"NON AIRGUN NEWS" Drivers may be presumed liable if a child is hit
DRIVERS who knock down children should have to pay compensation even if the victim ran out without looking, according to a report commissioned by the Government.
The motorist would be assumed to be responsible in civil proceedings for any collision involving a child in a residential area. Bereaved parents could claim compensation from the driver’s insurers and he would lose any no-claims bonus.
NI_MPU('middle');The driver could avoid being held responsible only if he could prove that he had taken every reasonable step to avoid the collision.
Complying with the speed limit would not be a sufficient defence because the driver should have realised that there was a possibility of a child running out and reduced his speed accordingly.
Britain has the best overall road safety record in Europe but one of the highest death rates for child pedestrians. In 2002, 79 pedestrians aged under 16 were killed and 2,800 seriously injured.
The Department for Transport commissioned a group of academics to study road safety policy in other European countries and identify any measures that might save children’s lives.
The study found that the two countries with the lowest child pedestrian death rates, Sweden and the Netherlands, had laws that assumed the driver to be responsible in collisions with children. Germany, which had the fourth lowest rate, had a similar law.
The study recommended that the Government should consider introducing the same principle into English law.
Nicola Christie, senior researcher in public health at Surrey University and the lead author of the study, said: “While it goes against the grain to assume guilt unless it is proven, this law could help to reduce deaths and injuries because drivers would be more careful.”
The Dutch law was set in 1988 in a case involving a 13-year-old girl who cycled suddenly out of a side road and was hit and seriously injured by a car that had priority on a main road. The Dutch Supreme Court ruled that children under 14 could not be expected to observe traffic rules and ordered the driver to pay all the damages and costs.
Willem Vermeulen, safety researcher at the Dutch Traffic Department, said: “This law has had a psychological effect in making drivers more aware of the vulnerability of children. If they see a ball bounce into the road they have to assume that a child will run out after it. They know that if they hit a child, practically the only excuse accepted is that the child voluntarily threw itself under the car.”
Mr Vermeulen said that the law had initally been met with furious protests by Dutch motorists. “But our society has now widely accepted that drivers need an extra burden because of their powerful position in traffic. The current debate is whether to extend the law to children over 14.”
Zoe Stow, head of RoadPeace, the charity that supports those bereaved and injured by road crashes, said that too many drivers were able to escape responsibility for collisions because of the lack of witnesses: “The driver can easily blame the child because the child may be dead and unable to defend itself. We need to change the burden of proof so that fewer drivers get off scot-free.”
Rob Gifford, director of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, said: “Some drivers may be forced to pay out when there was no fault at all on their part. But that is an acceptable price to pay for civilising our streets.”
Andrew Howard, the AA’s head of road safety, said that the law would push up every motorist’s insurance costs but he doubted it would do much to change drivers’ attitudes. A DfT spokesman said: “We will consider this, but it would require quite a radical shift in the law.”
__________________
If you are ashamed to stand by your colors, you had better seek another flag
|
