"Strict liability"

[danfoto]

I've noticed a post or two on here over the last year or so in which it seems that some people are confused about the principle of "strict liability" as applied to traffic accidents in some European countries. They seem to think it means "the driver of the vehicle which collides with you is presumed to be to blame".

Well, there's an article on the BBC News site today about cycling in The Netherlands which is mainly of interest for two things. One is a table of comparisons in the way in which the inhabitants of different countries allegedly answer the question "What is your main mode of transport", and t'other is this quote ...

Accidents do still happen of course, but in the event of a collision involving a cyclist, insurers refer to Article 185 of the Dutch Road Safety Code which deals with something called "strict liability". It is often mistakenly interpreted as a law that establishes guilt. What it essentially means is the driver will usually be expected to cover at least 50% of the financial costs to the cyclist and their bike.

 

[Blew it]

I've noticed a post or two on here over the last year or so in which it seems that some people are confused about the principle of "strict liability"

Unfortunately, that's very true. Clinging to the idea that Strict Liability would help to prevent further cycling deaths is of course an act of desperation. A case of "do something....ANYTHING!"

The issue was discussed in here back in February 2012, a thread to which you contributed. In that thread, flecc posted a link to a detailed examination of Strict Liability, and it's not really the answer we're looking for.

As I said, desperately clutching at straws comes to mind.

STRICT LIABILITY, THE FACTS