Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, is he aware of research from Australia undertaken by McDermott in which, at secondary school level, before education on bicycle safety, 2 per cent of those cyclists were wearing helmets; after education, 11 per cent were; but, after legislation,
29 Nov 2005 : Column 166
42 per cent of secondary schoolchildren were wearing helmets? There was an even more remarkable response from primary schools.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, if I was not aware of it before, I am now. However, the noble Earl will recognise that if 42 per cent are compliant, the Australians, or that particular state, have a law that the majority of young cyclists are not obeying. In this country, we are concerned about obedience to the law. In fact, the great strength of our safety measures is that we do not propose laws that people can then safely and easily ignore; we propose laws by which we expect people to abide. That is why, as I have argued before, the driving test requirements in this country are so much more stringent than elsewhere in the world. We expect people to reach that level of competence. The same thing applies to observation of the law.
As the noble Earl will freely concede, driving conditions in much of Australia are somewhat different, given the vastly greater population of people in crowded islands. We must address things differently. I hope that he will accept that, although I recognise his statistics, I would not take any joy in a law that the majority of our fellow citizens disregarded.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the Minister's last remarks are very interesting, bearing in mind adherence to the law on seatbelts. To start with, very few people wore their seatbelts. To start with, it was not compulsory in the back of a car. It now is. If the Minister is fortunate enough to get an empty taxi to take him home tonight, he will find that there is a notice in the back of the taxi telling him that it is against the law not to wear his seatbelt. So the situation changes. It changes with education, I agreein this respect, education of children on cyclesbut in the past it has changed with education of adults in their motor vehicles.
The Minister asked: who is responsible for ensuring that the child wears a helmet? In a car, the driver of the car is responsible for the passengers wearing a seatbelt, as well as himself. The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, said that his children took their bicycles when they wanted to go out. When my children were young, there were standard instructions and rules that they had to obey, and they were in trouble if they did not. There can be a standing instruction that whenever they take their bicycles, they wear a helmet. That is not difficult. I know that children do not always obey their parentsI quite agree about thatbut it is not difficult to lay down boundaries that they are not supposed to cross. Those boundaries get relaxed as the children get bigger. Later on, they are allowed out beyond nine o'clock at night, and so on. But with small children, you can lay down the rule that they must wear helmets and they are in troublesent to their beds, or whateverif they disobey that rule.
Also, schools can lay down school rules that children leaving school or riding around in school must wear a helmet or they will be punished. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that he did not support the amendment because 100 or so children might die or
29 Nov 2005 : Column 167
have a head injury every year if they did not have a helmet. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, pointed out to him that 26,000 children were injured with head injuries every year, which is a rather different figure.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said that it was good to create a culture of helmet wearing. I agree. As I said, in Australia, compulsion is creating a culture in which children are out wearing their helmets the whole time. Any new law takes time to bed down and for everyone to obey it because not everyone is aware of it. The Minister pointed out that the percentage of boys wearing a helmet has reduced recently. That is a very good reason for making it compulsory. He also said that we would be starting from a low base and that we would need to move immediately to 100 per cent wearing of helmets. The argument about helmets applies in exactly the same direction as the argument that the Government used on drivers' use of mobile phones, so that point will not wash.
However, my noble friend Lady Hanham has put to me the argument, which she did not reiterate today, that my amendment would make children criminals. I shall look at that before Third Reading because I do not wish to make children criminals if I can help it. But it is important that we make it compulsory for children under 14 to wear protective headgear. I will reserve my right to bring the matter before your Lordships' House at Third Reading. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester moved Amendment No. 61:
"HACKNEY CARRIAGES: SUPPLEMENTARY LICENSING CONDITIONS
(1) In section 6(6) of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 (32 & 33 Vict, c. 115) (definition of "matter of fitness" for purposes of grant of hackney carriage licence) after paragraph (b) insert
"(c) the matters set out in subsection (6A) of this section.
(6A) The matters referred to in subsection (6)(c) are that any vehicle licensed as a hackney carriage under this section shall
(a) have been constructed specifically for use as a hackney carriage,
(b) be used for no other purpose,
(c) have hinged doors,
(d) have access for disabled passengers at the side, and
(e) have a rear window consisting of a single pane."
(2) In section 47 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (c. 57) (licensing of hackney carriages), before subsection (1) insert
"(A1) A district council may grant a licence for a hackney carriage only if the conditions in subsection (A2) are satisfied.
29 Nov 2005 : Column 168
(A2) The conditions are that any vehicle licensed as a hackney carriage under this section shall
(a) have been constructed specifically for use as a hackney carriage,
(b) be used for no other purpose,
(c) have hinged doors,
(d) have access for disabled passengers at the side, and
(e) have a rear window consisting of a single pane.""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the law governing hackney carriages and taxis across the United Kingdom. The law is derived from a number of Acts of Parliament, some very ancient. The earliest that I am aware of are the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 and the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869, which the first part of this amendment seeks to amend. The amendment deals with the safety hazards created by hackney carriages that load wheelchair users from the rear, those that have split rear windscreens and those with sliding doors. It also insists that all taxis in the UK are purpose-built and not converted vans. I shall deal briefly with each issue.
Numerous local authorities already ban taxi vehicles into which wheelchair users are loaded from the rear; they include major cities such as London, Edinburgh, Manchester, Liverpool and Sheffield. The main reason for my amendment is safety. Where taxis are lined up bumper to bumper at a railway station or airport rank, there is no space to pull forward safely. To load from the back they would have to put their nose into the flow of traffic and create a hazard. It is not surprising, therefore, that charities such as RADAR, the Spinal Injuries Association and the Royal Society for the Prevention of AccidentsI declare an interest as a former presidentall support that view. It has also been supported in two Early-Day Motions in another place and by fire brigades, which report that they often find it difficult to extract wheelchair users in rear-loading vehicles involved in rear-end shunts.
Rear windscreens are a road safety issue. Many converted-van taxis have split rear windscreens and provide rear access through van-type doors. They have a central pillar in the rear windscreen that restricts the driver's rear view and creates a large blind spot where children could be hidden and consequently hit when the vehicle is reversing. It also leads to drivers colliding with parked cycles and motorcycles hidden in the blind spot when they are reversing. The amendment insists that all hackney carriages should have a one-piece, single-pane rear windscreen.
On hinged versus sliding doors, the amendment would adopt the same practice as exists in the city of New York, where sliding doors on taxis for non-disabled passengers were outlawed by Mayor Giuliani in 1996 and all vehicles with sliding doors had to be converted to use swing doors. Passengers who get out of vehicles through sliding doors on to a road are often at risk, as drivers coming up from behind will often not
29 Nov 2005 : Column 169
notice that a sliding door is opening. The first thing that they see is a leg or body emerging from the vehicle. Swing-hinged doors provide a visible barrier and create space for the passenger to exit.
I should say a word about why all taxis should be purpose built. The iconic London black cab is the ideal for others to emulate. If all hackney carriages looked like those, the travelling public would be less confused and much safer. I beg to move.
Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |