Innocent until proved guilty- one of the very most basic rules we base our democracy on- everyone in the country has the right to be presumed innocent until tried and found guilty by a court… an undeniable right that preserves our freedom. Unless of course your a Truck Driver- the Green party has proposed that any accident between a truck and a cyclist - the truck driver will be deemed at fault unless they can prove otherwise, this goes against every value our justice system has and will only confirm the belief that truck drivers are second class citizens without the same rights as others. If this law is passed then who is next to have the right of presumed innocence removed. political opponents? This proposal is a travesty not just for truck drivers but for all citizens who believe in our system of justice, Innocent until proved guilty is not something you can play political games with
Agreed Rikki
But let’s face it, if it’s put forward by the Green Party, it might just as well have been put forward by the Martians Matter Party. It’s just lukewarm air. At best.
Now if it gets picked up by one of the main stream parties it might be worth chuntering about.
I’ve not heard what the Green Party (of England and Wales) specifically have said on this matter, but the suggestions of “presumed liability” I’ve heard have been only with regards to the civil (ie financial) liability. In other words who’s insurance would pay out, it is not about who would be held criminally responsible.
The suggestions are that any motor vehicle would be assumed to be responsible if a cyclist suffered damages (unless it could be proved otherwise), and in turn a cyclist would be assumed to be responsible if they hit a pedestrian. It is not specifically about HGVs.
Might get a ‘vote green’ sticker to put on the back of the wagon as a ■■■■ take. It will fit in nicely underneath the ‘if you can’t see my mirrors, don’t worry about it, I’m probably not looking in them anyway’ sticker.
Did see a vote green sticker on the back of 3.0 TDI people carrier today though.
I really, really want rid of Lib/Lab/Con but I guess this does show the looney nature of fringe politics.
To me it doesn’t matter which party suggested the idea, if it is getting an airing, or if its civil or criminal- the basic tenant remains the same we in this country hold a presumption of innocence unless proved otherwise, it is always up to the " prosecution " to prove an offence has taken place, not the defendant to prove they have done nothing wrong.
This is nothing new, the presumption of guilt until proven otherwise has been with us for a while. In fact, in some cases the right to remain silent hasn’t just been removed, remaining silent is an offence in itself. I’m talking about speeding offences of course. This “free country” of ours isn’t actually that free!
Captain Caveman 76:
This is nothing new, the presumption of guilt until proven otherwise has been with us for a while. In fact, in some cases the right to remain silent hasn’t just been removed, remaining silent is an offence in itself. I’m talking about speeding offences of course. This “free country” of ours isn’t actually that free!
Not sure where you going with this? You still have the right to remain silent- and when it gets to court the prosecution will present their evidence , if that evidence is compelling and there is no argument against (because your silent) then the court will find you guilty and sentence as such- you still are to the point judgement is made innocent , with this proposal you will be guilty the moment you walk into the court staying silent will not change the verdict as you will have to speak to disprove the allegation. Which means to have any hope of justice you have su8rrender your right to silence- and that cannot be right
all the more reason not to vote green, at the moment, i really am swaying to ukip…
It’s not about innocence or guilt of anything, though. It’s simply about which insurance policy the claim will be against.
Insurers often assume liability when there is no proof to the contrary as it is, such as 50:50 settlements where there are two conflicting stories with no evidence to prove either way, so both parties get a claim recorded on their policy.
There are no civil liberties being taken away by such proposals as it only affects your insurance policy, not your criminal record.
There are no civil liberties being taken away by such proposals as it only affects your insurance policy, not your criminal record.
I disagree most strongly - Each “event” should be looked at in its own right and a judgement made on the actions taken by all parties in that one unique event - an automatic blanket assumption of guilt is just plain and simply wrong. Under this law how long will it be until some folks throw themselves to the floor in front of a truck to claim knowing that they don’t have to prove anything.
As it stands at the moment if a driver is proved to do something wrong they are liable, and rightly so, under this law they have to prove they did nothing wrong even if every action/ non action has no bearing on the incident… how do you prove that ? you cannot turn a basic tenant of our legal system on its head.
If this ever goes ahead I am going to ride my bike down my local dual carriageway, every time a truck overtakes me I am going to fall off and suffer an injury- as the truck driver/company has to “prove” they didn’t cause me to fall off I reckon I only have to fall off my bike a couple times a week to make a good living
Cloud sodding Cuckoo land party.
This is it straight from the manifesto
Change the culture of road justice and civil compensation with a road danger reduction approach. A greater duty of care should be expected of drivers in reducing injury and intimidation of vulnerable road users. Motor vehicle drivers should be presumed liable for injuries to pedestrians and cyclists. If the casualty has contributed to the collision, compensation may be reduced, but not when the victim is a child, elderly (70+) or impaired.
• Reduce the alcohol limit for drivers to as close to zero as is practicable.
• Require newly manufactured lorries to be equipped with best practice technology to make sure that drivers are fully aware of
the presence of all pedestrians and cyclists. Pedestrian and cyclist fatalities and serious injuries when involved in collisions
with lorries are predictable, preventable and unacceptable. The technology already exists and is in use in several countries and consists of a mixture of in-cab screens linked to cameras, multiple wing mirrors and physical modification to prevent people being dragged under the vehicle. Lorries already in use must be retro-fitted with the same equipment and lorries not so equipped will not be allowed into our towns and cities.
• Reduce lorry activity and road freight volume by improving rail freight services, reducing the number of empty or partially loaded trips, and using cargo bikes for last-mile deliveries to replace some white van trips.
So who,wants to be one of the 3 million new cargo bike riders ?
Best joke in years…BUT a very very worrying to me , these people want to run your country !!!
In the Netherlands it has been like that for many years. Unless the drjver can prove that the cyclist is at fault, the driver is automatically deemed responsible.
On the other hand, everybody in the Netherlands has to have personal third party liability insurance. So even cyclists have some kind of insurance, in case they cause an accident.
F-reds:
Agreed RikkiBut let’s face it, if it’s put forward by the Green Party, it might just as well have been put forward by the Martians Matter Party. It’s just lukewarm air. At best.
Now if it gets picked up by one of the main stream parties it might be worth chuntering about.
The power already held by these nutters shouldn’t be underestimated.They aren’t green they are ideologically extreme red with a green facade.As such infiltration at all levels of government is an essential part of their MO.Which explains why they already hold way more power over government policy than their electoral mandate provides for.
Which in this case translates an an ideological hatred of motorised road vehicle use possibly with the exception of buses.In which case it will be interesting to see how such a plan is reacted to by the bus drivers unions and the Greens reaction to same.It is my guess that buses would be given special exemption from the full wrath of Green Party ‘rules’ in that case.Those ‘rules’ obviously not stopping at just the civil insurance angle on the matter.IE change the culture of ‘road justice’ ‘and’ ‘civil claims’.Although even that in itself being an obvious crash for cash scam charter.
philgor:
all the more reason not to vote green, at the moment, i really am swaying to ukip…
Realistically any vote against UKIP might as well be a vote for the Greens and their LabLibdemCon/SNP allies.
3 wheeler:
Lorries already in use must be retro-fitted with the same equipment and lorries not so equipped will not be allowed into our towns and cities.
So who do they imagine is going to pay for all these screens, cameras etc…the government? Pretty sure Joe Public won’t be happy when his cans of baked beans go up 5p each to help pay for all this stuff?!
Seems like Greenham Common Woman has become even more bitter as it shrivels up. It won’t be happy until we go back to the days before MAN discovered the wheel.
Nearly every week a cyclist is killed how many drivers end up in court?
Sounds fair to me, drivers of large vehicles should have to prove they are not only innocent but also that they have the ability to drive around more vunerable traffic.
With trial by media and tinternet your usually presumed guilty first nowadays, its not right just the current reality we live in.
I too will be taking a dive from me bike if a truck so much as ■■■■■ in my general direction.
Glen A9:
It’s not about innocence or guilt of anything, though. It’s simply about which insurance policy the claim will be against.Insurers often assume liability when there is no proof to the contrary as it is, such as 50:50 settlements where there are two conflicting stories with no evidence to prove either way, so both parties get a claim recorded on their policy.
There are no civil liberties being taken away by such proposals as it only affects your insurance policy, not your criminal record.
I don’t understand your point. Cyclists do not have insurance so how can this be about insurance?
It sounds like yet another form of persecution to me. I do agree with Rikki in the grander scale of things but as already said, innocent until proven guilty is slowly being eroded
Is the leader of the green party Australian?
If yes then perhaps that explains the upside down thinking …