Recognised by the Highway Code, under rule 204, as amongst the most vulnerable of road users, cyclists and pedestrians don't have the physical protection of seat belts, air bags or the shock absorbing qualities of a car.

As a result, when involved in an accident, the injuries suffered tend to be more serious than those sustained by other road users.

Highway Code rule 207 describes children as being 'particularly vulnerable'. Emphasis is placed on the belief that children may not be able to judge speed and distances as an adult can. Also, children generally have less of an idea about what is dangerous and a much lower capability to assess risk.

Rules 205-209 repeatedly warn drivers to be extra vigilant for children, and to drive with extra caution when passing ice cream vans, buses, schools, parks or shops. It could therefore be argued that this places on motorists an extra duty of care, over and above that owed to other road users, and this is evident in the case law.

Child cyclists can be found contributory negligent, although the degree of care expected of children will vary with age, as will the subsequent level of contributory negligence.

Rowe v Clark (1998) – a Court of Appeal case following a 50/50 liability split, found that a boy aged 14 years and eight months was not expected to take reasonable care of himself when crossing the road. In judgment, LJ Swinton Thomas said: "Children even of nearly 15 years old do not take the same precaution for their safety as do adults."

He added: "If he had been an adult he would clearly have had to have borne a very high percentage of responsibility or blame. But he was 14 and three-quarters. The approach is, in the words of Lord Denman, 'ordinary care must mean that degree of care which may reasonably be expected from a person in the plaintiff's situation'.

The case is of interest because during appeal submissions, and accepted by the Court, a distinction was drawn between, for example, a child of 12 and one of 14, and likewise between a child of 14 and one of 16.

Russell v Smith & Anor QBD (2003) – the child cyclist aged 10 at the time of the accident emerged from a side road without giving way. He was found to be responsible for the accident, however, because he was a 'vulnerable road user'. It was deemed to be just and equitable under S.1 Law Reform (Contributory negligence) Act 1945 to only reduce his damages by 50%

Sarah Louise Miles v Paul Thomas parsons & others QBD (2000) – the level of contributory negligence attributed to a 14-year-old cyclist delivering newspapers in the morning, who moved out into the path of the first defendant's vehicle without any indication of her intention to do so, or even looking behind her, was deemed to be 20% (the balance of 80% was attributed to the third defendant, her employers)

Smith & Co-operative Group Ltd v Hammond (2010) – without looking, Smith, aged 13 at the time, cycled out across the road and into the path of a DAF flatbed lorry driven by Hammond. Hammond braked as hard as he could and swerved, but was unable to avoid the collision.

At first instance the Judge held Smith 60% responsible and Hammond 40%, however, Hammond's counterclaim for his psychological injuries was dismissed in full as the judge was unable to accept that a person of Smith's age would foresee injury to the driver of a lorry in those circumstances.

On appeal, this decision was overturned. It was found that Smith, although 13, was careless of his own safety and also that of Hammond. Hammond was not to blame at all for the accident and his counterclaim had to succeed in full.

Common tests

These cases mirror those that relate to child pedestrians where children who appear to be responsible for an accident do make a recovery of damages at some level.

The common tests applied to many of these cases was whether there was any failure to look out properly for children, and whether the motor vehicle driver was driving too fast for the conditions and circumstances – the very warnings given to drivers in the Highway Code. This does not directly equate to driving over any designated speed limit.

The age at which a child would be considered able to take reasonable care of their own safety may well vary; however, those in their teens would certainly be expected to have a higher degree of self care than younger children.

Tell us what you think

All documents should be read and used in accordance with the terms and conditions. This document is for your general information only and is not a detailed statement of the law. It is provided to you free of charge and should not be used as a substitute for specific legal advice. If you require specific legal advice please contact our helpline on 03700 86 86 86.