liability

Please note: the following is an extract from CTC's current Policy Handbook, which is undergoing revision at the moment. Our updated policy on compensation for injured cyclists / driver liability will be published here in due course.

• Driving a motor vehicle is an inherently dangerous activity which, in principle, should impose a high duty of care on drivers towards other road users.
• The risk of injury on our roads is borne most heavily by those groups who impose the least danger on others – pedestrians and cyclists, children and those with impaired mobility (we refer to these groups as Vulnerable Road Users, or VRUs).
• The need to correct for similar imbalances of power or vulnerability is recognised by the law in areas such as employment contracts, employee or public health and safety, and consumer protection. Yet traffic law makes no such provisions, and treats all road users as equals. Consequently the motorists’ duty of care towards other road users is under-recognised, both in law and more generally in public attitudes.
• In France, Belgium and the Netherlands, the legal position of VRUs is enhanced by laws which effectively mean that, in collisions between them and motor vehicles, liability for personal injury damages suffered by VRUs rests with the drivers involved, unless they can show that the VRU acted in a way that was clearly illegal and/or seriously negligent.
• This arrangement means that vulnerable road users can obtain compensation for damages without it being necessary to find a driver to have committed a tort or criminal offence, nor to attach criminal responsibility to the driver as a result. However, it reflects the fact that drivers should expect to share space with all legitimate street users (including children and other untrained VRUs) and therefore have a duty of care to drive in a way that allows for the possibility of unexpected or erratic movement by those users.
• Such a law would not (and should not) give vulnerable road users “carte blanche” to act irresponsibly – CTC would not support it if it did. However, assigning the “default assumption” of liability for personal injury damages to drivers reflects the fact that, in motor vehicle / VRU collisions, VRUs are far more likely to be injured than vehicle occupants; moreover (and consequently) they are far less likely to recall how the collision occurred with the clarity needed to be a “good witness” in court. Hence VRU crash victims often find it very difficult to obtain compensation for damages.
• This current situation regularly leads to grave injustice, far more serious than anything that could possibly result from reversing the burden of proof in such cases. To give an example, the injustice suffered by a child who cannot claim damages despite being maimed for life by a dangerous driver, because s/he cannot provide adequate witness evidence that the driver was at fault, is far greater than the injustice that an entirely blameless driver might suffer in the reverse situation – this would usually be no more than the loss of a “no claims” bonus.