Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
Does UK law sufficiently protect cyclists on the UK’s roads? Stuart Kightley, head of Osbornes’ personal injury department, comments on the current lack of legal protection for cyclists in the UK compared to other European countries—and says the involvement of a cyclist in an accident should be an aggravating feature in terms of sentencing for those offences.
Before it’s here, it’s on Lexis®PSL. Click here to take a free trial.
Offences of causing death or injury on the roads are not victim-specific, so a cyclist gets no different treatment under the law to a vehicle occupier or a pedestrian.
Where a cyclist is injured in a road accident they need to prove fault and causation against the other party, and where this is difficult because the victim is seriously injured or killed, then the burden of proof may not be satisfied. This contrasts
with the system in many other European countries, where there is a rebuttable presumption of fault against a motor vehicle driver involved in an accident with a cyclist.
Cyclists do have the benefit of special rules on road layout, markings and signage, but those rules are not well observed or enforced. For instance, it is an offence to drive in a cycling lane or to stop beyond an advanced stop line (the box for cyclists
at many junctions) but most cyclists would say these rules are breached by motorists without penalty on a daily basis.
The Highway Code includes a 23-paragraph section, Rules for Cyclists, but only three paragraphs in the ‘Road users requiring extra care’ section relating to cyclist protection, and those paragraphs refer equally to motorcyclists. It is
true that other sections include some guidance to motorists about cyclists, but the overall impression is that the Code underplays the vulnerability of cyclists on the highway and gives them inadequate protection.
There should perhaps be a dedicated section in the Code devoted to advice about how to treat cyclists on the road, about cycling infrastructure and specific risks and dangers. The Highway Code part of the driving test would include this section, so
promoting improved driver awareness.
The All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group (APPCG) has consistently questioned whether the legal system provides adequate protection for cyclists. What has informed this suggestion of inadequacy?
The APPCG is conducting an inquiry, Cycling and the Justice System, which opened in January 2017. Its investigation seems to be prompted by the perception that cycling is too dangerous (61% of respondents to 2013 British Social Attitudes Survey agreed)
and by the common complaint that the law is not doing enough to help.
Other European cities are seen as very much more cyclist friendly than those in the UK. That is probably due to a combination of better infrastructure, with effective segregation between cyclists and motorists in many places, and a more supportive
legal system, with strict or presumed liability. This means that where a cyclist is injured in a road collision with a motorist, the law presumes that the motorist was at fault. That presumption can be rebutted by evidence that proves that the
accident was caused by the cyclist. As a result, most cyclists injured on the roads of Europe are entitled to be compensated, and no doubt motorists are encouraged to be more careful around cyclists.
Some work has been done recently in this country, especially in London, to improve segregation, and the London Mayor recently announced measures to reduce the well-known dangers to cyclist safety posed by lorries in the capital (see Mayor’s measures to tackle dangerous lorries in London) but law reform is probably needed to effect a change in attitudes towards cyclist safety.
Reform in relation to prosecution and sentencing decisions is another area being looked at by the committee, and there is a case for imposing stricter penalties on those whose careless or dangerous driving causes injury to cyclists. The involvement
of a cyclist in an accident should be an aggravating feature in terms of sentencing for those offences, creating a better deterrent effect.
Some of the links in the article require a Lexis®PSL subscription, click here for a free trial to access.
Interviewed by Nicola Laver. The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234