mainbeam wrote:Has anyone advocated strict criminal liability for motorists involved in a collisions with pedestrians/ My understanding is that civil liability ought to be changed to improve safety. I don't find this particularly controversial.
We were well into the 20th century before the law of negligence recognised the vulnerability of workers in the workplace and changed accordingly. It is now possible for an employer to be prosecuted for a breach of Health and Safety legislation that has not resulted in any harm and not the consequence of negligence. The law recognises that the parties do not necessarily have an equal responsibility for workplace safety.
The civil law already recognises the difference in responsibility among road users by treating fault and liability differently.
Richard Gaffney makes a reasoned argument for extending this further.
https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-ce ... vs-europe/
I think the issue is that some people (often cyclists, but not exclusively so) believe that the motorist has full and complete responsibility in the event of a collision, and that pedestrians (and in some cases cyclists) do not share any of that responsibility.
It's an extreme view that many recognise as idiotic, based on a culture of rights and not responsibilities. Yet in the minds of the misguided few it still stands. Perhaps that's why so many of them wear dashcams, it's all part of the victim mentality.
It's also worth noting that although the law recognises that the parties may not have equal responsibilities it is very clear that employees share some of the responsibility. That's really the point here, that ALL road users, including pedestrians, share some of the responsibility.