No, not effectively. Drivers are given extreme deference by law enforcement and in lawsuits where it’s usually assumed that the victim was at fault unless video evidence exists and is immediately available, and concepts like contributory negligence are often used to reduce legal responsibility without regard for the relative damage levels. Insurance is required, but the coverage levels are low so it’s common for the people who do successfully sue often get less than they need for ongoing treatment and support.
We can’t change everything all at once but requiring more comprehensive coverage in general and especially for the most dangerous vehicles would be a good start.
> But contributory negligence should never depend on the relative damage level.
The angle I’m thinking about is that the person operating heavy equipment should be expected to exercise greater caution. If a pedestrian sets foot out of a painted crosswalk, it seems harsh to say that means the SUV driver who plowed into them is off the hook for 30% of the damages when the situation would almost certainly have avoided any injury had everyone been on foot/bike/scooter or substantially less lethal if the driver had been in a normal sedan.
Basically when I drive I’m cognizant of the fact that it’s the most dangerous thing most of us do on a regular basis. I’d like that attitude to be the default.
We can’t change everything all at once but requiring more comprehensive coverage in general and especially for the most dangerous vehicles would be a good start.