ADUK Archive

Angus wrote:A less serious view....

http://sniffpetrol.com/general-election ... Ujrm010y71

Actually not, for it reveals that in our world of "environmental concern", all political parties don't have a fecking clue when it comes to how to organise the economy, the desires of the population in terms of lifestyle and, most important to the political parties, how to reconcile all these issues to get elected to power.
It's a mess.

Ancient wrote:

MGF wrote:I can't see reversing the burden of proof when the standard is the balance of probabilities having a significant effect on the chances of being found at fault. This isn't likely to have the effect its supporters appear to think it will have.

What effect do you think its supporters think it will have?

That drivers will drive more carefully. Reversing the burden of proof is not the same as strict liability. I'm not convinced strict liability would have much effect on driving standards. Perhaps if it was applied to the offence of careless driving.

MGF wrote:That drivers will drive more carefully. Reversing the burden of proof is not the same as strict liability. I'm not convinced strict liability would have much effect on driving standards. Perhaps if it was applied to the offence of careless driving.

Certainly they are not the same thing, it is largely the opponents who argue that they are. Strict liability will not of itself change the attitude of juries, a CPS and certain police forces who believe that driving into a correctly lit cyclist who is positioned correctly directly in front of the driver, because you "didn't see him" is not careless (and is in fact a perfectly good excuse, after all she wasn't speeding).
Any effect on driver's attitudes would be limited to how it affected the insurance premiums of those who habitually drive too close to cyclists; a low level, perhaps subliminal effect perhaps and certainly not enough on its own to make our roads safe for all.