|
Mr. Wilshire: I, too, enthusiastically support the new clause in principle. I understand my right hon. Friend's point about the drafting. One difficulty of opposition is that we do not have vast numbers of civil servants to ensure that we do not make mistakes. However, it is the principle that matters, and if we can persuade the Government that we are on to something sensible, they will no doubt get their experts to turn their minds to wording that would work in the courts.
In considering road safety and highway matters, one of my concerns is the growing menace of some cyclists. I stress that I in no way mean to suggest that every cyclist comes into this category, but there are some and their numbers are increasing. The reason why the new clause is important is that anything that persuades a few or a lot more cyclists to have lights of some sort is good. The current restriction on the lights that they can have is an encouragement not to bother.
I increasingly encounter two sorts of cyclists who annoy me. First, there are those who are utterly selfish and who, with or without flashing or other lights, cycle up and down pavements. On the occasions that I challenge them, they say that it is safer for them on the pavements than on the roads, so stuff the pedestrians whom they may inconvenience or knock over, particularly when they do not have lights. Secondly, there are the arrogant ones: those who do not think that the law applies to them. Red lights matter to motorists, but not to them, as they gaily cross them. They travel around with dark clothes and no lights, and if anybody bumps into them, it is someone else's fault.
My view is that if someone owns a bicycle and wants to commit suicide, they should jump off a cliff and get it over with, rather than go out on the roads in the dark without lights and have an innocent person kill them. Several times I have thanked my lucky stars that at the last minute I have seen a dark figure on the road in front of me who turns out to be someone on a bicycle. The number is not huge but every time that it happens, it frightens the life out of me. I could easily have knocked that person over because, with all the good will in the world, I did not see them until the very last minute. If those people want to get themselves injured, could they not do it in a way that does not make other people feel guilty or involve them in something that is not their fault?
Column Number: 301
I support anything that will encourage people to put lights on bicycles. If only we could make them wear something that makes them visible, their chances of involving other people in a tragedy would be greatly reduced.
Mr. Jamieson: This has been a short but useful debate, and I agree with almost everything that has been said. I fully understand hon. Members' desire to get peddle cyclists to use flashing lights. There is a lot of interest in this area, but my lawyers inform me that the finer points of cycle lighting are regulated under secondary legislation. The hon. Member for Taunton asked why we had not put a clause in this Bill about that. We did not because primary legislation is not needed to take the action that we want to take.
The Committee will be pleased to hear that the Department undertook a public consultation exercise, to which the hon. Member for Christchurch referred, to amend the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989 to permit the use of flashing lights on bicycles, as part of a package of amendments. Some years ago we carried out research into flashing lights and compared them with steady lights. It concluded that flashing lights neither improve conspicuity nor impair it. The result was neutral. What a wonderful piece of research to find out that they make no difference at all.
The response of consultees to the proposal was generally favourable. Two Members alluded to other sorts of flashing lights such as amber and blue. That is a far more controversial and complicated area, which we are unravelling at present. It caused quite a lot of difference of opinion in the consultation. There has been some delay, but we hope to bring forward an amendment to the lighting regulations before the summer.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) made the point more robustly than I would, but it is true that cyclists should protect themselves by being properly lit at night. A fluorescent jacket or whatever is helpful in the day, but for cyclists at night reflective strips either on their person or on their bikes are certainly a useful addition to lights.
Mr. Knight: I am grateful to the Minister for responding so comprehensively to this debate. Is he willing to share with the Committee the scope and nature of the general consultation on lighting? If he cannot respond now, perhaps he could drop me a line. Is he also consulting on the use by many motorists of hazard warning lights when vehicles are in motion, which is strictly against the law? Many motorists do so to warn others behind them of an impending traffic jam. I do not want to drag the Minister off the new clause, but it would be useful to know the scope of the consultation on lights.
Mr. Jamieson: I can drop a note to the right hon. Gentleman on that. As the Government have brought in a Freedom of Information Act, information about all these consultations could be made available. It sometimes seems as if the freedom of information was invented by the press, but it was the Government who brought in the legislation. Yes, the results will be available.
Column Number: 302
The hon. Member for Christchurch mentioned the research report from Loughborough. We have that report and we will look at publishing it. It will be made available to the hon. Gentleman, but we did not feel that it was up to publication standard.
Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the Minister. Could he ensure that the report, in its present form, is placed in the Library as soon as possible?
Mr. Jamieson: Yes, we wanted to ensure that it was up to publication standard. We can make the information available to the hon. Gentleman. We felt that it was not terribly helpful in its present form. Under the Freedom of Information Act people can access it; it is not a secret report. We try to publish things that are helpful to the general public and to the debate.
Mrs. Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op): Will the Minister expand on that a little? Is he saying that the Government are minded to implement the substance of the new clause irrespective of what happens in Committee? Is the issue still under active consideration?
Mr. Jamieson: I thought that I had made myself clear, but obviously there was a deficiency in what I said. The answer to my hon. Friend's question is yes. There was strong support for the measure in the consultation. Many other issues, not to do with cycling but to do with flashing lights, must be resolved. We want to implement the whole package. I hope that we will have it in place by the summer. The important thing is to protect cyclists and, as the hon. Member for Spelthorne said, other road users. So, we are sympathetic to the new clause, but we do not need it because what it seeks to do can be done readily by secondary legislation.
Mr. Chope: The debate has been productive. One wonders how much longer the Government would have spent wondering whether to act were it not for the debate. I shall not quibble with the Minister's timing. If the new clause were incorporated into the Bill by the time of its Royal Assent, the change would occur at about the same time as the Minister suggested it will occur through regulation. I hope that he and his Department will get on with bringing forward regulations as quickly as possible.
Mr. Wilshire: I am sure that my hon. Friend has thought this through. Either the Minister will implement the proposal before 5 May, or my hon. Friend will have a chance to do so on 6 May.
Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Where there is consensus on an issue, I do not think that we need to be fussed—the change will happen anyway. Perhaps it would even happen if there were a Scottish Nationalist party Government.
The Chairman: Is the hon. Gentleman seeking to withdraw the motion?
Column Number: 303
Mr. Chope: I withdraw that last remark first. Having done so, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 4
Causing death or serious injury by negligent driving
'(1) The Road Traffic Act 1988 (c.52) is amended as follows. After section 2A (Meaning of dangerous driving) insert—
''2B Causing death or injury by negligent driving
(1) A person who causes the death of or serious injury to another person by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle negligently on a road or other public place is guilty of an offence.
(2) A person is to be regarded as suffering serious injury if he suffers injury that is life changing or life threatening or both.
2C Meaning of negligent driving
(1) A person is to be regarded as driving negligently if he drives without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place.''
(2) The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c.53) is amended as follows.
In Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c.53) (prosecution and punishment of offences: offences under the Traffic Acts), after the entry relating to section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 insert a new entry—
Causing death or
serious injury by
negligent driving
On indict-
ment
{**c**}10 years
or a fine
or both
{**c**}Discret-
ionary
{**c**}Obligatory
3-11'
[Mr. Stinchcombe.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Stinchcombe: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause stands in my name and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman). I am delighted to inform the Minister and the Whips Office that I am no longer a disloyal rebel but a proud proponent of Government policy. I am delighted to be the first MP to be able to put on the record the fact that the Government have concluded that there should be a new offence of causing death by careless driving, for which a prison sentence of up to five years should be available, although that sentence should not be used in every case.
| 
