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 bill on Road Safety Bill [HL].
Road Safety Bill [HL]
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.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 673 c518
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Accidents Driving Injuries Insurance Prosecutions Negligence Pedestrians Standards Safety Roads Road signs and markings Speed limits Road traffic offences Rural areas Vehicles
- Legislation
- Road Safety Bill (HL) 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
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