4 ms·

I know there is such a thing as mixed liability, that's pretty common in civil court systems isn't it? I don't see what point you're trying to make with it. Yo

I know there is such a thing as mixed liability, that's pretty common in civil court systems isn't it? I don't see what point you're trying to make with it. You didn't really answer the questions I was asking OP for either. Japan puts a large onus on drivers but appears to have backed off from some of it? That is actually interesting though, why did they change?

rtpg 4y ago
Well my point is that there's a lot of mixed liability things baked in, so there are many many many many things that can make a driver liable, because there's not this fear of "what about in this extenuating circumstance X???" The change is mostly around making rules more strict for cyclists, as cyclists... well, they also pose a danger to pedestrians! There is a pretty famous case of a cyclist hitting an old lady and killing her. Some people moving here get annoyed because a lot of times the liability split ends up being 90% driver/10% victim, because there are technicalities, but generally speaking even for pretty "egregious" behavior from pedestrians the driver is ultimately expected to be doing their best. Things like "but there was a blind corner, how could I know somebody was going to ride from that corner" hold no water because drivers are supposed to slow down in those cases, for example. I don't know the state of liability in the US but I imagine it's a bit less victim-friendly.