Originally Posted by
indyfabz
Too simplistic. YOU are driving along lawfully. A deer jumps out of the woods, flies through your windshield and bashes in your face, knocking you unconscious and causing you to lose control and strike a cyclist who is riding lawfully on a shoulder and who is otherwise in compliance with all applicable laws. Or YOU have a sudden heart attack, stroke or other debilitating medical emergency, having no previous signs of any such event happening. Same result: Dead cyclist. YOU are negligent? What should be YOUR criminal sentence? How much should YOUR insurance premium rise because of YOUR negligence?
Both parties can be exercising reasonable care under the circumstance (which is what the law of negligence requires) and "it" can still (and does) happen.
I guess if you don't drive it's attractive and easy to suggest a liability framework like you propose. But everyone who does better think about the potential consequences to themselves before they back something like that.
Dunno, Japan has assumed liability and seem to cope very well. Nice place to ride because of it. Makes everybody focus on what's going on. As a cyclist if I hit a pedestrian I'm going to be in big trouble, big fine or even jail. So I'm careful around them. Car driver hits me, they are in Doo Doo. Truck drivers just watch out for everyone else. Of even there, if there is evidence of gross negligence on behalf of the smaller vehicle then liability is extinguished. But gross is defined as something like a combination of riding at night with no lights, drunk and running a red light.