What if a law creates a dangerous situation?

Question

In Saitama (not sure of city or prefecture) they created a law that if a cyclist rings a bell at a pedestrian then they can get a 10000 yen fine. So if you are a cyclist and you down a pedestrian because they don't know you are there because you are scared of the fine so you don't ring your bell to let them know you are there and some pedestrians (or are children) erratically move so they might move too suddenly close to the path of your bicycle for you to stop in time. Who is liable if compliance with law leads to damage or injury?

Answer 1

Not a full analysis, but a framework for thinking about it:

Like the French Civil Code, the Japanese Civil Code only has a single provision on tort liability. Article 709 of the Civil Code states: "A person who intentionally or negligently violates the rights of others shall be liable for the loss caused by the act."

Tort law was gradually developed largely based on case law, including cases on pollution. Statutes outside the Civil Code also regulate specific types of torts, such as the Law on the Compensation of Losses arising from Car Accidents enacted in 1955, the 1973 Law on the Remedies of Harm Caused to Human Health by Pollution, or the 1994 Law on Product Liability.

In a 1990 article, Takao Tanase posited that the calculated structuring of governmental and legal processes, not a cultural propensity toward harmonious social relations, accounted for the persistently low litigation rate in Japan. In Japan in 1986, fewer than 1% of automobile accidents involving death or an injury resulted in litigation, compared to 21.5% in the United States. The litigation rate was low, Tanase said, because Japan provides non-litigious methods of assessing fault, advising victims, determining compensation, and ensuring payment. Non-litigious dispute resolution mechanisms, mediation services, consultation centers operated by governments, the bar association, and insurance companies. The Japanese judiciary also works hard at developing clear, detailed rules that guarantee virtually automatic, predictable, moderate compensation for most accident victims. This contrasts with the American tort system, where the legal rules concerning both liability and non-economic damages ("pain and suffering") are stated in general terms, leaving a great deal to the judgment of constantly rotating lay juries—which in turn makes courtroom outcomes variable and difficult to predict.

The result was a system that is vastly more efficient and reliable in delivering compensation than the American tort system. Tanase estimated that legal fees comprised only 2% of the total compensation paid to injured persons. In the United States in the late 1980s, according to two big studies of motor vehicle accident tort claims (not just lawsuits), payments to lawyers equaled 47% of the total personal injury benefits paid by insurers. This expense drives up the cost of insurance to the point that huge numbers of drivers are uninsured or under-insured, which means that victims of their negligent driving will get little or nothing from the tort system.

(Source)

So, getting to the question:

if you are a cyclist and you down a pedestrian because they don't know you are there because you are scared of the fine so you don't ring your bell to let them know you are there and some pedestrians (or are children) erratically move so they might move too suddenly close to the path of your bicycle for you to stop in time.

Who is liable if compliance with law leads to damage or injury?

In Japan, the person who was hurt would promptly be taken to a local hospital, quite likely by the person who caused the harm or a completely unrelated bystander. But, since Japan has national health insurance and very affordable hospital pricing even to the insurer, the economic impact of the accident, even if the injuries were serious, would be much smaller than in the case of a comparable accident in the United States.

No one would sue.

But, the bicycle rider would apologize repeatedly, and would promptly and diligently pay some moderate compensation to the person harmed. The amount paid would be a bit more than amount of the exclusively economic part of the harm (excluding health insurance payments that it was forced to make as a result of the accident) that were caused by the accident to the person who was hurt.

No one would consider the impact of the government regulation as something relevant to justice between the people who were involved in the accident. But people who saw it happen might start having discussions with people in the vicinity and influential people in local government about whether this law was a good idea.

It is possible that the law would be changed as a result of this incident and similar ones. But, it is even more likely that the police would unofficially make it known that in some circumstances they will neglect violations of this law when doing so helps to prevent an accident if the person doing so tries to be polite in the process and apologizes for doing so.

The local authorities and people informally in the area, might also, or instead, probably encourage bicyclists to call out vocally in a loud but civil voice: "Excuse me good person, I'm coming behind you", rather than ringing a bell, which would be even more effective at preventing an accident. It is quite likely that this scenario was the intended effect of the local law.