> Tightening liability for drivers, instead of letting them get away with a slap on the wrist when they kill a pedestrian or cyclists etc would probably suffice.
That really can only happen if the roads are improved enough that drivers can’t cast reasonable doubt around when an accident occurs. Like a road used as a main car route, but has lots of on street parking to obscure pedestrians and bicycles, and also has a lot of them. Yes, the car should be liable, but when the report is taken they find that the car’s view f the victim was completely obscured anyways. We have to really go Dutch on our road design before we can go Dutch on our car liability enforcement.
What do you mean by reasonable doubt? If you are in a car and you hit someone, it should be your fault.
If the road is bad, you should drive slow enough that it's not dangerous.
If you can't see anything, because there are cars parked, perhaps you shouldn't drive, or only drive very slowly. It should be your responsibility as a driver to only drive when the view ain't obscured.
When I'm eg running around with a knife, or discharging a gun and injure someone, I don't get to make excuses like the above either. Why should drivers be allowed to blame the victim or circumstances?
Again, the fact that the roads are designed so poorly for this still gives drivers too much sympathy from authorities, regulators, and the general public. It literally can happen to anyone who decides to drive at all, given that visibility is so messed up.
The ditch will heavily sanction a driver and go through a likely redesign when an accident happens. You can’t just expect drivers to do the right thing, you have to also make right things possible. The American approach of “let’s require drivers to develop precognition” is just ridiculously stupid.
The American approach is just idiotic all around. It gives plenty of plausible “accident” explanation given crappy road designs and the lack of will to fix them.
I tell my kid that it will be the car’s fault if they hit you when you are walking out into the street behind some parked cars, but even if they pay some money you’ll still be dead. This is not just about cars being liable (like seriously, get rid of on street parking if you are going to have lots of cyclists and pedestrians on that busy through fare, Seattle sucks at this).
That really can only happen if the roads are improved enough that drivers can’t cast reasonable doubt around when an accident occurs. Like a road used as a main car route, but has lots of on street parking to obscure pedestrians and bicycles, and also has a lot of them. Yes, the car should be liable, but when the report is taken they find that the car’s view f the victim was completely obscured anyways. We have to really go Dutch on our road design before we can go Dutch on our car liability enforcement.