4 ms·

Having presumed liability laws sounds dreadful - you can really follow all the road rules and still be found guilty, because a "less dangerous" vehicle crosses

Having presumed liability laws sounds dreadful - you can really follow all the road rules and still be found guilty, because a "less dangerous" vehicle crosses your path and causes an accident? Australian road rules are quite reasonable - all parties have a duty to try and avoid accidents, but for example if a bicycle exits a footpath onto a lane where you have an existing right of way and hit them, they would be at fault for failing to give way, and also because any action that causes a vehicle with right of way to change their behaviour can be considered dangerous driving

CalRobert 8y ago
Presumed liability doesn't mean drivers are _always_ at fault, but it does mean that the person operating the more dangerous vehicle has a higher burden of proof. If you operate a car on a city street where you _know_ there might be kids running in to the street, then _you_ are the one introducing an element of danger, not the kid. Similarly, if you drive by a child walking down the sidewalk (pavement, walkway, depending on where you are), you should slow down to aid in stopping on the off chance that child runs in to the street. Even if it's your right of way. Similarly, a cyclist might hit a pothole and fall, etc. and the reality is that a slight scratch on your bumper will be death to them, so you have to be more careful. 100, 110ish years ago, streets were full of people walking, horses, etc. It would be ridiculous to say "well I had the right of way so I killed that street vendor in my way". But enough drivers killed enough people using the street and we decided to say it was the fault of the person using the street as people had for millenia. That, of course, makes driving less convenient - but then, cars make walking and cycling massively inconvenient and we seem OK with that. Also, for situations where you need long, uninterrupted stretches of high speed motoring, limited access roads (aka motorways) exist, and there it's reasonable not to expect pedestrians, cyclists, jaunting cars, etc.
- close04 8y ago
  > the person operating the more dangerous vehicle has a higher burden of proof. Which many times means you are basically guilty by design. Witnesses may be hard to come by and they are unreliable in all regards (memory, understanding of what happened, honesty), and unless the country accepts dash cam videos and you have one installed it means you're pretty much screwed as a driver.

CalRobert 8y ago

Presumed liability doesn't mean drivers are _always_ at fault, but it does mean that the person operating the more dangerous vehicle has a higher burden of proof. If you operate a car on a city street where you _know_ there might be kids running in to the street, then _you_ are the one introducing an element of danger, not the kid. Similarly, if you drive by a child walking down the sidewalk (pavement, walkway, depending on where you are), you should slow down to aid in stopping on the off chance that child runs in to the street. Even if it's your right of way. Similarly, a cyclist might hit a pothole and fall, etc. and the reality is that a slight scratch on your bumper will be death to them, so you have to be more careful. 100, 110ish years ago, streets were full of people walking, horses, etc. It would be ridiculous to say "well I had the right of way so I killed that street vendor in my way". But enough drivers killed enough people using the street and we decided to say it was the fault of the person using the street as people had for millenia. That, of course, makes driving less convenient - but then, cars make walking and cycling massively inconvenient and we seem OK with that. Also, for situations where you need long, uninterrupted stretches of high speed motoring, limited access roads (aka motorways) exist, and there it's reasonable not to expect pedestrians, cyclists, jaunting cars, etc.

close04 8y ago
> the person operating the more dangerous vehicle has a higher burden of proof. Which many times means you are basically guilty by design. Witnesses may be hard to come by and they are unreliable in all regards (memory, understanding of what happened, honesty), and unless the country accepts dash cam videos and you have one installed it means you're pretty much screwed as a driver.