Originally Posted by livedarklions

Wrong, the assumption in a strict liability law is that the activity is in itself hazardous enough that there's a presumption that the activity itself requires an extremely high level of vigilance . Common carriers face strict liability for passenger harm, for example. The theory is that they knowingly take on this duty when they engage in the activity.


The assumption here would be that the operation of a massive piece of metal at varying speeds is itself such an activity. while cycling and walking is not. Given the comparative lethality to others inherent in the activity, this is an extremely reasonable allocation of liability. Cyclists do sometimes strike and kill other cyclists and pedestrians, but it's a fairly rare event, and normal rules of liability can handle them. In an automobile vs. cyclist crash, the likelihood of injury/fatality is completely asymmetrical, so it's very reasonable to assume that the cyclist already has much more incentive to avoid crashing than the driver. Thus, at a societal level, if the goal is to reduce crashes, it makes sense to impose an enhanced likelihood of civil liability on the drivers to somewhat equalize their incentives to avoid the crash.