Road Safety Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 84:"After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—"    ““DRIVER LIABILITY IN COLLISION WITH VULNERABLE ROAD USERS (1)   This section applies when recompense is being sought by or on behalf of a person who was not a person to whom in the circumstances which give rise to recompense being sought in section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (user of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks) applies, or would apply but for the exceptions from a duty to insure or give security contained in that Act or elsewhere, and the person from whom recompense is being sought is a person to whom section 143 of that Act applies, or would apply but for the exceptions from a duty to insure or give security contained in that Act or elsewhere. (2)   When this section applies, a court shall find for the person seeking recompense or on whose behalf recompense is sought, unless the person from whom recompense is sought shows that he has no responsibility for any of the circumstances giving rise to recompense being sought. (3)   The court may make reduction in recompense if in all the circumstances of the case (including the age and any physical, sensory or mental disabilities of the person seeking recompense or on whose behalf recompense is sought) it considers it just to do so and shall in any case not make any reduction in recompense if recompense is sought on behalf of a person under ten years of age at the time of the first event giving rise to recompense being sought.”” The noble Lord said: The amendment concerns driver liability in collisions with more vulnerable road users. It is pretty obvious to say this, but if a motor vehicle hits a pedestrian, a cyclist, an equestrian or a disabled person the non-motorised user is much more likely to be injured than the driver. As I said earlier today, the figures are something like you are on average 18 times more likely to be injured if you are not in the vehicle. It ought to mean that drivers have a greater duty of care for non-motorised users and their safety. But this is not currently recognised in law. The current civil liability system requires negligence to be proven, which is of course often impossible for pedestrians and cyclists when they have been killed or injured. My argument is that the law on driver insurance schemes should be amended so that non-motorised road users will be able to claim injury damages from   drivers who hit them unless it can be shown that the non-motorised road user behaved recklessly. In deciding this, the person’s mental and physical ability should be taken into account so that groups such as children and people with learning difficulties and disabilities would normally obtain damages in any event. Drivers would not, however, be criminalised under these proposals. These proposals are in line with laws already in place in other European countries. Every month or two I take my bicycle to Paris or Brussels on business and I pedal around the cities. I know that you must keep to the right; I can cope with that. My impression is that it is much safer to ride a cycle in those cities than it is in London, where I am used to cycling. Drivers give cyclists more space and give way to them when they have the right of way. I have talked to quite a few cycling groups about the matter, and I am persuaded that the reason for the difference is that drivers in those countries understand that they will be seen to be guilty if they hit a cyclist or pedestrian while driving without due care. It will be interesting to hear what my noble friend says, as the amendment would make a major contribution to redressing the balance between the road user in a motorised vehicle and others such as pedestrians and cyclists, who have an equal right to use the road. I beg to move.