No, we would not. It is statistically impossible for 100% of drivers to all be incompetent. And if you really thought it through, 100% of drivers includes you. Are you an incompetent driver? Hmm ...

He didn't actually say 100% are incompetent, he said they should be presumed guilty. I agree with you that that's a dumb thing to say, but it's a bad and unconstitutional idea, not statistically impossible. It's a burden of proof legal issue, not a statistical one.

Basically, Feldman just agreed with a straw man argument (definitely not a good idea). Not sure he was serious, though.

Well, in a way we already have a form of "strict liability for motorists..." they are required by law to have liability insurance for their vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists have no such similar requirement.

That's absolutely NOT what strict liability means.

I did say "in a way."

Strict liability, as discussed earlier in the thread, entailed the assumption that motorists were liable in a car/cyclist collision, or a car/pedestrian collision, and the conversation then turned to the fact that in the US we do not make such assumptions due to presumption of guilt issues.

But in the US we do also require motorists to carry liability insurance to operate a vehicle, thus we clearly recognize the potential liability issues of the automobile.

The lack of strict liability for drivers has nothing to do with presumption of guilt--you're mixing up criminal law with civil (torts) law. There's no presumption of innocence in torts law. People asserted that there was some connection earlier in this thread, but they were wrong and I told them so. There's plenty of types of tort cases where strict liability applies. In most states, for example, if you're a commercial retailer and you sell a defective product, you are going to be liable for damages regardless of whether or not you knew or should have known the product was defective. Another example--if you're an explosive demolitions outfit, you're going to be liable if the building next door to the one you demolished falls down, you're going to be liable even if the reason that building fell down from the shock of the explosion was that the building wasn't reasonably constructed. The concept of guilt has nothing to do with any of that.

Strict liability is an alternative to fault-based allocation of risk. The reason there's mandatory auto insurance is because the amount of damage that can be caused by faulty driving is too high to believe the vast majority of drivers could plausibly have the resources to cover. Without universal auto insurance, a fault-based compensation system becomes somewhat implausible. (Mind you, I live in a state that doesn't have mandatory auto insurance, which I'm not a fan of.)

You could have a strict liability system without mandatory insurance. You can have a fault-based system with mandatory insurance. They're just not the same concept.

Ahhh never debate "law" with a well reasoned attorney. SIGH. An attorney friend of mine used to always point out the potential liability issues of parties in one's home... man it was exhausting. He was never invited.

OK, we do have a presumption of guilt "illustration" in many states... but it deals with the consumption of alcohol and driving... not liability and not ROW on the roads. I only point out this existing presumption of guilt issue to bolster the notion that we DO have such "presumptions of guilt" built in... "Use a gun, go to jail" laws are another similar situation, I believe. However, Strict Liability is not one of them.

And of course as long as motorists go by the notion of "roads are built for cars," cyclists will always face the wrath of ignorant motorists.

Let's look at it this way, so we can both be right. Strict liability and mandatory insurance stem from the same root economic idea--that the activity is so hazardous to others that the cost of those risks to others need to be internalized to those engaged in the dangerous activity. In other words, the driver needs to pay the costs of insuring the pedestrian (or cyclist) against being hit by their car.



Now the economists on BF can take me apart!.

Did the guy actually berate the host about potentially getting sued by guests? Yeesh, leave it at the office, dude. Besides, that's what homeowners insurance is for.

He was always pointing things out... like talking about sliding glass doors that had no indication of being there... no flowers or spots or sticker in the doors. Or the potential for overservice or "trip hazards" such as sidewalks with a single step but no handrail, or open pool areas. Funny thing was, he was a criminal defense attorney... and actually a pretty good guy. He even served as a Judge pro tem. But his constant banter about "party liability" was just off-putting.

Of the few times being hit by a careless/reckless driver, my view on insurance claims is not going to default a certain level of trust that I will be made whole in a timely manner. Paying a healthcare provider for insurance is what I can realistically afford to protect my health in order to enjoy riding a bicycle.

Strict laws can be made, those laws can even be enforced, but until people change such poor decision making, use rational logic, & actually care about there community rather than just themselves in the community; life will continue on as it does.

Obviously, I know a lot of lawyers, and that's just weird. If anything, we usually get sick of people trying to get free advice out of us at parties. Was he selling insurance on the side?

That lack of timeliness is a hallmark of a fault-based system. It's hopelessly inefficient. It also tends to overcompensate small claims and undercompensate big ones because the big cases are worth the costs of litigating to defend, while it's cheaper to just pay off the small ones.

I don't know if there's a connection between our fault-based system and our high rate of pedestrian/cyclist casualties (the US is an outlier on all of those). It might even be that the laws and the casualties are both caused by the attitudes you're describing.

As I've read here in the past & as I've concluded on my own as well, is that the United State's infrastructure is built to the motorized transportation & gluttony of shopping. Any logic for developing non-motorized thru-ways is out the window... ~ afterthought.

Nah... nothing like that... it was just his odd quirk. He was quite alright otherwise. But it was just enough to not invite him to any party we might have. (of course, perhaps that was his goal... that way he never needed an excuse to avoid a party, I suppose.) ;)