Quote:
|
#1 - I hope I am misinterpreting what you mean by this, as it is straight-up ridiculous. I had to google this to make sure it was as stupid as it seemed to be. Every single reference to it that I could find was from some hipster blogger who argued that cars should be deemed at fault automatically because they are bigger. They then tried to argue that it wasn't any different from strict liability offences (which is also horse####).
|
Well, clearly I hit a nerve on this one.
Presumed liability is about the assumptions lawyers and insurance companies start with. The idea is to protect vulnerable road users by reminding the less vulnerable to exercise care, not to give cyclists free reign over the streets. It's like the NHL's rule of "if you can't find evidence to overturn, the call on the ice stands" — you still look at the video footage to get the call right.
Under presumed liability, in a collision with a cyclist, the motorist is assumed to be liable for injury, damages or loss,
unless they can demonstrate otherwise. Same thing if a cyclist hits a pedestrian: barring evidence to the contrary, the cyclist is considered liable.
Presumed liability also recognizes that vulnerable users are more likely to have more severe injuries in the event of a collision (and no insurance). Under the current framework, even if the cyclist dies, motorists usually get away with a small fine:
http://globalnews.ca/news/3520368/gl...e-for-drivers/
Nearly every country in Europe already has presumed liability including Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, and France. Here's how it works in the Netherlands (note that drivers are not always held 100% responsible):
I'm not saying it's a silver bullet. But if there's a panel looking at legal frameworks to improve cycling safety in our province, presumed liability should at least be on the table.