Skip to main content

'Might makes right' versus 'duty of care' on the roads

'Who should be liable in road crashes involving bicycles?'. That's the question I posed over at Cycling in Singapore blog this morning.

In many low-income or middle-income countries the road culture norms dictate that 'might makes right'. Small vehicles learn to get out of the way of the larger ones and the largest vehicles tend to barge their way through (more carefully perhaps than it seems at first glance... but they do seem to expect others to make way).

However, in several European countries and in Japan, large road users are expected to exercise a strong duty of care for the more vulnerable ones. So in the Netherlands for example, it will almost always be the motorist who is held primarily responsible in a crash with a bicyclist, even if the motorists broke no road rules. Does that seem crazy to you?

Bicycles and scooters in Shanghai.
It probably does seem strange if you live in the UK, the US or in almost any Commonwealth country, such as Singapore. In these places, a motorist must be proven negligent or in violation of the road rules to be held responsible for compensating the other party in a crash.

The Netherlands approach is based on the so-called 'strict liability' principle.  Pedestrians or cyclists who are struck by a motor vehicle can claim for compensation from the motorists' insurance company without having to prove any negligence by the driver.

According to Tokyo by Bike a similar policy applies in Japan:
In the event of an accident, when the enforcement of the law actually kicks in Japan attributes blame to the larger party. In a car against bicycle bout, the driver of the car is automatically at fault even if the cyclist was riding the wrong way down a one way street holding their umbrella while listening to their iPod. When a cyclist injures a pedestrian the cyclist is at fault, and the person deemed to be at fault covers the medical expenses of the other party.
Does your country apply a 'strict liability' approach to road crash compensation? Maybe it should? 
Check out a little more on this at the post on Cycling in Singapore (where there is also a video from a UK campaign for this law reform).

Comments

  1. In Massachusetts, pedestrians always have the right-of-way, which means that motorists are at fault whenever there is an accident with one. In Connecticut, the pedestrian is presumed to be at fault unless he or she is crossing within a legally sanctioned crosswalk, when the traffic light is red. We have the CT DOT spokesman here claiming that pedestrians are at fault in most cases, as a result, instead of recognizing pedestrian's right to expect a safe traveling environment.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In the Philippines, there are lots of careless and irresponsible pedestians, cyclists and motorcycles. Any if you're driving your car and hit one, you are sure to accused and pay all of the medicals. And I feel this is unfair! There should always be an investigation who's at fault.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Podcasts on urban mobility and urban issues: a LONG list

Here is my list of podcasts on urban mobility and urban issues.  Please use the comments to send tips or corrections. If you are not yet a regular podcast listener, you need to  download a podcast-listening app to your phone, tablet or desktop and subscribe to the podcasts that interest you  (it's free). UPDATE 1: This list has many podcasts but obviously I hope you will try mine!  They are  Reinventing Transport  and  Reinventing Parking . UPDATE 2: I have added FOURTY THREE  more since this was first published.

Transport-based City Types and their Trajectories

I want to help you get perspective on your city and its transport system with the help of simple city types based on their dominant transport modes, such as Walking Cities, Transit Cities, Bus Cities, Motorcycle Cities and Car Cities. This way of thinking about cities is a  heuristic  (an imperfect mental model or technique that is nevertheless good enough to be helpful). And it obviously is imperfect. For example, real cities often have various modes of transport, and modern cities are really all some kind of hybrid city type. But it is still useful, especially if we add the idea of a Traffic Saturated City , which is a very different beast from a Car City. It is important for change-makers in Traffic Saturated Cities to be aware they are not in automobile dependent cities yet. Options for digesting this:  Read the brief article below and study the diagrams. They complement the podcast.  For more depth, LISTEN to the 37 minute audio with the player above.  A full transcri

Ending parking minimums - why, where, who, how

Parking minimums are under siege and it's a very good thing.  Most buildings in most cities and towns across the globe are required by law to provide plentiful parking. But parking minimums are a huge mistake. Click here to learn how to subscribe to the podcast. These parking minimums are put in place for understandable but muddle-headed reasons. Parking minimums (also called minimum parking requirements or norms or standards) do not in fact solve the on-street parking problems they are supposed to solve. Instead, they cause immense harm by worsening car dependence, hindering infill development, undermining walkable neighborhoods, blocking transit-oriented development, and by making real-estate, including housing, less financially viable and less affordable. Abolishing parking minimums is not a panacea. By itself, it doesn't necessarily reduce the parking that developers provide in car-dependent locations. But, among its many benefits, eliminating minimums doe