"cycling and the law" - edfoc 2016
TRANSCRIPT
“Cycling and the Law”
Prove fault
Concept of harm
– where a person is held liable not for failure to display the diligence of a reasonable person, but because they are in control of a potential source of danger to other people’s lives, health and property.
No fault liability
Industrial Revolution
Locomotive on the Highways Act (1861)Locomotive Act (1865)Lord Bramwell Powell v Fall (1880)
Advent of motorised vehicles
Gibbons v Vanguard (1908)Wing v London General Omnibus (1909)
What were our European neighbours doing?
“Betriebsgefahr”1907 - Germany
1920 – Netherlands
“Loi Badinter”1985 - France
RomaniaMaltaCyprusUKIreland
The 5 who ignore the concept of harm
Fault based system
Level Playing Field
Common Cycling Incidents
Jamie Aarons
Mark Lonnen
Fault based system - Dooring
Walter Hamilton
Fault based system - Junctions
Fault based system - Roundabouts
Alex Gibson
Fault based system - Passing
Prove fault?
Concept of harm
Presumed Liability
Who brings most harm?
“The Court has consistently imposed upon the drivers of cars a high burden to reflect the fact that the car is potentially a dangerous weapon.”
Destructive disparityLady Justice Brenda Hale
Level Playing Field?
Road Hazards
Is there hope?
Robinson v SBC
Campaigning for safer cycling in Scotland
Campaign for Presumed Liability
No country in the World has achieved both HIGH levels of walking + cycling and LOW casualty levels without presumed liability
Presumed Liability
Presumed Liability Responsibility
Legal Expense Protection
Positive Note
Q and A
www.cyclelawscotland.co.uk
cyclelawscotland
cyclelaw1