1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156 
P EDA L
Page 46
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
P 0 VI E 11
The EU is planning legislation that would penalise drivers involved in accidents with cyclists—even when the cyclists are at fault. But as Pat Hagan reports, this time round British hauliers may not be clobbered so hard by the Eurocrats.
VII! hen a 40-tonne HGV collides with a bicycle, the potential for catastrophic damage to the bicycle and its rider is considerable. Mercifully such encounters remain relatively rare in the UK, but when they do occur the risk of a fatality is among the highest for any type of road traffic accident (RTA).
According to government figures, about 20% of fatalities in RTAs involving HGVs are cyclists or pedestrians; truck drivers or their passengers account for io%.
It's this mismatch that has, for several years, worried pro-cycling lobby groups and health experts with an interest in promoting cycling as a good way to keep fit. The UK has a National Cycling Strategy designed to quadruple the number of trips by bicycle from 1996 to 2012 over the next To years—while improving cycling safety.
The safety issue has returned to the top of the agenda with the news that the European Union is considering legislation that would make vehicle drivers legally responsible for any accident involving a bicycle, regardless of who is actually to blame.
These plans, set out in the EU's Fourth Motor Insurance Directive, could mean that pedestrians and cyclists will receive compensation, even if they are the cause of an accident. The logic for this, according to the directive, is that "motor vehicles cause most accidents".
No-fault liability
This principle—called 'no-fault liability'—has been attacked by some motoring groups which fear it could tempt more drivers to forego insurance of any kind and take to the road illegally. Claims that innocent drivers will be held to ransom by litigious cyclists are accompanied by warnings that insurance premiums will skyrocket on the back of the proposals.
But following the initial uproar over the planned directive, which was published in July, some
experts now claim the UK is one of the EU states least likely to be affected by the changes.
The aim of the Directive— which is currently in the committee stage of the European Parliament and is expected to come before the full parliament in November—is to harmonise insurance rules across the EU.
But according to the London Cycling Campaign (LCC), which campaigns on behalf of cyclists, road hauliers need not fear being sued left, right and centre by money-grabbing cyclists. This is because the plans apply only to insurance, not the underlying legal liability for accidents.
Personal injury
LCC spokesman Peter Lewis points out the proposals state that all drivers must already have insurance cover for specific eventualities, including causing personal injury to a cyclist. But the proposals also make it clear that this has nothing to do with the civil liability of the pedestrian or cyclist in a specific accident, or the level of damages.
Instead, they state: "This should be governed by the applicable national legislation and the national courts." Lewis points out: "As the legal position in the UK is that the person suing has to prove the facts, the proposed EU legislation has little effect. In many EU countries the bigger vehicle is presumed responsible for any collisions, and drivers are strictly liable for personal injuries to nonmotorised road-users.
"It simply means that the current legal position stays the same," Lewis explains. "For example, a cyclist involved in a crash where the driver was at fault has to show he was at fault—but the driver has to have a certain amount of insurance to cover this potential liability."
Nevertheless, the LCC's stance is that it would like to see the law changed in the UK to make way for no-fault liability. And it says if the EU goes ahead with the plans, it will be pressing the UK government to follow suit.
"We would argue that it would be incoherent to have the proposed EU insurance in place but not have a change in the law here to reflect the general position in Europe," says Lewis.
The Association of
British Insurers (AB I) agrees that, as things stand, the plans will have no effect in the UK, but it is seeking clarification from the government that it has no plans in the long run to change existing 'fault-based' laws.
Current system
An AB1 spokesman Lomments: "The directive states that the requirement to act would be subject to legal interpretation in each country. We believe the current system does provide adequate compensation.
"But it may be more a case of bringing other states into line with us, not the other way round," he adds. "At this stage, we do not expect any impact on insurance premiums, but obviously if we moved over to that system then it would have an effect."