Summer Adjournment

Martin Caton Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Martin Caton (Gower) (Lab)]

According to a European comparative study of children’s exposure to accidents conducted in 2005, the fatality rate for child cyclists in the most vulnerable group—10 to 14-year-olds—was found to be around five times worse in the UK than in the Netherlands and Sweden. Every year about 50 cyclists are killed in collisions with cars. Many more are badly injured.

For health and environmental reasons, there is a consensus across the House and the country that we need to encourage more people, including children, to take up cycling. It is incumbent on us, therefore, to consider how we can improve the cyclist safety record in this country, hopefully bringing it into line with other European countries. A good starting point is to look at the difference between our country and countries such as Sweden and the Netherlands. I am sure there are several differences, but one thing stands out. Here in the UK, if a cyclist or pedestrian is injured or killed in an accident with a motor vehicle, it is for the victim or the victim’s family to prove that the driver of the motor vehicle was negligent. In Europe, we share that approach only with Ireland, Malta and Cyprus.

In every other European country, stricter liability applies for insurance purposes. Under stricter liability, which reverses the burden-of-proof balance, it is for the driver to prove that the cyclist or pedestrian was negligent and therefore caused or contributed to the accident. As Lord Denning said, as long ago as 1982:

“There should be liability without proof of fault. To require an injured person to prove fault results in the gravest injustice to many innocent persons who have not the wherewithal to prove it.”

I believe that adopting stricter liability in this country for road accidents would be an important step forward for justice and, more importantly, would save considerable numbers of vulnerable people from injury and even death.

A report produced for the Department for Transport in 2004, “Children’s traffic safety: international lessons for the UK”, attributed at least some of the differences in the safety record here, as compared with other European countries, to the law of stricter liability in those countries. The evidence points to the fact that stricter liability has the psychological effect of making drivers more aware of the vulnerability of children, cyclists and pedestrians. That is what the 2004 study concluded and it is also the conclusion of many cyclists who have experience of cycling in this country and on the continent. My constituent, David Naylor of the Swansea Wheelwrights cycling group, who first raised this issue with me, is one such person. He wrote informing me that he has toured in the UK, the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Austria and Switzerland. He went on to say:

“This has made me aware of how much safer one is over there. Motorists treat cyclists and pedestrians with respect. The better infrastructure helps but my judgement is that the existence of stricter liability is more important”.

When I took that up with the Department for Transport earlier this year, the Minister replied: “Even if there were some benefit for road safety such benefit would need to be weighed against the disbenefit which might result from overturning the well established and effective law that applies in civil liability.” Personally, I think that road safety should trump legal tradition every time.

We would not be revolutionising British law if we applied stricter liability in these cases because it is already part of our civil law on workplace health and safety incidents and on product liability. It is even in the field of motor insurance already, as it applies to car passengers. Extending it to protect cyclists and pedestrians makes sense and I urge the Government to give serious consideration to making the necessary changes even if the insurance industry does not happen to like the idea.