Working for change » Safer Streets » Stricter liability » The Benefits
The Benefits
We believe that stricter liabililty is
- fairer
- healthier
- safer
- greener
Fairer
Reduce burden on casualty. In virtually all collisions involving pedestrians or cyclists, it is them who will be injured and in need of medical treatment. All we are asking for is that the burden of proof is not put on the person who is the most likely by far to be injured and less able to give evidence.
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)
Consistent with age of responsibility. Children are not held accountable for their actions until the age of 12, and this is considered very young compared to many other European countries. We should be consistent and thus not hold children accountable for their actions on the road, until they are at the age of responsibility.
Limited investigations. Injury collision investigations are very limited. The DfT currently estimates the average cost of police resources allocated on a serious injury collision to be £250 and £60 for a slight injury collision. This covers police resources for investigation and any prosecution.
We could (and should) have better information on collision causation if we were to hold drivers accountable for their actions. Black boxes could provide information on such critical factors as travelling speed, braking, use of headlamps or turn indicators, etc. Likewise we could have designed out the possibility for drivers to exceed the speed limit or drink driver—two know contributors to collisions.
Worst case scenario better. The worst case scenario is much better under stricter liability than the current UK system. At present, a pedestrian who is injured by a negligent car driver but who cannot prove it is unlikely to get any compensation and the financial burden falls solely on the victim’s family. Under stricter liability, a negligent pedestrian injured by a car driver in a crash where there are no independent witnesses will receive compensation with the costs shared amongst motor vehicle insurance policy holders in general.
Healthier
The quicker rehabilitation is begun, the better the results. Under stricter liability, we believe that injured pedestrians and cyclists would receive get rehabilitation programmes agreed quicker. Time lag with disability would be reduced in many cases. This would also have the benefit of allowing the casualty to focus on recovery instead of proving their injuries and their debilitating effect.
Safer
We believe that stricter liability would lead to reduced risk for pedestrians and cyclists.
A DfT research study investigating why Britain had such a bad record for child pedestrian safety found that countries with better records had stricter liability.
We have yet to find any clear evidence that it has led to safer roads in other countries. This is due to several reasons. In many countries, stricter liability dates back decades, before such monitoring was conducted. In Denmark, stricter liability was introduced at the same time as several other measures aimed to improve the safety of child pedestrians so it is not possible to separate out the impact.
But stricter liability is consistent with
• Highway Code’s guidance that drivers should reduce their speed when around children, pedestrians and cyclists, and
• Manual for Streets, DfT’s publication which calls for pedestrians and cyclists to be put at the top of the road user hierarchy when designing and planning streets.
It is no coincidence that cycling campaign groups (CTC, LCC, Cyclenation, etc) all support stricter liability, as do Living Streets (formerly the Pedestrians Association) and 20s plenty for us.
Greener
Getting people out of cars and onto their feet and bikes for short trips is key to reducing transport related carbon emissions, which account for 25% of all emission and are on the increase. At present, 25% of car trips are under 2 miles and climate change campaigns all call for a reduction in motor vehicle trips.
Fear of traffic is the lead reason why more people do not cycle. Until they feel that the roads are safer, with drivers exerting a greater duty of care around cyclists, the growth in cycling will be stunted with suppressed demand due to safety concerns.
The Sustainable Development Commission has called for the reversal of the burden of proof in collisions involving pedestrians and cyclists.
And Mark Lynas, author of Six Degrees, also called for this
