, as a matter of principle, that the person who uses this dangerous instrument on the roads—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.
Lord Denning (1982)
RoadPeace was not the first organisation to call for such civil law reform. In 1978, a Royal Commission recommended that road crash casualties should benefit from a social insurance system that allowed them to be compensated for any injury from a road collision without the need to fight for this in court. But this was not approved. Thirteen years later, in 1991, the Lord Chancellor proposed a limited no-fault system but this too was also not accepted.
In 1998, the Environmental Law Foundation published Options for Civilising Traffic, which argued the case for stricter liability as a way of reducing the risk of traffic injury to children.
CTC (the Cyclist Touring Club) has been a strong supporter of stricter liability, which they refer to as ‘driver liability’. On behalf of the Safer Streets Coalition (which RoadPeace was a founder member), they coordinated/organised the proposed driver liability amendment for the Road Safety Bill in 1996. But this was not successful.
Other cycling organisations also support the introduction of stricter liability. This includes the London Cycling Campaign, Cyclenation, and Warrington Cycle Club.
20s plenty for us, the campaign group for 20 mph speed limits on residential roads, also supports stricter liability. Living Streets endorsed the concept in 2009 (link).
The Campaign for Protection of Rural England (CPRE) supports strict liability.
The Sustainable Development Commission
We have yet to convince PACTS (Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety) of the benefits of stricter liability. When interviewed by PACTS for their Beyond 2010 project and publication, RoadPeace argued for stricter liability and a road danger reduction approach. Neither were adopted in their Beyond 2010 publication.
