| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): Does my hon. Friend agree that for single user travel, motor cycles represent an environmental benefit compared to cars; secondly, that motor cyclists are on the whole pretty responsible in their use of bus lanes; and, thirdly, that the Government themselves promised before 1997 to put motor cycles at the heart of their transport
strategies? Would it not be odd if the Government now refused to take seriously the provisions of new clause 6, so sensibly proposed by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)?
Mr. Marsden: I agree with my hon. Friend and I hope that the Minister will deal with that in his reply.
As I said before, I would be interested to know whether the Conservative Front Benchers have costed the enforcement of the provisions in order to transform what seems to be a good idea into a practical outcome that would reduce congestion.
Mr. Redwood: I rise to support my new clauses 4 and 6. With the oral amendment suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight)—that this should apply only to bus lanes where the traffic is moving in the same direction in and adjacent to the lane—new clause 4 makes a great deal of sense. Furthermore new clause 4 is complementary to my new clause 6. There is some overlap. For example, under new clause 4, a taxi with a passenger would automatically be able to use the bus lane, because it would be a
- "vehicle with two or more passengers".
I hope that, on further reflection after hearing my remarks, my right hon. Friend might see the advantages of my new clause 6, as the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) has kindly done. The purpose of both new clauses is, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, to make greater use of the space of a bus lane without in any way impeding the progress of the bus. The purpose of the bus lane is to allow the bus to hit faster journey times with greater reliability. I do not believe that the proposals in either new clause—certainly not in new clause 6—would in normal circumstances get in the way of achieving that.
In the case of new clause 6, I would argue that there are not only advantages stemming from greater use of the highway, but overriding safety considerations, to which I should like to draw the House's attention. The Liberal Democrats have briefly referred to them and I would have thought that they would recommend themselves to Ministers. Under the new clause,
- "cycles, motorcycles, licensed taxis and invalid vehicles"
First, there is the cycle or push bike. I believe that it is very dangerous for cyclists in busy urban areas—where bus lanes are usually located—to have to jostle between large and sometimes fast-moving buses on the inside lane and every sort of vehicle ranging from fast cars to extremely heavy lorries on the outside lane, especially on narrow highways that may not initially have been designed to have both a bus lane and a mixed-vehicle lane in the same place.
According to the highway code, cyclists should occupy the inside of the mixed-vehicle lane, which means that they are just on the outside of the bus lane. That can be an extremely dangerous position. A bus can
whistle along in the bus lane, which its driver can reasonably expect to be free. However, the driver must make the difficult judgment about whether a cyclist has the extra inches of clearance at the edge of the bus lane necessary for the safe passage of both vehicles. At the same time, the drivers of cars or lorries in the other lane might be attempting to overtake the cyclist, not realising that a bus is about to create the pressure—or pinch point—on the cyclist. That often leaves very little wobble room for the cyclist. [Interruption.] I see that the Minister is yawning, but he should appreciate the plight of cyclists in this respect. Although a bicycle may be correctly placed on the road, there may be a little overhang in the bus lane.
Mr. Jamieson: Yes, I did yawn, partly because the right hon. Gentleman is going on at such length. Unless a local authority says otherwise, cyclists are permitted to use cycle lanes. That is why I was looking a little bored.
Mr. Redwood: That is right, and if a cycle lane is provided along with a bus lane and a mixed-vehicle lane, my argument does not apply. However, there are many locations in the areas in which I travel regularly where there is no cycle lane parallel to the bus and mixed-vehicle lanes. My brief analysis of the cyclist's plight is very relevant and the Minister should listen carefully. I speak for many cycling interests outside the House. They would tell the Minister how perilous it can be to occupy the exposed—but correct—position on the highway, between fast travelling buses and relatively slow travelling other vehicles. That is where cyclists can get squeezed.
Mr. Greg Knight: Perhaps my right hon. Friend and I can shake the Minister out of his boredom. Is he aware that, in 1995, the Conservative Government gave the go-ahead for a trial in the Bristol area allowing motor cyclists to use bus lanes? A period of assessment was given to determine whether there was any detrimental effect on safety, and I understand that the safety record was excellent. Is it not now time for us to grasp the opportunity and introduce the provision elsewhere?
Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I shall come to the subject of motor cycles when I have finished talking about cyclists. New clause 6 would give cyclists the choice about where to ride. I think that most would prefer to ride in the bus lane, close to the kerb. There are fewer buses than other vehicles, and bus drivers would be aware that cyclists could be encountered there. As they approached from behind, bus drivers would be under a duty to move out around the cyclist if there was a potential conflict. Cyclists in that position would not then face the twin pressures of the mixed-vehicle lane and the bus lane at the same time.
My proposal means, however, that cyclists could be on the inside of the mixed-vehicle lane and the bus lane, if that is what made sense in the circumstances. Also, a cyclist who wanted to turn right would have to move over to the inside of the mixed-vehicle lane to complete
the manoeuvre. Cyclists would therefore have greater flexibility. They are the most vulnerable of road users, and that necessary extra flexibility would be welcome.
Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a potential problem here? Cyclists who use the inside of the designated bus lane—which I hope will include vehicles in multiple occupation—force the drivers of buses and other vehicles to move out when they want to pass. That partly blocks the mixed-vehicle lane. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is possible that the total traffic flow will slow down as a result? Has he taken that into account?
Mr. Redwood: I have taken it into account, but the problem is not major. The advantage of my proposal is that, in normal circumstances, the bus will be travelling much more quickly than the cyclist. The manoeuvre involved will therefore take only a very limited time. There will be problems in very heavy traffic, but I submit that even bigger problems will remain if this extra flexibility that I propose is not given to cyclists. The congestion incident that my right hon. Friend described will still occur, but cyclists would occupy a different position on the highway. If the highway is not wide enough to accommodate bike, bus and other vehicles—the analysis offered by my right hon. Friend—it will not be wide enough to accommodate bus, bike and other vehicles, which is the disposition covered by my new clause. I think, therefore, that my right hon. Friend's point is not strong: the case is neutral, because both analyses reveal that a problem is created when a highway is too narrow to accommodate a bus lane and another lane.
4.30 pm
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire has indicated that motor cycles are a different case. The extra flexibility would be a good idea for them, because we have all experienced motor cyclists weaving in and out of heavy traffic to get to the front of the queue and optimise the power and relative thinness of their machines compared with other vehicles. Giving motor cyclists the choice between the bus lane or the multiple-occupancy vehicle lane would probably help to minimise incidents in which they collide with wing mirrors or other parts of vehicles in the multiple-occupancy vehicle lane.
Motor cycles would not get in the way of buses because in practically every case they have better performance than buses and obviously keep themselves well out of the way, normally by accelerating away from contact. Such flexibility would be an added welcome freedom for motor cyclists and would reduce conflicts between them and other vehicles. They are currently crowded into the multiple-occupancy vehicle lane and cannot get into the bus lane to get free of other vehicles, which might reduce collisions as bus lanes tend not to be used and are more likely to contain free space for motor cyclists.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |