Sections 100-119
2 NOVEMBER 2005
100. Part of your thinking, as your letter of January
2005 shows, is that you thought that it would be decriminalised
enforcement here, and that is why this would be effective.
(Mr Lester) It
was certainly, as I mentioned earlier on, part of our thinking
initially. We took the decision it would be better to have a consistent
criminal procedure but it is exactly the same as the existing
procedure. There is no difference for cyclists.
101. If I could turn back to the draft code
of practice, this looks at the hierarchy of possible actions,
does it not?
(Mr Lester) Indeed.
102. Under (c)(i) it has safer cycling facilities.
In fact, one of the reasons that cyclists sometimes use the pavement
- as indeed is quoted on the London Cycling Campaign website,
which you yourself have put in - is because the road is congested.
That is not really mentioned in the draft code of practice. Indeed,
Transport for London and the London local authorities still are
not enforcing cycle lanes despite the policy of London Cycling
Campaign winning an amendment to the Traffic Management Act last
year to do that.
(Mr Lester) The
London Local Authorities currently have no powers to enforce cycle
lanes - they cannot do that - so please do not say that we are
still not enforcing them because we cannot. With respect to the
draft code of practice, in 2(c) it is meant to set out very clearly
that there is a hierarchy of actions which need to be considered
before any enforcement activity takes place. Clearly the term
"safer cycle facilities" is an abbreviation for covering
a large number of possible things, but the intention was to say
that within that section consider what could be done specifically
to enable cyclists to cycle legally in those circumstances as
a first option, rather than have enforcement as a first option.
103. The fact is that that is unlikely to happen,
is it not?
(Mr Lester) I could
not say. In some circumstances it may be very straightforward
to allow it to happen; in other circumstances it may be difficult.
The point is to say that you should be considering if there is
a way of allowing cyclists to cycle more conveniently, more safely,
legally, as first port of call rather than looking at enforcement
as first port of call.
104. But in practice the government has issued
that cyclists, for example, should be exempted from one-way streets;
and that simply is not happening.
(Mr Lester) It
is quite difficult to exempt cyclists from one-way streets. There
are particular road layout issues that need to be considered and
in not every one-way street would it be suitable for the cyclist
to be exempt.
105. It is not simply a case of not every street,
but the fact is that there is almost no progress at all in following
government guidance and dealing with these problems that sometimes
lead to cyclists going on the pavement so as to avoid a very long
detour by a dangerous road layout.
(Mr Lester) Exactly
the point that is made in this draft as set out. That is the first
consideration that should be made: is there a way in which cyclists
could be enabled to cycle more conveniently, more safely and legally?
That is the first consideration. It may be possible, it may not
be possible in that particular instance, but you have to investigate
it first.
106. But there is nothing to force local authorities
to actually go through this procedure, is there? They could simply
have this as a nice piece of paper kept in a file somewhere and
not obey the code?
(Mr Lester) That
questions the whole need for having codes of practice in the first
place. The whole basis of the codes of practice is that it sets
out a standard of approach that is expected to be followed unless
there are good reasons and demonstrable reasons why it is not
applicable in that specific circumstance.
107. And the reason that the London Cycling
Campaign has particular concerns is that, unlike other fixed penalties,
the revenue for this will go directly to the local authority.
(Mr Lester) I am
not certain how that makes a difference.
108. If there is a funding stream coming in
from cyclists being stopped on the pavement that will be planned
for as part of the budget the following year.
(Mr Lester) No,
you could not possibly do that, it would be a wholly inappropriate
way of budget planning; directors of finance would not allow it.
109. MR SMYTH: I am certain it would
be taken into account.
110. CHAIRMAN: Surely they make some
prediction?
(Mr Lester) They
will make some prediction but they certainly could not rely on
it, and it is actually unlawful for local authorities to enter
into any form of enforcement with the objective of raising revenue.
111. MR SMYTH: It may be unlawful for
them to directly do that but it certainly would not be out of
their mind, would it?
(Mr Lester) I think,
as the Chairman has said, you need to make a prudent forecast
of what might likely be an income, but it certainly cannot be
seen an as objective or a target, and you cannot go out and say,
"You failed to meet the income targets, therefore go out
and enforce more people." That would be unlawful.
112. MR SMYTH: I will come now to the
final point, with your patience. That is in relation to the letters
from the Home Office and in relation to enforcement of pavement
cycling.
113. CHAIRMAN: Whilst you are searching
for those papers could I remind everybody that it is 14 minutes
past 11 and we are to finish today at 11.55, and whilst I am not
trying to curtail you, speed would be helpful.
114. MR SMYTH: This is my final point.
Do you have copies of these letters, Sir?
115. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we do.
(Mr Lester) I have
not seen a copy, no. (Document handed)
116. MR SMYTH: If we turn to the letter
to Ben Bradshaw, dated 9 July 1999, and on the second side of
the page it says, "I have stressed this issue is about inconsiderate
cycling. The introduction of a fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible
cyclists, who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of
fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement
users when doing so." This suggests, does it not, that the
pavement cycling offence has the need for very great discretion;
more so, perhaps, than banned turns, yellow box junctions or anything
else?
(Mr Lester) I think
that authorities who are enforcing have to consider the use of
their discretion in any form of enforcement.
117. I will just repeat the question, that
this offence needs greater discretion than other offences.
(Mr Lester) I do
not know about that, but certainly I would accept - and indeed
the draft of the code of practice makes it clear that that is
accepted within that - that you need to have consideration of
what the type of cycling on the footway is, and what is the most
appropriate action, and that enforcement action is the last resort
and not the first resort.
118. I suggest that what is likely to happen
is that even if a local authority has gone through the code then
once they have started the blips in a particular street then any
cyclist, even a mother with a young child on the back, is as likely
to face a ticket.
(Mr Lester) I could
not possibly say that because each authority has a statutory obligation
to consider the use of its discretion in every circumstance, and
that is both in terms of the general policy and also the specific
circumstances of each individual offence.
119. The fact is that on the ground the operatives
handing out the penalties, if they are not a trained and experienced
police officer or PCSO, are more likely to hand out tickets to
anyone.
(Mr Lester) I think
you yourself expressed concern about the lack of training of PCSOs
a few moments ago, and I have said before that I see no evidence
to suggest that any local authority officers involved in this
activity would have less training than PCSOs or police officers
in this issue.
| 
