My Lords, I added my name to one of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, because I was struck by the briefing that we received from the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, to which the noble Lord has just referred. Other people who have been in correspondence with us have highlighted the fact that non-motorised road users, such as cyclists and pedestrians—one can think of many others; horse riders, for example—are already physically the most vulnerable on any road. Their vulnerability will be compounded in future by their legal disadvantage in relation to insurance unless this Bill is very clear.
This is not like a vehicle-to-vehicle accident. If my vehicle hits your vehicle, in normal circumstances we will be insured. The situation is dealt with by lawyers acting for insurance companies, which operate via clear rules. Because of the information they hold, automated vehicles should make things clearer. They will have recorded the information showing exactly what has happened; we will no longer rely on individual drivers’ responses.
However, when a vehicle hits a pedestrian, that pedestrian would not normally be insured as a pedestrian and would undoubtedly be unaware of their legal situation and, in most circumstances, of their legal rights. They could be in a position where they are too
young or too badly injured, for instance, to be able to take the appropriate action at the time. So it is very important that this Bill is absolutely clear about the situation.
The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers raised the specific issue of Section 2 of the 2018 Act, which allows people who are injured by an automated vehicle when it is driving itself to make a claim against the driver’s insurance. This provision is now included here. If the Bill is passed, this section will apply to automated vehicles if they are travelling while an authorised automation feature of the vehicle is engaged.
7.15 pm
To benefit from this provision, injured people will need to know, and prove, that an authorised automation feature was engaged, and that the car was driving itself, when the incident occurred. The association makes the point that this might not be easy. It could mean that additional investigations are needed during a legal claim to find out what mode the vehicle was being driven in, which could make a legal claim complex and delay the payment of compensation. This would undermine the very purpose of Section 2 of the 2018 Act, which was introduced after the Government recognised the complexity of claims against vehicle manufacturers.
This is an important set of amendments, and it is essential that the Government look again to clarify precisely where the balance of power—if I can put it that way—should lie.