Referring to the item where the city of Fontana was found "75% liable" for not
providing pedestrian facilities, in my opinion this shouldn't mean that the
motorist can only be held 25% liable.
If A and B both decide to kill C and C dies in circumstances such that the
actions of each of A and B caused the death, then I think it would be held that
they were both guilty of murder. Not each 50% guilty or whatever. The situation
described in the article is analogous.
But what about civil liability ? If I were drawing up the law I'd stick both
parties up for compensation, just compensate the relatives of the victim (or
whoever) once, and pay the balance into a safety fund. In this particular case
this would provide a ready means of financing the safety improvements required.
For similar reasons I believe that there should be a safety levy on any motorist
who causes a death or serious injury.
In the UK, incidentally, fining a local authority would lead to suggestions --
not unfounded -- that this would make it more difficult for it to fulfil its
obligations. Has this issue been raised in Fontana and Kansas City ?
On another issue, I'm glad to see members of this list taking up a position I've
often tried to promote: that traffic makes walking and cycling unpleasant even
when it isn't dangerous. Maybe we should be Gandhian and do it all the same, but
we should also demand a more pleasant alternative.