Of course, I share the concerns about vulnerable road users. We insist that motorists have third-party insurance in order to make necessary recompense when they are at fault in an accident, but I cannot see how my noble friend can argue that an innocent motorist should be liable. That seems to destroy the concept on which our law is founded.
Furthermore, I am not sure that the amendment would encourage road safety. The likelihood is that it would encourage greater recklessness on the part of those who could never in any circumstances be found at fault because they are defined by my noble friend as the innocent party. Instead of the courts being able to look at the incident, take account of all the factors concerned and reach a judgment, a judgment would already have been made against the motorist, in any circumstances, in favour of the other party. I do not think that that is tenable.
Road Safety Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Davies of Oldham
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 4 July 2005.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Road Safety Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
673 c518 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:54:10 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_261010
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_261010
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_261010