(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hogan-Howe
That this House takes note of the safety and regulation issues involved in the use of pedal cycles on the road network.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate. I thank the people who supported me in the ballot, the people who are speaking today, and of course the people who are here to attend. I suspect not everybody will agree with me, but that is the nature of the debate. The reason for it is to encourage people to explore the facts and see what may improve in the future.
My reasons for becoming involved in these issues are three- or fourfold. The first was a near-death experience on Victoria Street, which I suspect many people may be replicating and telling us about today. The second, just intuitively, is the number of cyclists who appear to ignore the law, particularly but not only in our urban areas. That is not sufficient, it has to be factually based, but I hope to explore that. The third is the cases I have heard of where the whole system does not seem to respond well to the fact that someone has been seriously injured—sometimes lost their life—and then there is not a proper investigation and the criminal justice system does not cover itself in glory.
I was told about one case about 18 months ago that led to my involvement here today. A young barrister aged around 35, a fit kickboxer, crossing Fulham Road with the lights in his favour on a pelican crossing, through stationary traffic on a wet night, was hit by a cycle. It must have been at high speed because his injury was a spiral fracture of his leg. I am not a medical specialist, but a spiral fracture means there has been a very severe blow, and it gives you a higher risk that your bones will not knit and you may lose your leg. Fortunately he recovered, probably due to his youth and fitness, but his experience of the criminal justice system thereafter has been pretty appalling. That is partly because the law is not very supportive, and I hope to touch on that; partly because the police were not very good; partly because the Crown Prosecution Service was slow; and lastly because the court system did not deliver a fair outcome. That case is just one reason. Many others will have their own reasons to get involved in this debate.
My second general point is that my belief is, and research shows, that there is generally only one form of deterrence that works on criminal behaviour: the risk of getting caught. All other things do not really work. You can get very severe sentences—public disorder is the exception; as we have just seen in the recent riots, if you give significant sentences shortly after rioting starts, that can deter others from getting involved—but generally it is about the risk of getting caught. One of the main issues that I want to push on is that, generally, when cyclists disobey the law they have a high chance of not being caught or of no one intervening at all. I will try to explain why they are not unique in that; it is a human behaviour thing. We could say similar things about other groups but in fact their behaviour has been modified in ways that I hope to cover.
I want to make it clear at the beginning that I am not anti-cyclist, because some may allege otherwise. I cycle myself. I have an electric cycle; it is not traditional. These things are big, heavy and fast. I enjoy it and, done properly, it is great to cycle. It is a green, safe, enjoyable and healthy thing to do that we should all encourage and make sure there is even more of. In policy terms, the last 20 years have seen Governments quite properly trying to protect cyclists against motorists. That has been necessary; we have seen many awful cases, particularly here in London, where cyclists have been badly injured or, worse, lost their life, particularly when colliding with large vehicles. We have now seen changes to the road structure to make sure that there is separation of cyclists from motorists, and that is to be supported. However, my argument today is about affording the same consideration and safety to pedestrians from cyclists.
I am not going to say that cyclists are the only threat because that would be quite wrong, but there is a case for making sure that pedestrians are protected from the behaviour of bad cyclists and cyclists who behave badly. It is only fair to notice that many good cyclists—cyclists who behave well—are harassed and intimidated by those behaving badly. There have been many cases where cyclists have been doing the proper thing only to be abused and threatened by cyclists who intend to get past them. They are not alone in this, but it is worth remembering that this is not only about pedestrians. If a motor vehicle becomes involved in a collision with a cyclist, whoever’s fault it is, that is a terrible event. Everyone involved will be shocked and there will be an outcome that no one intended. We ought to consider the motorist who ends up colliding with a cyclist too.
I should highlight that I do not believe that cyclists are more likely than any other group to become involved in criminal behaviour. Whether a lorry driver, a car driver or a bus driver, we are all humans and we all have failings. This is not just about cyclists; it is about human behaviour and the fact that we see far more people seriously injured and killed by cars each year. It is not just about the fact that cyclists can hurt people.
My principal point is that road traffic law has not maintained the accountability of cyclists in the way that motor vehicles are regulated. I hope to go through areas where that could be changed. Cyclists can be prosecuted for dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling, or cycling when under the influence of drink or drugs, so there is legislation that can regulate some of the behaviour. However, Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP has been trying to fill a lacuna in the law by proposing that cyclists be covered by a new offence of causing death or serious injury by dangerous, reckless or inconsiderate cycling. That was accepted by the last Government, but the general election intervened and it was not possible to deliver that legislation. The Minister may want to comment on the new Government’s position on Sir Iain’s proposal, which I believe he is going to bring back. In the debate prior to the general election, the Opposition at the time indicated that they would be supportive of this law change. It would be helpful to hear from the Government how they intend to respond to that, if the Minister is able to say so.
There is a further offence, a very old one from the Offences against the Person Act 1861, called furious driving of a carriage. Obviously that law was for other times, but cycling can be pulled within it if there is a serious injury. It is quite hard to prosecute or even land a charge, as the prosecutors in the case that I mentioned earlier which caught my interest discovered when they got to court. You have to prove that the driving was fast, which leads to the question of what is fast in relation to a cycle, and furious, which implies some intent or recklessness. To prove that gets harder and harder, although not impossible—there have been cases that have generated those sorts of convictions—but it is not designed for that purpose. The problem with laws not designed for a purpose is that you have to try to squeeze these things in, which is difficult for the police, the prosecutor and the courts, as well as for juries, who play a part when this is an indictable offence.
Cyclists are not even bound by speed limits. When I first raised this issue in the House, I mistakenly believed that they were; I had just forgotten that they are not. Cycles can go any speed in an urban environment, or any environment. Cycles can of course get to high speeds. For fit people, through muscle power, 30 miles an hour is easily attainable on the flat, and certainly downhill. With electric assistance, that is even easier. The last Government—I am not sure what the response of the new Government is—intended to increase the power of electric cycles to allow couriers to deliver more weight, but of course if couriers are not carrying that weight then all they can do is go faster. That needs to be considered when talking about this issue.
What is the argument for change? What is the data that shows a problem, apart from someone like me saying that we see lots of cyclists ignoring the law? I found it particularly difficult to get the data because it is stored in different places: partly by the Home Office, partly by the Department for Transport, and partly by the Department of Health and Social Care. The main piece of data that I found which I think is reliable was issued by the Department for Transport in a consultation process, referred to by the Evening Standard in July. It revealed that 2,491 pedestrians were injured by cyclists over a six-year period across the country. Of those, 20 were killed and 546 were seriously injured. Each one of those deaths is a tragedy and we would hope that they could have been avoided. We have a general need to reduce the number of fatalities. It is not a very large number but it is a significant one, and of course people with serious injuries are always at risk of death depending on the health conditions caused.
It is clear that the data that I have just cited is a bare minimum. The Department for Transport gets that data from police officers who attend the scenes of collisions. They do not attend every collision. They generally will attend if it is a fatal or serious injury, but that does not account for the more minor injuries where that is not the case. It is even harder to get data out of the department of health, because that relies on the GP or accident and emergency department first of all recording the incident and then recording the cause, since someone who is injured may not fully explain exactly what happened. If nothing else, one of the things I will ask for at the end of my submission today is that we have more comprehensive and accurate data supplied, to determine whether the trend is getting worse or better and whether there is anything in particular that we should be able to improve in relation to cyclists.
My major piece of evidence, which we may hear more about, is that cyclists seem to ignore a lot, including red traffic lights and pedestrian crossings when people are on them, even outside this building. I have tried to take particular note of it this week. People are crossing the crossing and cyclists are still going through. That is not acceptable on any level. It does not happen once or occasionally; it seems to be fairly routine. It is that which we need to affect. How can we change the routine behaviour?
In addition there is the fact that, at night, a large number of people do not have lights and wear dark clothing. The chance of seeing these cyclists—which was my experience on Victoria Street recently—is fairly low. On the occasion I was nearly hit, I would admit that I was partly responsible. Part of what happened was my fault and I would take that criticism—but I never saw this person. They disappeared, cycling at least at 30 miles per hour, and we could not even have a conversation to discuss who might have been right and who might have been wrong.
Some people say the police should enforce the law more vigorously, and I agree. However, enforcing the law against 7 million cyclists across the country is difficult. Enforcement is not the thing that, on the whole, has led to an improvement in motor vehicle behaviour. I will quickly list what those things are. First, when it comes to getting officers involved, in London at the moment about 4,000 cyclists are prosecuted for failing to abide by red traffic lights—which is not an awful lot in a city of 9 million.
Secondly, the other major improvements have come from technology, but technology relies on a registration plate, which cyclists do not have. Interestingly, in Finland e-scooters now have them: on the back they have a very small plate.
Thirdly, one of the bigger contributors has been insurance. This has played a part in making sure that risk has been properly calculated for each motor vehicle. It also allows for victims to be compensated. At the moment, cyclists generally have no insurance by which victims may seek compensation; they have only a civil remedy. That is often not available, and the person who has caused injury often does not have enough resources to deliver any compensation should any award be made against them. So I would say that insurance would be a vital development if the Government were minded to provide it.
Fourthly, there is the provision of licences. You could argue that this would be quite a complex, bureaucratic thing, but you could just add another category on to a driving licence. You could give what were termed “grandfather rights” at the end of the Second World War for those who are cyclists already. You could test later. I would ask therefore for the licence to be withdrawn in the event of bad behaviour by a cyclist and for that person to be disqualified from cycling.
I have concentrated particularly on cycling on the road, but there have also been many cases where cycling on the pavement has caused similar problems. I am not talking about children cycling on the pavement; this is about adults cycling on the pavement at the speeds I have already referred to. They need to be deterred and we need to make sure it does not happen. I would accept that an argument against insurance is: what about children? Does that mean that children have to have insurance? That would need to be discussed, but I do not think it should stop the thrust of the argument I have already made.
In conclusion, I remind the House of the things that I have argued for. First, as a bare minimum, the Government should be collecting accurate data from across government about the nature of the problem, so that any future discussion can be informed by more data than I have been able to discover. Secondly, if the Government are minded to increase regulation to make people more accountable, they should consider registration marks for cycles, e-scooters and e-bikes. They should consider insurance for them, for compensation of victims, as well the mediation of risk, and riding licences that may allow courts to award points as opposed to fines, which on the whole do not work with the same effectiveness. We should also make sure that we generally train our young people to make sure they take their responsibilities seriously.
Finally, I close by saying that I am not against cyclists. I am not a zealot for producing more regulation. More regulation on the whole is not always a healthy thing, but in this case, I am not sure what happens if we do not do something—because then it will get worse and that I do not think is healthy for anyone.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Lord in his description of all the things that are wrong with cycling and cyclists. He made some good points. But one has to look at it from a view that the number of people killed in accidents, for example, by cyclists is very small compared with the some 2,000 people killed in road accidents. The noble Lord did not mention road accidents between vehicles—be they cars, lorries or whatever—and people. There are not many pedestrians that seem to suffer that.
Most of the issues that need to be looked at come under the category of either safety or enforcement. Many noble Lords have been speaking in this House for a long time about the lack of regulation and enforcement of electric scooters. I hope my noble friend will give us some answers about what has happened to that because, actually, you can have fun on a scooter. You should be on a road, in my view, and not on a pavement. You should also not be cycling on a pavement. There has to be much better education of cyclists and pedestrians, as well as car drivers, before we can get to a situation where everybody can live with other road users without getting completely fed up with people who disobey whatever the law is.
The noble Lord mentioned a load of statistics and I can quote a load more from a report by Sustrans, which is very useful. It gives the view that a lot of younger people are very keen to cycle and would be very keen probably to use scooters, if they were allowed to. It helps with your quality of life. One statistic really hit me:
“Every day, walking, wheeling”—
whatever that is—
“and cycling in … cities take up to 2,300,000 cars off the road”.
There is a health and accident issue there and I think it is something we need to look at in the round.
The proportion of residents who think cycling safely in their local area is good is actually not very high—somewhere between 31% and 44 %. It should be better, and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, is quite right that proper police enforcement is one thing that really should come in. One final statistic is that cycling actually keeps the cities moving, as 290,000 return cycling trips are made per day:
“If these cars were all in a traffic jam it would tail back 867 miles”.
I am sure noble Lords will like that.
We need to have a debate about this and we need common sense applied to all the issues that the noble Lord has mentioned. But let us not forget quality of life, safety needs and health. We should encourage other people to obey the lights and the rules. There are pedestrians who jaywalk, as well as cyclists. I am not in favour of licensing either walking or cycling. Do we want to have a licence to walk? That would be fun. But we should do more and there is good work done already on cycle training around the country. We need to do more of that and much more education, with some enforcement.
Every debate we have in your Lordships’ House tends to say that there are not enough police to enforce things, but we need this so that people can do what I love doing in Germany when I go there. There are cycle lanes for cycles and scooters. There are footpaths and road lanes and everybody obeys the lights and waits their turn. That should be our objective here.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for sponsoring this debate, and I hope noble Lords will forgive me for a moment of nostalgia. On 11 July 1975, the newly elected Member of Parliament for Acton initiated a debate in the other place on cycling. Nearly 50 years later, here he is again, though happily not, as then, at 4.30 pm on a Friday. That was a time when there were no cycle racks at all in Parliament, or at Paddington station. The few MPs who cycled to work were regarded as mildly eccentric, as was the most well-known pedalling Peer, Lord Hailsham. London then had 80,000 cyclists; it now has 600,000.
My speech included some novel arguments for promoting cycling, working out that cyclists converted energy into miles at the equivalent of 1,600 miles to the gallon, and set out a charter for cyclists, as well as a unit for cycling within government, cycle lanes, including a cycle lane in Hyde Park, a head start for cyclists at traffic lights, and cycle networks sponsored by local authorities. My speech was described as “interesting” by the Minister. This was before the programme “Yes Minister” revealed that “interesting” was mandarin for “crazy”. He proceeded to reject my suggestions, saying that it would be
“difficult to provide separate traffic lanes in the middle of … London”
and that adjusting traffic lights would be “costly”. On cycle networks promoted by local authorities, he said that
“with our present economic difficulties and with a cut-back in many local authority services imminent—this is hardly the time for Parliament to be urging local authorities to fresh expenditure”.
Well, plus ça change. The idea of a cycle lane in Hyde Park was “interesting”, and on a unit in his department there was again a thumbs down:
“We are being asked to cut down on the numbers of civil servants”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/1975; cols. 1025-26.]
But 50 years on we have made enormous progress, thanks in part to the APPG that was started in that Parliament. It anticipated “Boris bikes” by having a bicycle pool in New Palace Yard, enabling Peers and MPs to access a bicycle for £5 a year. Many used them to go out to lunch but, having been well entertained, they returned by taxi, leaving the organisers to collect our fleet from the choicest eating houses in the West End.
But enough of nostalgia. I join others, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, in condemning the dangerous and anti-social behaviour of those cyclists who break the law. Why are illegal e-bikes not confiscated on the spot? A few well-publicised instances would have a real impact. But justified criticism of a minority should not morph into an attitude that is hostile to cyclists as a whole. The focus of today’s debate should be on encouraging more people to cycle safely and responsibly, in line with the policy of Governments of all colours.
I have a specific request to the Minister. At the all-party reception on Tuesday, the deputy leader of Lambeth Council spoke about the hazard of rental bikes being abandoned on pavements. These are an obstruction to pedestrians and a hazard to the visually impaired. Lambeth does not want to ban them, as the chap from Brent wanted to do on the radio this morning, but Lambeth does not have the powers to manage the problem. Will the Minister’s officials discuss this with Lambeth to see how this might be put right?
I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said, but I take issue with his proposal to register and license bicycles—I oppose that. He set out the case more fully in today’s House magazine. The Government have also looked at that and opposed it—and a Written Answer of a few months ago said:
“The Department considered the potential advantages and disadvantages of a mandatory registration and licensing system for cycle ownership as part of a comprehensive cycling and walking safety review in 2018. This found that the cost and complexity of such a system would outweigh the benefits, and that restricting people’s ability to cycle in this way would mean that many would be likely to choose other modes of transport instead, with negative impacts for congestion, pollution, and health”.
Is that still the Government’s view? Licensing has been tried and abandoned in Toronto and in Switzerland. The Prime Minister has said he wants to tread more lightly on our lives, and my noble friend Lord Moylan, a champion of deregulation, would of course want to leave an even smaller footprint on us.
In 50 years there may be another debate on cycling and I may not be on the speakers’ list, but I hope that we continue to make the sort of progress we have made over the last 50 years.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, it is a genuine pleasure to follow three committed cyclists. I do not bike now but I once did, so I well understand the passion with which cyclists embrace it, and the independence, the flexibility and the sense of well-being that it brings. But as cycling as an activity grows, and as our roads become ever more congested with vehicles of every size and type, it is time to step back and to consider how biking can be made safer for pedestrians and for bikers themselves.
The biggest problem arises in the centre of our cities, where large numbers of cyclists and pedestrians increasingly come together in crowded spaces and where substantial numbers of bikers routinely ignore both the law and the Highway Code. It is commonplace—we all know this to be true—on any urban arterial road, major junction or pedestrianised precinct to see bikers in their legions cycle in the wrong direction up one-way streets; bike on busy pavements; ride through red lights; and zoom across pedestrian green-light crossways and zebra crossings while pedestrians are still using them.
I have myriad examples, but just in the last few days I saw a bike rider weaving around pedestrians on a walkway, neither hand on his handlebars, sitting bolt upright, holding up and studying his mobile phone. Last week, anticipating this debate, I stood by a main arterial route around dusk and observed the enormous numbers of bikers in transit, all travelling at speed, some at a very high speed, almost all in dark clothes, almost none wearing fluorescent jackets, only a very few wearing helmets and a significant minority with no lights, front or rear. Thus they were a hazard to themselves as well as to wary pedestrians, for whom walking on city streets or crossing the road is becoming an increasingly unrelaxing and nerve-wracking experience.
E-bikes are an even greater hazard, many souped up and evidently—ask any London taxi driver about this—substantially exceeding their 15.5 miles per hour limit, and undoubtedly unregistered, untaxed and uninsured.
Lord Birt (CB)
I am sorry, but it is a time-limited debate.
The City of London police take cycling breaches seriously, but MoJ data for the country more widely demonstrates that enforcement actions are vanishingly low—just three prosecutions for the whole of last year for ignoring traffic directions, for instance. Bikers themselves pay a very high price for using the road. It is very difficult to get figures; I have asked the Library for figures, and I think we will hear figures in this debate that are inconsistent. I do not know what the true figures are but, in the figures I have seen, each week two die and around 80 are seriously injured. I had a colleague seriously handicapped for life when a lorry knocked her off her bike at a roundabout and rode over her legs with his rear wheels.
Pedestrians suffer too in collisions with bikers. Fatalities are rare, though one is too many, but around 500 pedestrian injuries, some serious, are recorded each year—again, I do not know whether that is the right figure—as a result of pedestrian/biker collisions.
What should be done? First, the Highway Code, which I read recently for the first time in many years, is a confusing blend of advice and legal requirements, and it plainly needs revision. We should consider, for instance, legally requiring cyclists to wear helmets and high-vis jackets. Wearing a helmet, it is estimated, reduces the risk of head or brain injury in an accident by 60%. Secondly, we need better education for novice bikers, and more intense public information campaigns for all bikers. Thirdly, the Home Office needs to press the police to take proportionate action to encourage a culture of compliance, especially in city centres.
Biking is a wonderful activity, but let us make it safer for bikers and for the rest of us.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, on securing this debate. It is indeed telling that a former Met Police commissioner has chosen to raise this important issue. I speak as someone who is a pedestrian and a car driver who has dogs and rides horses, but others in my family are very keen cyclists. I know that there are many noble Lords who cycle and, I am sure, who do so safely. While we can all acknowledge the health and climate benefits of cycling, the present situation with bicycles has become a serious hazard for pedestrians and other road users.
I should perhaps start by declaring an interest: I was knocked over by a cyclist while on the pedestrian crossing outside Parliament in 2019, when I had the right of way. It was by an eminent lawyer who did not apologise and did not even ask whether I was okay. The police would do nothing about it. Also, an elderly friend of mine was knocked over by a Deliveroo cyclist at a crossing and ended up injured in hospital for several weeks. The bicyclist gave a false telephone number and could not be traced. I am afraid that I do not subscribe to the argument put forward by Cycling UK that, because more people are injured by cars, we should not be concerned about holding cyclists to account. We need to address causes of injury however they occur.
Despite the words of Queen’s bicycle song,
“I want to ride it where I like”,
it is important that whoever uses the roads does so with care and consideration towards other road users. If anyone is in doubt about whether many cyclists flout the law, just go and stand by the crossing outside the Lords: cyclists not wanting to slow down or unclip their feet, jumping the lights with impunity. Last December, at a junction of High Street Kensington and Earls Court Road, over 50 cyclists were caught in just a three-hour window. The problem is not just ignoring red lights; it is not giving way to pedestrian crossings, going up on the pavement, squeezing through gaps, and undertaking, to name a few. It shows the darker side of Mario Cipollini’s oft-misused cycling quotation:
“If you brake, you don’t win”.
Such is the aggressive approach that has crept in with some that I know cycle users who will not go in the cycle lanes because they suffer such abuse if they do not go fast enough.
Respect needs to be observed for other road users. No car driver wants to hit a bicyclist; the mental health repercussions for them would be absolutely terrible. So often, however, bicyclists just stick their arms out and ride across cars without ever looking or observing the Highway Code. Those who regularly flout the law are more likely to cause accidents. Surely cyclists should have to obey the rules of the road like everyone else and, where they do not, they should be held to account. Yet in 2023 only 39 people were convicted for careless or inconsiderate cycling.
There is, of course, no mandatory training and testing for bicyclists, but ignorance of the law of the road is not a defence. I welcome initiatives such as the Bikeability Trust, the DfT’s national schoolchildren cycling programme, which has helped about 4 million children get on bikes since its inception. Safe cycling has enormous benefits for everyone.
It is not just in towns and cities where there is a problem from cyclists. On A roads and country lanes there can be cyclists, sometimes in clumps holding up all the traffic—are they not meant to pull over? While I know that we are primarily addressing cycles on the roads today, there is also a huge issue with off-road cyclists who are dangerous to walkers, dogs and horses. Last weekend, I went to walk in Surrey on common land where I have been walking all my life; I used to ride down there too. I must have seen over 40 off-road bikes, but I saw hardly any other dog walkers and no horses. I have since been told that no horse rider can now go out there at the weekend, except terribly early in the morning, and hardly anyone walks their dogs, because it is simply too dangerous. The cyclists go at a rate of knots, do not give way to anybody and many are very inconsiderate. It just is not right that these off-road bicyclists should be able to drive away other people who want to enjoy the countryside. Perhaps the Minister could address this aspect too.
I very much support the idea of registration for bikes. It would enable the regulations to be more easily implemented and cyclists who offend to be identified. It would probably be a deterrent to bike theft as well. I do not accept the argument that there are too many to do so—we manage to get everyone to pay tax and we get cars licensed, so why not bikes?
There is no doubt that there is a real problem. I hope that the Government will commit to taking action after today’s debate.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Road Danger Reduction Forum, as per my registered interests. Of course we have lawless roads, which has been a concern of mine for two and a half decades or so. Some of that is cyclists, and I would not for a moment defend cyclists who break the law; in fact, I shout at cyclists whom I see breaking the law, and I hope that every noble Lord here does the same. Some of the crime is from cyclists, but the majority of the problem is car drivers.
When I was on the Metropolitan Police Authority from 2000 to 2012—before Boris Johnson scrapped it—I kept asking how our roads had got so lawless and why it had not been a priority for the senior officers running the organisation. As the Mayor of London’s road safety ambassador, I spent a lot of my time resisting proposed cuts to the traffic police and pressing for them to get more resources.
It is painfully obvious that many drivers ignore the rules, and the people who pay the price for that are often children, older people, pedestrians and cyclists. As has been said already, in 2017 there were 28,010 recorded hit and runs. That is around 77 hit and runs a day and, of those, more than two people a day were killed or left with a life-changing injury. This is not acceptable. It is a national scandal, and the way that the last Government dealt with it was to stop publishing the figures. I really hope that the new Government will end the cover-up and recognise the scale of the problem.
We have a national registration scheme for cars, but large numbers of car drivers just ignore their responsibility and the rules. Many go further and actively destroy cameras that enforce speed or air pollution rules. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said that the risk of being caught is the best way to stop this sort of lawlessness. When I was an assembly member, I used to cycle a lot and I was very careful not to get caught, because I could not have borne the publicity; I was very law-abiding. I see time and again that the best way of dealing with lawless drivers and lawless cyclists is to stop our overreliance on electronic enforcement and registration plates. We need more police out on the roads stopping people breaking the rules of the road. Let us remember that traffic police have always had a much higher arrest rate—seven times higher—than those on the beat.
For those suggesting a registration scheme for cyclists, I say that experience has shown that it would soon become impossible to enforce and the main impact would be to put another big barrier in the way of people who want a cheap, convenient, environmentally friendly and healthy way of getting around.
I very much enjoyed the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Young. It is always a pleasure to agree with a Conservative Member of your Lordships’ House—and so rare. If we want a culture of safe and law-abiding cyclists, making cycling easy, safe and segregated from cars is the way to do it. We need to get more women and children on bikes in cities. That might start to embarrass any Lycra-clad men into slowing down and perhaps obeying the rules of the road.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, I am one of those very keen cyclists and have cycled thousands of miles in the last 15 years or so, both in London and in mid-Wales, so I bring a cyclist’s view of many of the issues today, as well as my own interest in working on transport issues for the Welsh Government. I have no difficulty with some of the suggestions that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, proposes regarding cyclists. I do not see why cyclists should not be subject to speed limits and, if they cause serious accidents by behaving recklessly or carelessly, they should face appropriate charges. However, I am strongly opposed to suggestions that are likely to discourage everyday cycling by law-abiding people. This is a time when we should be encouraging cycling rather than making it more complicated.
Much of the focus of today’s debate has been on the harm done by cyclists, particularly to pedestrians. My starting point is that this focus is disproportionate and does not identify the real source of safety issues. My interpretation of the statistics I have been looking at from the Department for Transport tells me that, on average, there are about 400 pedestrian fatalities a year resulting from road traffic accidents. Of these fatalities, on average, two involve cyclists. That is 0.5%. The rest involve motorised vehicles of one kind or another. For pedestrian injuries, the percentage is a bit higher, at 2%, but it is still a small part of the danger to pedestrians. The same figures tell me that there are 100 cycling fatalities a year on the roads. More than 80% of them involve motor vehicles. We should also note that a substantial proportion of them take place within 20 yards of a junction—that is where many of the critical incidents happen.
Despite a lot of improvements to road safety, there is still a serious issue of how motorists, cyclists and pedestrians can live together safely in what my noble friend Lord Birt described as the crowded cities and towns of this country. The roads can be heavily congested, particularly at peak times. Fortunately, many people have responded to this congestion by taking up more walking and cycling, so cycling has been on a sharp increase and I also notice that there is much more walking than I can remember in years gone by. Walking and cycling are suitable both for shorter journeys and, in particular, for connecting a lot of people to the public transport system, which has become such an important part of our lives. As noble Lords have mentioned, they bring important health benefits and I cannot believe that anyone would seriously wish to take measures now that would turn back the clock on this.
Rather than focusing on regulations that would reduce cycling, the emphasis should be on providing better-designed paths for both pedestrians and cyclists. These paths should be safe, clearly signed, continuous—which very rarely happens—well-maintained and separate from motor vehicles. Cycle lanes need to be clearly identified and separate from pedestrian parts of the road. The safety record at junctions might be improved too if the timing of traffic lights were more focused on helping both pedestrians and cyclists to make continuous journeys rather than face long hold-ups. Making the roads and pavements safer for both walking and cycling is surely a better long-term solution than simply pushing for additional constraints on cyclists.
At times, drivers, pedestrians and cyclists can all make mistakes and fail to see what is happening around them. Accidents happen. Five years ago, on the Embankment cycle path, I had a serious accident when a runner, out for some lunchtime exercise, crossed the road and ran into me, knocking me unconscious and breaking my jaw—but I recognise that accidents do happen. We should also recognise that the conduct of many pedestrians can be very poor. If you walk along the Embankment cycle path, you will see pedestrians walking in and out of the cycle path, crossing at red lights, too many of them listening to headphones—but I assume that nobody is going to seriously suggest that pedestrians should carry insurance and be registered.
Before we consider putting additional requirements on cyclists or pedestrians, it seems to me that we should pay much more attention to the failure of the police to enforce the laws we have. The issue of scooters has already been mentioned, and whether they are legal within the existing law. There are now many electric bikes on the road, which are illegal, as I understand it, relative to the law that is there, because they can move without pedalling; you simply have a throttle to make them go. People also hack them to make them go above 15.5 mph.
In summary, it seems to me that, rather than spending time introducing more rules that will do very little other than discourage people from pedal cycling, without changing the behaviour of those who are really badly behaved, we need to focus much more on safety and the enforcement of those things that are going wrong.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe, for initiating this important debate. I am a cyclist in London, my children cycle to school and my wife cycles to work. We all agree on the benefits, and obviously more people should be encouraged to take up cycling.
Life has got better for us cyclists. Low-traffic zones; new cycle paths and superhighways; we can buy our bikes tax-free on the bike to work scheme. E-bike hire has given us another option for one-way trips. But there is a problem. There is anarchy in London—and other cities, I suspect—as my noble friend Lord Birt so graphically described. We have got to a stage where, on a cycle journey, it is more unusual to see someone stopping at a light than jumping it. Red lights have become optional. People go the wrong way, as we have heard, down one-way systems, regularly riding on the pavement. Untidily parked rental e-bikes and scooters are causing problems for those with visual impairments and mobility problems.
The author Douglas Adams described one of his characters as stepping off the pavement and being shouted at
“from a moral high ground that cyclists alone seem able to inhabit”,
and this attitude seems to pervade all cyclists, whether on Lime or in Lycra. There seems to be an attitude that cyclists are above the law, and there seems to be no way of enforcing it, as my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe so powerfully showed.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, pointed out, Cycling UK says that if you introduce measures, cycling rates could drop by 36%. How do we balance the rule of law with encouraging people to use a bike?
Over the past 10 years in London, about two cyclists were killed or seriously injured in bus crashes every month. In London, in 2022, TfL buses accounted for less than 1% of road traffic, but 40% of cyclists’ deaths were caused by them. We still do not know enough about the causes. I join my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe in his plea for better data. Can the Minister comment on that? Cycle deaths in rural areas are also a real problem—I wonder whether this is more to do with the heady cocktail of V8 engines and an ageing population. The good news is that, in the UK, there was a 23% drop in cyclist fatalities between 2013 and 2023, but I wonder whether this trend will be reversed.
It is hard to argue for better education for motorists if cyclists are not going to behave better. What is the solution? As ever, it is education—but I would say that because I am a teacher. Bike helmets are a really good idea, and we need to campaign for them to be worn regularly. We need to persuade cyclists to ride defensively to minimise risk. We need more cycle lanes, more cycle zones at lights and more cycle traffic lights, which give cyclists a head start—sometimes it is safer to jump the lights than do a Formula 1 start at junctions. We need to separate motor traffic from cycles as much as possible, especially in rural areas, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and my noble friend Lord Burns said. Can the Minister update us on the progress of cycle lanes?
As we talked about this week at Questions, road surfaces need to be much better. My wife was cycling home recently and her front wheel went into a pothole. She went over the handlebars and did quite a lot of damage to her face—it was very lucky that there was not a car behind her. I thought that electronic chips on bikes might be a solution—it works for my cat. I had a conversation with a friend who was involved in the setting up of the congestion zone, and she convinced me that that was expensive and unworkable—although it works for cats.
As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, we need to use common sense and to encourage more people to cycle, but in a way that promotes safe and legal cycling, so that those of us who enjoy it so much can welcome a new breed with a clear conscience.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, this is one of those issues that we all feel intensely and strongly about. We are all obviously being afflicted by cyclists, bicycles or our own bad driving. The whole of my family cycles, including my grandchildren. I used to cycle before I had a major accident with a Segway—a different kind of awful road machine, banned here in the UK but present across Europe. It was in Poland that I had the crash, and I have lived with the consequences.
I feel particularly strongly about one dimension of bad cycling behaviour which is an increasing urban problem. I have observed it myself and heard many people describe it: cyclists, in a crush of traffic, grabbing mobile phones or personal items from women’s bags, or attempting to get hold of jewellery as they get close to the pavements and then go back on to the roads, cycling fast through traffic and red lights. That is an area of criminality which afflicts many parts of south London and other urban areas and cities, and it requires attention.
As someone who drives into London, I have observed a further dimension. When you get to, for example, Parliament Square, which has ample cycle lanes, you notice that many bicycles are not in the cycle lane but in the traffic lane. They leave the cycle lane to get a faster advantage in crossing the bridge. This creates a cluster of traffic on short traffic lights, with drivers loudly expressing their frustration.
The only way we can tackle both the criminality—this is where I agree with my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe—and the behaviour is to require either the “cat chipping” of bicycles, which was an interesting and novel idea, or to have appropriate number plates on bicycles. It is perfectly feasible and it would make sure that cyclists are registered, regulated and accountable for their behaviour.
Going through any major urban centre causes tension and stress for those who walk, are disabled or drive. On my journey home last night, after myriad votes, I observed five clusters of dumped bikes—red is Santander and the green bikes I am not so sure about—on the routeway from here to the M1. As someone who recently had a major operation to replace a knee, and is therefore more conscious of peoples’ disabilities, I watched people, including those with disabilities, navigate their way around the bicycles dumped on the pavement. Without registration or number plates, nobody is accountable if caught on camera at the point of their irresponsible dumping.
As someone who longs to be a cyclist again, and is delighted that all my family are cycling—probably right at this moment, because it is sunny—I hope we will have better cycle lanes and cycling provision. I hope my grandchildren will enjoy cycling all their lives. However, I believe we need regulation for current cyclists because their behaviour is, at times, becoming a bit like plague of mosquitoes. You simply cannot get them away from you when you get to traffic lights. I once had a cyclist bang on my window—not because he observed me doing anything wrong but because he wanted to get my attention—in an area of London that was a mobile theft hotspot. In other words, you put down the window and then someone grabs something from within your car while you are paying attention to them. We need regulation for cyclists and I hope we get it.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for initiating the debate. He made a very balanced speech, much of which I agree with, although I profoundly disagree with his recommendations. I too will give him a word of advice: he should ditch the electric bike and get a proper bicycle, because it is much better for his cardiac health.
I have followed the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, closely. Some 18 years after he made his speech on cycling, I proposed the cycling safety Bill in 1993, which I am sure everybody is familiar with—perhaps not. I have been bicycling since I bicycled to school, but the Bill came after a cousin of mine was squashed by a lorry on Clapham Common. Cycling safety is what I am more interested in than much of what has been mentioned today. I cycled in today, so I am quite current in what I have to say. Like the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, I was chairman of the All-Party Group for Cycling and Walking in the House of Commons, so I have pursued this for a number of years.
Cyclists used to be termed “vulnerable” road users, like pedestrians and horse riders. I see now that some cyclists, far from being vulnerable, are rather terrifying. As an old man on a bicycle, I too get scared by some of these people whizzing past. But they are still vulnerable. If you ride a bicycle—everybody here so far has said that they do—what you are terrified of is falling over or being knocked off because you will fall. If you are walking along the road you are less likely to fall a long distance, whereas a cyclist is bound to fall because he cannot regain his balance if he is knocked off.
We have heard a lot about the responsibility of cyclists, and I agree with what has been said. People need to show more care and to have more consideration. Certainly, they should not steal mobile telephones. But what about the responsibility of pedestrians? We have all talked about cars knocking people down, but the responsibility of pedestrians also needs to be considered. The number of pedestrians who step out in front of you without looking is legion.
Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and I had a small altercation a few months ago, when, in my opinion—she will dispute this—she stepped straight out in front of me just as I was turning into a road. This happens all the time—I do not wish to criticise her in particular. Only this week, some girl with ear pods in stepped out straight in front of me. I was going quite slowly so it did not matter, but she is the person who would have caused the accident and who, if hit by a car, would have been damaged. So we must consider the responsibility of pedestrians.
I have a few questions for the Minister. How many motorists have been prosecuted for drawing into what I think are called cycle stop lanes? I do not think that any have been—I have asked these questions in the past. A cycle stop lane has traffic lights so that cyclists can go in front and not be endangered by cars knocking them off as they pull away. The danger to cyclists is enormous, so this debate should not be about prosecuting cyclists; it should be about considering whether pedestrians—as well as motorists, but pedestrians in particular—have responsibilities.
If you want to deter healthy cycling, you will overregulate it. We have heard how cycling has increased, so surely we all want to increase the number of people cycling, because it is good for their health and for traffic congestion. If we have insurance, extra regulations, the registration of vehicles and licensing, all that will deter people from bicycling—it makes it more difficult. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said about an easy registration system—that might be a way forward—but if you overregulate, you will yet again deter people. So let us enforce the rules that are being broken by motorists and let us ensure that, if necessary, pedestrians are prosecuted as well as cyclists—I agree on the speed limits and making it easier to prosecute a cyclist for killing somebody, of course—but let us not deter cycling.
How nice it is to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for once.
Lord Robathan (Con)
It is always good to do so. All vulnerable road users should take more care and show greater consideration, but we do not need lots more laws to enforce that.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I salute my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe for his perseverance in securing this timely debate and his opening remarks, much of which I found myself agreeing with. I admit to being somewhat conflicted on the issues around cycle safety, when set against our need to promote healthy lifestyles and reduce our carbon emissions. I declare that I am a recreational cyclist—meaning that I do not wear Lycra and rarely exceed 15 mph—a regular dog walker in the Minister’s precinct of Richmond Hill and Richmond Park, and a London motorist.
As we know, cyclists, pedestrians and drivers do not form a harmonious community, with many insults and much finger pointing in all directions. To this we add the exploding growth in e-bikes and scooters, whose riders mostly shun the use of helmets, which only adds to the friction and antagonism.
I witness this almost every day. Indeed, exiting the House of Lords by car has become an increasingly hairy experience. Even though the police are operating the barriers, turning south into Abingdon Street is like driving the dodgems amid hordes of cyclists undertaking and overtaking, as I crawl along in my car observing the 20 mph speed limit that does not apply to them. Further down, the cycling lanes along Millbank and Grosvenor Road cannot cope with the sheer volume of cyclists. The result is that some spill out on to the road in front of cars, while others, particularly Lime bikers, lurch on to the uneven pavements, weaving through pedestrians.
It is important to note when we talk about cyclists’ behaviour that the road safety charity Brake points out the two principal reasons for fatalities for cyclists are the state of our roads and negligent driving by motorists.
Like my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe, I have struggled with the fragmented data, but I do see four particular trends. First, the surge in e-bike and scooter usage brings with it increasing numbers of accidents, especially major head injury trauma for those not wearing helmets—not just in the UK but all over the world. Secondly, the number of off-road incidents, including on pavements, walkways and in parks, has surged, although most never get reported. Thirdly, e-bikes and e-scooters are increasingly becoming tools for criminals and gangs, particularly in urban areas, including for theft and drug trafficking. Despite these three points, the number of convictions for dangerous cycling has fallen steeply over the last 10 years, reflecting an increasingly lawless state of affairs.
I am not a fan of the nanny state or overregulation, but the sheer scale of the numbers persuades me that it is time to act, especially if we are serious about hitting that net-zero step target that no one has mentioned. I will remind noble Lords: by 2030, 50% of urban journeys are to be undertaken by cycle or on foot. That would probably take the current 7 million cyclists to close to 10 million. Are we going to leave that area totally unregulated?
My first suggestion is that we should make it a legal requirement to wear helmets—for cyclists, e-bikers and scooter riders. Data from the NHS and the BMJ back up this call, as does the experiences of countries such as Australia, where helmet laws are credited with reducing head injury fatalities by 65%. I speak from experience, as my wife suffered a serious accident three years ago on an e-bike in Spain, breaking her shoulder, collarbone and arm. Wearing a helmet not only saved her life but enabled a full recovery.
Secondly, and controversially, I think we need to grasp the nettle of ownership registration, not just for e-bikes and scooters but for all adult pedal cycles for road use. I have seen the arguments against, in terms of cost, complexity and privacy, but, in my view, these are mainly outdated—they go back to 2018—and outweighed by the benefits. The development of bike technology, along with the issues of health, safety, crime and dangerous and inconsiderate behaviour, should persuade us to act now, rather than kick the can further down our increasingly dangerous and potholed roads.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, because if he thinks it is easy to ride a bike at 30 mph on the flat, he should have been in the British Olympic team and not a Member of the House of Lords. I am a lifelong cyclist. I ride my bike every day for recreation or commuting. I should think I spend at least as much time on the roads of London and elsewhere in the UK as anyone else in this debate. Of course, everyone on the roads should obey the rules, whether in a car or on a bike, and they should be prosecuted when they do not.
By the way, I am also a former chair of the All-Party Cycling Group, and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Young, who has worked throughout his lifetime to make cycling in our country safer.
We should all behave with courtesy and consideration on the roads, and I agree with the points made by Policy Exchange about the proliferation of e-bikes dumped on the pavements. The companies should be required to pay for e-bike bays and forced to remove dangerously or irresponsibly parked bikes immediately, and users should be fined—obviously, they can be identified because they are hiring them—if they park the bikes in an irresponsible manner.
Of course, some cyclists break the law, as we have heard, and we see this on the streets. I know people will not agree with this, but, as I say, I cycle every day and spend a lot of time on the roads, and the truth is that the majority of cyclists in London and elsewhere do not speed or cycle on the pavements, and they do stop for red lights. I get angry if I am waiting at a red light and someone goes through; I too think it is outrageous. The majority of cyclists who break the law are on electric hire bikes, which are already numbered and registered, so the people riding them could be arrested and prosecuted; but of course, the police do not enforce that. Electric bikes going at more than 15 miles an hour is illegal now, but that is never enforced either. People are never arrested for it, but they could be. Laws are already available to the police to deal with these things.
Every day I see motorists in London and elsewhere on their phones, jumping red lights or speeding, presenting a much greater risk to pedestrians than cyclists. Of course, the police are unable to enforce the law and arrest and prosecute all these people. The overwhelming majority of pedestrian injuries in the UK are caused by drivers of motor vehicles. Cyclists account for a very small percentage of pedestrian injuries. I am not saying it does not matter—of course it matters—but it is a very small percentage, and cyclists are much more likely to be killed or injured themselves.
We have heard debates about the statistics, but the figures are pretty clear. Some 85% of cycling is on minor roads, where there are more pedestrians, yet cyclists are involved in just 2% of pedestrian casualties, while 98% are caused by drivers of motor vehicles. The main threat to pedestrian safety comes from drivers of cars and HGVs. Those drivers are responsible for 99% of fatal collisions with pedestrians on pavements. There were only two such fatalities involving cyclists between 2012 and 2020. Of course, that is two too many, and it is a tragedy for the people involved and their families. In the five years between 2018 and 2022, cyclists were involved in, but not necessarily responsible for, nine pedestrian fatalities. In the same period, thousands of fatalities were caused by people driving motor vehicles. Five people die and 82 are seriously injured on the roads in the UK every single day. I gently point out that we are supposed to bring perspective, balance, wisdom and knowledge to the discussion of public policy, yet here we are with a debate which suggests that cyclists are causing all the problems.
What are noble Lords suggesting? Should police be diverted from other crimes, some no doubt very serious, to enforce a registration or insurance scheme? Should public spending be taken from other areas to employ more police to do so? Shoplifting has been virtually decriminalised. Let us not pretend that the police have got the time or the resources to enforce a cycling registration scheme. How many times have I heard noble Lords complain about red tape and regulation? Yet people want a hugely complex and enormously expensive scheme to register millions of bikes.
What about children? Should children, who are more likely to own and ride bikes, often on the pavements, have to be registered and insured? Is that what people are suggesting? The best way to make our streets safer, reduce congestion, improve the environment, tackle obesity and improve public health is to get more people on bikes, but a registration or insurance scheme would do completely the opposite.
I conclude by supporting Cycling UK’s call for a comprehensive review of road traffic laws to reduce road dangers, protect all road users and ensure that justice is served by dealing with dangerous behaviour, whether by drivers, cyclists or other road users. Will the Minister’s department implement such a review?
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Austin, a former Treasury colleague, who has always been a great advocate for cycling.
I am in favour of cycling. It takes cars off the roads, frees up capacity on public transport, is good for the environment and good for public health. I welcome the reforms by central and local government over the last two decades to encourage cycling through cycle lanes, rentals and cycle routes. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, on his approaching half-century of parliamentary campaigning for cyclists.
I am not anti-cyclist. However, just as cyclists have rights, they have responsibilities: to fellow road users, to pedestrians, to old people and to the blind and partially sighted. Therefore, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe on securing this timely debate. I am quite certain that the vast majority of cyclists fully observe the Highway Code and the law. However, I am struck by a growing though still small minority who pay scant regard to the law. Let me give some examples, drawn from my daily four-minute walk to the Earl’s Court Road Tube station.
First, there are the e-bikes, often parked on the pavement, obstructing pedestrians and making life difficult for the disabled. Then, there are the cyclists who insist on using the pavement as a way of avoiding the one-way system. Some do this out of ignorance; others, judging by the abuse I receive when I take issue with them, do it knowing that they are acting illegally. Then, there are the cyclists who think that traffic lights do not apply to them. All too often, I set off across the road when the green man appears, only to find a cyclist whiz past my nose. Then, there are cyclists, albeit the fitter ones, who may not cycle at 30 mph but certainly cycle at more than the 20 mph limit which now generally applies in built-up areas. The self-employment contracts of delivery cyclists do not help—they positively incentivise speeding.
Of course, such people are not breaking the law, since, as my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe pointed out, speed limits do not apply to cycles. When I asked the previous Government whether they would change the law to bring bicycles under section 124 of the Highway Code, they said that they had no plans to do so.
Recently, a relative was run over by a speeding cyclist. He was tossed into the air and landed on his hip, which was smashed very badly. It took him several months to walk again. It was the day of an ambulance strike. To give the perpetrator credit, he did stop, but only to check that the victim was still alive. He did not help to take him to hospital or share his contact or insurance details to help pay for the inevitable physiotherapy. He simply rode on.
If we do not do more to improve the law relating to cyclists and then to enforce it, we will see a growing number of accidents. The more that cyclists see other cyclists flouting traffic lights or riding on the pavement, the more likely they are to take the view that anything goes. When I asked the previous Government about enforcement, they said that it was a matter for the police. Is that the new Government’s attitude, or do they agree that central government can do more to support the police in pursuit of their duties?
I am not arguing for a zero-tolerance approach; I recognise that police forces are stretched. I recall a police sergeant telling me, when I was briefly a police cadet in the 1970s, that if they enforced every traffic regulation, they would never get further than 250 yards from the police station. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, mentioned, there were 39 convictions for the offence of careless or inconsiderate cycling in 2023. I reckon I have witnessed more examples than that in the last month. There is surely a happy medium whereby enough offenders suffer a consequence of dangerous cycling for it to have a deterrent effect.
I have seen police in other countries—Germany comes to mind, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley—who are often on bicycles and issue on-the-spot fines to those who transgress. It seems to work and, as a former Treasury official, I argue could be self-financing: police officers do not have to issue too many fines before they have paid for themselves.
Like my noble friend Lord Birt, I propose a public information campaign to encourage people to be more considerate of fellow road users and pedestrians. If we want London and other major cities to remain the peaceful places that they generally are, we need to do something to enforce the law, otherwise anti-social cycling will simply grow and grow.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this debate and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, on securing it. I also thank my noble friend Lord Robathan, in his absence, for highlighting the importance of observing the Highway Code. If I, as a pedestrian, am crossing at a pedestrian crossing, it is the duty of a cyclist to stop to allow me to pass. The ABI has highlighted the need for greater awareness and education in this regard, and that point was very well made by my noble friend.
I have taken a great interest in this subject and was delighted when my right honourable friend next door Iain Duncan Smith adopted the contents of my Bill from both the last Parliament, which I hope to reintroduce in this one. It aims to close a number of loopholes, which were tragically illustrated by the weak sentence imposed when a cyclist, who was driving without any brakes whatever and in a completely inappropriate fashion, caused the tragic death of Kim Briggs.
My Bill and the contents of the amendments proposed by Iain Duncan Smith next door, which I hope to bring back to this place, set out to introduce new offences, such as causing death by dangerous cycling, causing serious injury by dangerous cycling, and causing death by careless or inconsiderate cycling. It introduces a number of penalties and reviews the misuse of electric scooters. The revised version, which I hope to bring before the House, also covers insurance.
I congratulate the outgoing Government and am delighted that my noble friend Lady Vere has joined us, because she wrote to me on 23 March 2022 to say:
“As the Secretary of State has already announced, we are considering bringing forward legislation to introduce new offences around dangerous cycling; we will do this as part of a suite of measures to improve the safety of all road and pavement users”.
The challenge I put to the Minister in replying today—I welcome him to his position—is whether the incoming Government will take over where the outgoing Government left off and plug the gap by putting into force these infringements, which recognise the severity of certain offences that may lead to death and serious injury by inappropriate cycling.
I differentiate between cycles, e-bikes and e-scooters and, as others have done, between rural and urban areas. Notwithstanding how the majority of cyclists are law-abiding and considerate to other road users, a certain number flout the law and give good cyclists a bad name. As I mentioned, the ABI is very keen that we educate cyclists on the contents of the revised Highway Code. In rural areas particularly, they can cause great aggravation by cycling as a block, occupying the whole of what can be a narrow lane, obstructing traffic and causing potential injury and death. As we have heard, they also cycle at speed through red lights and across pedestrian crossings, and mount pavements. As my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham indicated, we have spent a fortune—a vast expense—to introduce cycle lanes. I cannot fathom why it is beyond the wit of cyclists to use them. Why are they mounting pavements where cycle lanes exist? It beggars belief and makes a complete mockery of the investment made.
Until the ABI informed me in preparation for this debate, I did not realise that pedal cycles are technically not vehicles and therefore cannot be insured. According to the ABI, third-party liability policies exist, but serious injury or death caused by cyclists would be a matter for the law. In other cases, such as e-scooters and what are known as electrically propelled pedal cycles, no liability is placed on the Motor Insurers’ Bureau, and if there is no insurance, as is frequently the case, it begs the question of why we do not make insurance compulsory. Why are so many European cities banning e-scooters and why is there so little enforcement of them in this country?
Will the Minister take the opportunity in summing up to advise when the trials will end, and what the Government’s position is on inappropriately speeding e-cycles and inappropriately used e-scooters?
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I also thank my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe for kicking this off. If he was to have another debate on this I might advise him to rename it “Safety and regulation issues involved in the use of pedal cycles, pedelec and twist and go e-cycles, and e-scooters on the road network and on pavements”.
I make my contribution with journalist Andrew Marr’s words ringing in my ears. In a recent article in the New Statesman he said that there
“should be a clear understanding that you don’t introduce new laws unless you can enforce them … It’s a matter of effectiveness, not policy principle. Laws that will in practice be flagrantly disobeyed bring the state into disrepute. Unenforceable, performative legislation makes both police and the ministers who instructed them ridiculous”.
I direct the last sentence at the Minister.
How on earth did we get into this state? My noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe put his finger on the context at the start of his speech when he said that, frankly, the majority of cyclists and e-scooter drivers know that there is an almost infinitesimal chance of any of them ever getting caught. Cumulatively, when you see everybody else flagrantly ignoring laws they are probably aware of, there is a sort of herd instinct and mentality where it becomes the norm over time. I stop at red lights because, frankly—like the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, who is not in her place—as an officer of the All-Party Group on Cycling and Walking I do not want to appear in the press, to my embarrassment and the embarrassment of the group, having been seen to infringe the law.
I live in what I regard as the wild West End. One of the indicators of the problem we have got ourselves into over the last 10 years is that, in my early youth and adulthood, the idea of a black cab running a red light would have been unthinkable. You would have lost your licence; you would not have even thought of doing it. Now, while cycling, I see each week on average two or three black cabs quite openly running red lights. I also see buses running red lights all the time.
The noble Lord, Lord Robathan, referred to the so-called bike box—the advanced stop lines in front of traffic lights. If one is so bold as to indicate to one of the many delivery drivers on e-scooters or mopeds beside you, or those with L-plates, that they are infringing on a bicyclist’s space, as the noble Lord said, you will receive a lot of finger pointing—usually, in my experience, in an upwards direction. One must be quite brave to point out that they should not do that.
His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services published a report in July 2020 called Roads Policing: Not Optional. It indicated, in a fairly sorry picture—the backdrop to much of what we have been debating—declining financial resources, declining human resources, and huge variation of approach across the country. The joy of having police and crime commissioners is that every area decides to reinterpret priorities in its own image, so there is no consistency in how the law is applied.
As for His Majesty’s Government—I notice that the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, is here—over the last few years, as e-scooters were introduced, with the rental schemes and all the rest of it, I heard from them that the Government were going to keep an eye on this. But in terms of enforcing the law to ensure that it is being applied, we have been somewhat negligent. I would point out that last week the city of Madrid decided that it had had enough and is kicking out Lime bikes and several others, because they have become a public nuisance.
So what do we do? We need to go back to what Andrew Marr said. I do not think we need new laws; we need to create a situation in which I, as a bicyclist, and anybody else in your Lordships’ House who is a bicyclist, know that if we transgress there is a chance that we will get caught—and that it will embarrassing, painful and, I hope, quite expensive. The police force in the City of London, in a recent initiative, made a concentrated attempt to crack down on lights being jumped, illegal e-bikes and other such things, and it was remarkably effective. They confiscated a very considerable number. It can be done and I am absolutely sure that the Minister, in replying, will do everything he can to make himself and his department not appear ridiculous.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for securing this debate. It relates to an issue of immense importance to disabled people. I should make it clear at the outset that, like other noble Lords, I believe cycling is a good thing.
Last week I had a surreal exchange with someone as he merrily cycled towards me through a red light as I was crossing the road in my wheelchair. It went like this. “The light’s on red,” I shouted. “Yes, I know,” he said politely and cheerfully as he continued his approach, while his companion looked on panic-stricken as she suddenly realised she did not know how to apply the brakes of her e-bike. Equally politely, but less cheerfully, I replied, “Well, stop! It’s illegal.” Needless to say, they sailed past.
That one incident encapsulated for me the problem we face, which we have discussed in detail this afternoon. The Home Secretary put her finger on it when she wrote in the Sun earlier this week that respect for the rule of law must be restored. She is right, and it needs to be restored precisely because, as the gentleman on the bike demonstrated, breaking the law on cycling has been normalised. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, rightly said, routine behaviour for too many.
The effect of such law-breaking for many disabled people—especially, as we have already heard, for those with visual impairments, who are disproportionately at risk of being hit by a dangerously ridden bicycle—is that they might as well have been airbrushed out of society. Their understandable fear of being hit while out, and thus their decision not to go out, and their increasing isolation as a result, are seemingly outweighed by the decision of some cyclists to ignore the law and cycle dangerously and illegally, whether by going through a red light or by cycling on the pavement. And it is not just on pavements that people cycle illegally. As the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who cannot be here today, told me yesterday, it is in parks, too—including, as I know from personal experience, the Royal Parks, not far from your Lordships’ House.
Several noble Lords have mentioned data but, sadly, the data that we have on the number of reported collisions is only the tip of the iceberg. Many pedestrians, such as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, who also cannot be here today but who spoke to me only a few days ago about this, are so relieved to be intact after being knocked over by a cyclist who then sped off that they do not actually report it. After all, what would happen if they did? The law cannot be enforced, can it?
My Lords, I believe it can. I believe the rule of law can and must be restored, including as it relates to dangerous cycling, for enforcement and thus deterrence. Of course, the police cannot catch everyone but, as my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham implied, the beauty of social media is that they would need to enforce the law in only a few well-publicised cases, for example by replicating the exercise carried out by Daily Telegraph recently on Westminster Bridge, just outside St Thomas’s Hospital, intervening at rush hour in the morning and evening and prosecuting those cyclists who went through red lights. That would need to happen only a few times for the behaviour of the gentleman I mentioned to stop.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister to read Policy Exchange’s report A Culture of Impunity, which has cross-party support, to which Members of your Lordships’ House contributed, and write to me detailing the Government’s response to its recommendations. I would be very grateful if he would put a copy of his response in the Library.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I want to direct my words to the lack of a national strategy for dealing with e-scooters and e-bikes, both of which have become increasingly popular as a form of public transport tailored for the individual. Rental e-scooters are legally limited to 15 trial schemes in cities as diverse as Salford and Bournemouth, with many London boroughs participating. They are regulated and riders are supposed to be over 16 and to undertake a degree of safety training before they are allowed on the roads. However, there are 750,000 private e-scooters in this country, all of which are illegal to ride on public roads or pavements, yet illegally ridden e-scooters were responsible for one death in 2019, when they were first introduced into this country, and for 31 deaths since then and more than 900 injuries. Many of these victims were riders. The youngest was 12 years old and the oldest 75 years old. In fact, safety campaigners believe that lax reporting and recording of e-scooter deaths by the police means that the figures represent only 10% of actual casualties.
Anyone who lives in one of our big cities sees the illegal use of e-scooters daily, either when they are privately owned or even when they are legally rented. I have seen parents riding with their children on the back and two people riding together. It is extraordinary, when we know how carefully monitored cars are on our streets, that e-scooters do not receive the same treatment from our law enforcement agencies. Some agencies, such as the Safer Essex Roads Partnership, have two-week or three-week blitzes in which community volunteers and the police combine to stop illegal riders. They even welcome video evidence submitted by members of the public. This enforcement is piecemeal and only partially effective. Meanwhile, across the country the police seem to be confiscating fewer and fewer illegally ridden e-scooters.
The problems will continue until illegal riders feel that there is an effective enforcement campaign to act as a deterrent and suitable punishment for illegal riders. The exact number of illegal riders on our roads is not known. Some definite evidence has to be gathered, but I suspect that, when the evidence is gathered, it will show thousands of violations. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe that e-scooters should be registered for easy identification, which will help to combat the problem. Can the Minister tell me whether the Government intend to introduce this simple measure and make our roads safer?
The other electronically powered vehicle that noble Lords have talked about is the e-bike. For hundreds of thousands of people, renting an e-bike is a transformative, efficient and cheap way to get to work or navigate our great cities. But, as many other noble Lords have mentioned, the problem is when riders reach their destination. I am pleased that many people are enjoying the freedom and relative health benefits of riding an e-bike, but with nearly 38,000 rental bikes in London alone, the problem of parking them safely has to be addressed.
E-bikes provide such convenience for many thousands, but inconvenience for many thousands more when badly parked. I have spoken to the Royal National Institute of Blind People, which tells me that so many blind and partially sighted people have fallen over the badly parked bikes on pavements that many are deterred from going into the centres towns and cities or have to take taxis to reach their destination.
The problem is that there is not enough uniformity across local authorities in regulating their parking. These rental e-bikes all need to be carefully controlled, either with digital or physical docking schemes. At the moment, in London alone, e-bike rental companies have different memorandums of understanding with different boroughs about parking regulations. However, riders renting e-bikes from many providers are not given online safety training or even tips about where they should park the bikes. Some, like Lime and Forest, do not have a maximum capacity on the digital parking bays. Certainly, from my own anecdotal experience of e-bikes scattered across the pavements of this city, Lime bikes have a particularly laissez-faire policy on parking.
I understand that one of the problems is that local authorities are reluctant to provide enough docking on parking spaces on the road, because they will take away from the revenue-generating car parking spaces. On the radio this morning, I heard the leader of Brent Council calling for Lime and other rental providers to contribute to the cost of setting up parking bays, which is also sensible. Other local authorities are taking more immediate action. Wandsworth is setting up a range of bike bays in its local town centres, and when that has happened the council will ban any kind of laissez-faire e-bike parking from these busy areas. Other councils are planning to follow suit.
It seems to me that as these rental schemes spread out across the country, the lessons from London should be learned and applied. I ask the Minister whether his department is considering national guidelines on parking rental e-bikes and to increase powers against random parking on pavements.
These electrically powered bikes and scooters are a boon to so many. I want them to be success and to create flexible, cheap transport for thousands of people across this country. However, in order to do so, Ministers need to intervene to ensure that they are a complement to other forms of transport and not a curse.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for bringing this debate to us today. I found myself in agreement with very much of what he said. It has certainly been a very interesting debate. We heard from the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Young, who are keen cyclists, and we heard from many noble Lords who cycle, but who accept that there are problems that need dealing with.
I welcome this debate, particularly because, although we often discuss cycling in this House, the previous Government showed little interest in grappling with any of the major issues posed by cycling today. I hope the fact that the Minister is no longer in his place is not a sign of his lack of interest. I am sure he will reply fully to us, and I hope we will get a detailed approach from the new Government.
Many noble Lords have spoken of their concern as pedestrians. It is a particularly strong problem for those who have disabilities. I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, was able to participate today. Several noble Lords have talked of cyclists as vulnerable road users, and indeed they are, because cars are heavier than bikes. I would point out, however, that the most vulnerable road users of all are, of course, pedestrians. We must recognise the vulnerability of cyclists, and that means we need a culture to encourage the cyclists that we have been talking about this morning to protect themselves better. In order to do that, they need to take a number of measures, one of which would be obeying the rules of the road.
Some parts of the UK have developed quite an aggressive cycling culture, and London is one of them. It is undoubtedly a result of the traffic intensity in London. I cross the road outside this building several times a day in order to get to my office in Old Palace Yard, and it is not the cars or buses that I worry about at all, because they always stop—or I hope they do. I worry about the cyclists, because in general they do not stop. The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, mentioned the coverage recently of a survey taken outside St Thomas’ Hospital, of all places, which illustrated the point that a very high percentage of cyclists cycle through red lights.
The issue about the crossings outside this House are intensified by the fact that all the cyclists are surrounded by police. That underlines the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, that the police are not in a position to enforce the law.
It is possible for cycling to thrive without disobeying the rules of the road. I frequently visit Belgium and I have visited the Netherlands, and the rules of the road are much more frequently obeyed in those countries, where cycling is very popular.
The reason for the urgent need for legislation to deal with cycling safety is the rapidly increasing number of e-bikes, which the noble Viscount referred to. There are several categories of e-bikes, some of which assist you with pedalling and others that have a throttle and are akin to motorbikes. Legally, they are in different categories, but the public are blissfully unaware of that to a large extent, and so, I think, are the cyclists using them. The speeds can be up to 40 miles an hour, and they all look the same to you as they come towards you on the pavement. Often the riders of the more powerful bikes use them as delivery vehicles but nevertheless treat them as bikes, riding them on the pavements and in the fastest possible manner in order to achieve their task.
There is an urgent need for action to deal with this new technology. Many of these bikes are ridden by very young people with no formal training, no licence, no helmets, no registration number, and apparently no interest on the part of the police in dealing with the infringements of the rules that follow as a result. The results can be horrendous for the young people concerned. I come from Cardiff, where two young people died a year or so ago.
We need to think about future policy on cycling in two parts. The first is traditional pedal cycling, sometimes electrically assisted, which requires fitness, and the second is the technological challenge of electric bikes. The larger ones are not creating a fitter society per se, although of course they take cars off the road and reduce congestion and so are welcome for that reason.
Just before the election the previous Government were consulting on allowing even more powerful e-bikes, presumably in response to lobbying from the delivery industry. I would welcome an assurance from the Minister that the current Government are not going to pursue that.
We also need greater regulation to deal with illegal adaptations, not just because of the issue of greater speed, but also because of the fire risk from batteries. That fire risk comes from cheap imports of battery adaptations, largely. My noble friend Lord Redesdale has a Private Member’s Bill on that issue.
On the issue of speed, I would like to raise an issue that a recent Sustrans report revealed, which is the gender gap. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, raised the gender gap. Far more men cycle than women, but proportionately more women are injured as cyclists than men. There are theories about this being connected with positioning at traffic lights and so on, and behaviour. However, that is contrary to women as drivers of cars, who are somewhat safer than men. But they are in a more vulnerable position as women cyclists. There are issues we need to tackle.
The cycling and walking index shows that a firm majority of the public support improving our roads for walking, cycling and public transport. I hope that the Government seize upon that. They will get strong support from these Benches if they take forward a programme of investment in cycling and walking.
My final point relates to the childhood years. We need an ongoing cycle training campaign in schools, firmly linked to teaching the rules of safety; that is so important. I would welcome assurances from the Minister that that will continue. Cyclists, as the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said, need to be made much more intensely aware of the dangers they pose—not just to pedestrians but to themselves—if they do not obey the rules of the road and do not wear helmets. I look forward to the noble Lord’s response.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for initiating this debate.
If noble Lords will indulge me, this is my first opportunity truly to welcome the Minister to his new role. Since he has brought it up, I thought it worth mentioning that I calculated that we first worked together 25 years ago, when I was a vice-chairman of the London Councils’ transport and environment committee, which I later chaired. At that time, he was managing director of surface transport at Transport for London. Later, he was the commissioner and I sat on the board. We overlapped for about seven years, and for much of that time I was deputy chairman. We worked together and we both had firm views that one of us was working for the other. I am not entirely sure they would be absolutely concurrent if names were slotted into those particular sentences, but we had a very effective partnership. Perhaps his greatest achievement during that time was the stunning contribution Transport for London made to the success of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. He went on from that, and spent the last nine years as chairman of Network Rail.
The Minister’s latest achievement, of course, is managing an almost balletically deft transition from the Cross Benches to the Labour Front Bench. Who noticed that happening at the time? I thought it was worth mentioning these things. He is knowledgeable and effective and, when I took on this role, I was rather hoping for somebody who would not be, but there we are—and there was a wide choice.
I turn to the substance of the debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering pointed out, Conservative Ministers commissioned the cycle safety review in 2017 and last year supported proposals to change the law, in the Criminal Justice Bill, to create a new offence of causing death by careless or inconsiderate cycling. The Bill fell at Dissolution earlier this year. So many questions have arisen in the course of this debate that few of mine are going to be original, but one question that I think the whole House is interested in is whether the Government intend to bring back that measure and so fill what is generally regarded as a lacuna in the range of sentences available in the admittedly rare event of death or serious injury caused by a cyclist.
When I first became a local government councillor, I had some advice from a very wise council officer that I should never allow myself to get in the middle of an argument between the pro-dog and anti-dog people. Similar sort of advice might apply, I discovered later in life, regarding the pro-cycling and anti-cycling people. There has been a slight flavour of that in this debate, although at a most distinguished and elevated level, of course. I shall try to avoid it as far as possible. However, I simply want to say—and it is incumbent on the Government to provide this—that we need a roads policy that delivers for all road users, keeps people safe and ensures that they go about their daily lives as freely and efficiently as possible. It is that test that the official Opposition will apply when we hold the Government to account on matters related to cycling, and so forth.
I add one point that is of importance to all of us, and which was illustrated by the amusing but terrifying speech made by my noble friend Lord Shinkwin, on the special responsibility we have to those who are disabled. I include in that those with less obvious disability: simply the disabilities of age, and those of us who are less able to dodge out of the way than we were some years ago—and maybe than we think we still are—who take more time to cross the road, and so forth. That has not been fully addressed, and the Government should make recognition of the vulnerability of the disabled a central feature of the management of their roads policy. How they do that is very much up to them.
There are two issues that I want to mention in relation to disability, in addition to the sort of moving traffic incident mentioned by my noble friend. The first is the litter of dockless bikes, which is very difficult to negotiate for pedestrians in general and in particular for those who are in wheelchairs or suffer from vision disabilities. The other is the increasing use of cycle lanes that go behind bus stops—between the pavement and the bus stop. These are frequently found in London and maybe elsewhere. Do the Government have a view on those, and are they going to develop them?
The previous Government concluded—and this remains our view on the Opposition Front Bench—that the cost and complexity of introducing a mandatory bicycle licensing system would outweigh the benefits of such a scheme. But it is now very much in the lap of the party opposite to decide whether that is still the view, and I think we would like to know about it. There was much discussion of the question of licensing, and we have to bear in mind that there are two separate schemes for licensing. One is licensing a vehicle and giving it a registration plate and the other is licensing a person to use that vehicle.
When it comes to licensing, we are suffering to some extent from the advance of technology and our difficulties in grappling with it. Back in the day, it was all very straightforward: you had a thing that in my father’s generation was known as a pushbike or a pedal cycle; then you had something called a motorbike, and it was perfectly clear what the difference between them was. Now we have electric cycles that comply with the electrically assisted pedal cycle rules, are limited to 15.5 mph hour and generally require some sort of pedalling to make them move. The last Government had a consultation on legitimising bicycles that would have double the wattage available but would also be twist and go: you turn a throttle and the bike starts, and you do not need to pedal the thing at all because it powers itself as it goes.
There comes a point, of course, where you are overlapping with mopeds. Mopeds do require licensing, both of the person and of the vehicle, but the distinction between the two is breaking down, in my view. I will just complete the picture beyond mopeds. They can be driven permanently on a provisional licence that is simply renewable; you can do anything on a moped with a provisional licence, except go on the motorway. The reason a lot of the people have L-plates, as was referred to, is that they never get a proper licence. That is true of large numbers of delivery drivers and so forth, but also others. Of course, for a full motor cycle, you need a proper licence.
The system has become incoherent and does not command respect any more. The outgoing Government—I accuse them—did not address this issue, but I think it will fall very firmly into the lap of the new Government. They will have to take a proper schematic view of what the licensing scheme should be for the whole range of two-wheelers, because that old distinction between the pushbike and the powered two-wheeler no longer exists in the way that it did.
I come, briefly, to illegal e-bikes. I do not understand why there are illegal e-bikes; are they imported or are they the result of illicit adaptation? Who is doing this adaptation? Is it being done on a commercial basis? If it is, why is that not being stopped? These are questions that I do not understand—there may or may not be answers to them. In March this year, police data showed that the number of illegal e-bikes confiscated by police doubled in 2023 compared with 2022. In the whole country, 260 were seized; there were 130 in 2022 and only 61 in 2021. Part of that increase in numbers from 2021 to 2023 is of course explicable by lockdown, but it is good to see the numbers going up. I suspect, however, that it is merely a drop in the ocean and I wonder what intentions the Government have when it comes to enforcing the existing rules.
Finally, we come to e-scooters. Here, I think the previous Conservative Government were totally wimpish. As noble Lords explained, they are illegal, but they are legal if you are riding them as part of a licence scheme. That scheme is a trial, and the trial has been extended perpetually, I fear because Ministers did not want to grapple with the decision of whether and in what circumstances to legalise them. As I say, I accuse my own colleagues, my own side, of not bringing that to a conclusion—but it cannot be escaped. This trial cannot be continued for ever. There will have to be a decision, and it would be very helpful if the Minister could tell us today what he thinks that decision might be.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for initiating the debate, and I very much look forward to hearing from the Minister. There has been a great deal said today; I hope that he will listen to it all and present us with a properly synthesised policy in due course.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and thank particularly the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for the opportunity to debate these important issues—indeed, it is my first debate since I became a Minister. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, opposite, for his welcome, and I welcome him to his position too. He and I, on a couple of occasions a long time ago, cycled around London. We at least stopped at red traffic lights, unlike the former Mayor of London. I also hope that he is similarly as knowledgeable and effective; we can check with each other from time to time what we think of each other’s performance.
I hope to respond to everybody who has spoken but, if I do not, I will write following this debate. I note the many strong and, frankly, conflicting views that we have heard on the subject of cycling. This Government are being bold and ambitious on active travel, whether walking, wheeling or cycling. We want to set out ambitious plans to promote greener journeys, no matter how people choose to travel.
As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has made clear, the department is committed to delivering greener transport and maintaining and renewing our road network to ensure that it serves everyone. Investment in active travel supports the Government’s economic growth, health and net-zero missions by helping to revitalise high streets, improving air quality and supporting people to live longer, healthier lives.
No one at all is simply a motorist, cyclist or pedestrian. We are all people who may choose to walk, cycle and drive at different times. However, with power comes responsibility and, whether cycling or driving, the Highway Code outlines a clear hierarchy of road users. This starts from the premise that those road users who can do the greatest harm have the greatest responsibility to reduce the danger or threat they may pose to others. Therefore, people cycling have a duty to behave in a safe and responsible manner, particularly around pedestrians, and to follow the rules set out in the Highway Code.
As we have heard today, many of us have seen instances of poor cycling behaviour, whether jumping red lights when people are crossing, riding on crowded pavements or wearing earphones. Dangerous cycling can put lives at risk, including that of the cyclist, and it is completely unacceptable. It also has the effect of intimidating other people cycling and therefore deterring people currently cycling and those considering cycling for the first time. In that might be a clue to the gender gap to which the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, refers.
Like all road users, people cycling are required to comply with road traffic law in the interests of their own safety and that of other road users, and this is reflected in the Highway Code. If they cycle irresponsibly, if they do not use lights or are not visible, or if their use of the highway creates an unsafe environment or causes a nuisance, they may be committing a number of offences that can make them liable for prosecution.
The enforcement of road traffic offences has been referred to by virtually everyone who has spoken in this debate. Enforcement, including of cycling offences, is an operational matter for the police. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, will know from his time as the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police of the success of the dedicated Metropolitan Police Service cycle safety team, funded by Transport for London. I hope that he and the House would commend this approach to other chief police officers elsewhere in the UK. Such a dedicated force can deal with not only cycling offences and cyclists’ behaviour but the issue of theft by cyclists, referred to earlier.
I turn to the specific points raised by several noble Lords concerning registration and insurance. With more than 20 million cycles in Britain, a national licensing system for all cycles similar to the one for cars and motor cycles would be complex and expensive to design and administer. Cycles would need to be fitted with registration plates that were sufficiently visible and robust and that could not easily be transferred from one cycle to another. The costs of administering such a scheme would be likely to outweigh any benefits, and it would also be likely to lead to a reduction in the number of people cycling. This would have adverse impacts on health and congestion, particularly if those cycling chose instead to use their cars for short journeys.
I was interested to hear some suggestions from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, about licensing and adding cycling to driving licences, and particularly about maybe making cycling offences endorsable on driving licences for motor vehicles. We will certainly look at that.
Mandatory insurance is similar to licensing. People cycling are already encouraged, but not required, to take out some form of insurance, and many people have insurance cover through their membership of cycling organisations. For example, membership of Cycling UK provides £10 million of third-party liability insurance. This will cover members if they damage another person or their property—for example, if a cyclist accidentally causes injury to a fellow rider or hits a car. But it is not currently mandatory, and we believe that mandatory insurance would be as difficult as mandatory licensing. These and other matters would therefore need to be very carefully considered before any change to the law could be contemplated.
On the question of data concerning cycling and collisions, data is available from the department, several noble Lords have quoted from it, and I would be happy to consider any request that noble Lords wish to make for further data beyond that quoted today.
A number of noble Lords referred to the previous Administration’s plans to introduce new offences concerning dangerous and careless cycling through the Criminal Justice Bill, which fell due to the general election. We are currently considering a range of different interventions, including those, to improve road safety for all users.
I turn to some further specific points. There has been a lot of debate here about electric cycles and their speed and power. The current legal situation is that e-cycles are legal only where their electric motor cuts out at 15.5 mph and where the electric motor does not exceed a power of 250 watts. If they can reach greater speeds or greater power, they are classed as a moped or a motorbike and must be registered, taxed and insured. The previous Government consulted on potential changes to the existing regulations which would allow more powerful e-cycles and would enable them to be powered by the throttle all the way up to 15.5 mph. Ministers are carefully considering next steps in this policy area, including whether to proceed with these changes. We will respond on this in due course.
On the speed limit and the speed of cycles, it is the case that speed limits set under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 apply only to motor vehicles, but cyclists can still be charged with careless or dangerous cycling, depending on the circumstances. The introduction of a speed limit would bring many challenges. Many cyclists are, in practice, seldom able to exceed the speed limits that apply to motorised vehicles, other than perhaps in 20 mph zones, when going down a steep hill or in the case of those with Olympian levels of fitness. More prosaically, very few cycles are fitted with a speedometer. Again, enforcement would have to be a matter for the police, but they are already able to stop cyclists for offences such as cycling without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road.
The design of cycling facilities was mentioned. Active Travel England has initiated and produced design standards which have been shown to dramatically reduce collisions and conflict, giving users greater confidence. Local authority officers need the right skills to help deliver that agenda and Active Travel England trained more than 3,500 local government officers across England last year, which has already led to real improvements. Similarly, funding for active travel has been significant. This Government will make an announcement on plans beyond 2025, including the development of a third cycling and walking investment strategy, in due course. Since it was established in 2022, Active Travel England has invested just under £250 million to deliver 260 miles of walking and cycling routes and hundreds of safer crossings and junctions. This includes funding for the national cycle network.
I turn to the question of bus stop bypasses, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, The Government are committed to championing the rights of active and disabled people, putting their views at the heart of our actions. We are fully aware of the concerns raised by some groups, particularly visually impaired people, over the use of floating bus stops. It is a complex issue and we are carefully considering next steps, following the Living Streets research the department co-funded with Transport Scotland and which was published in April this year. We will respond to that in due course.
I was much encouraged by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Young, about progress in the last 50 years. I was around 50 years ago and I too remember that there were no cycle lanes, no dedicated traffic lights and a reluctance to make any provision. I was interested by his and other noble Lords’ contributions about rental bikes abandoned on pavements. They are clearly a considerable impediment to pedestrians in general and to those with visual disabilities in particular. I will write on this subject because it is so important. The department is also consulting on micro-mobility and e-scooters.
The question of helmets was raised. The Highway Code very strongly advises cyclists to use helmets, but any change to mandatory use would pose the same issues about enforcement that are related to other matters raised today.
I was sorry to hear about noble Lords who have personal experience of accidents, either cycling or caused by cyclists, and I hope they are all fully recovered.
I do not currently have information about off-road bikes, but I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, about them.
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, raised the matter of potholes, which was raised in an Oral Question yesterday. The Government are committed to a programme of filling many more potholes and making road surfaces smoother.
A noble Lord raised the question of prosecutions in advanced stop areas. I do not currently have information about that, but I will write if it is available.
The noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, raised the question of road safety campaigns. The THINK! campaign, which I hope noble Lords will recognise as a long-standing and successful road safety campaign, deals particularly with the proper behaviour of all road users.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and others asked about the e-scooter trials which have been extended to 3 May 2026, whereupon the Government will consider what legislation is appropriate, including registration, because it is clearly an important and growing subject.
The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, raised the Policy Exchange report, which he asked me to read and reply to, and I shall do that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, raised training and education. Active Travel England has a £50 million programme for young people’s education on cycling. This is, of course, extremely welcome because understanding the Highway Code and the correct way to behave on the road is really important, so I am sure that all noble Lords fully support that programme.
In conclusion, the Government are being bold and ambitious on active travel, but the safety of our roads is an absolute priority, whether people are walking, wheeling, cycling or driving. As the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, says, that should be delivered for all road users, including the vulnerable and the disabled. We want to see more people cycling but doing so safely and with consideration for their fellow road users.
The Government are committed to delivering a new road safety strategy, the first in over a decade. Many of the points made today will be considered as part of that, and we will set out our next steps in due course.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and everyone who has taken part, whether they agreed or disagreed with me. I really enjoyed the debate; I learned things and some really good ideas came up. I had not realised I would get some medical advice. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, I appreciate the advice about my heart rate. Its resting rate is 52—I suspect it could improve. As a previous distinguished member of the Special Forces, I suspect his is even lower.
I did not think I would hear a Permanent Secretary previously at the Treasury suggest hypothecation. I did not think it had ever been Treasury policy, but if it is going go for it, I think it is a fantastic idea—the police will appreciate it immediately.
I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. When I referred to the amendment suggested by Sir Iain, I did not realise that she was the original author. I spoke to him, but I did not realise where the suggestion had come from. I am sorry for not acknowledging that.
I thought that everybody gave a very good account of what happened. I was sorry to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Austin, can no longer achieve 30 miles per hour on the flat—that was very disappointing. One major thing that I thought noble Lords could agree on was speed limits. If they are available for motor vehicles, perhaps they should also be employed and enforced for cyclists. I agree entirely with the broad thrust that the police ought to enforce the law. Whether it is shoplifting or something else, there is more scope for that. At times, I am one of the biggest critics when that is not happening—so you will never find any resistance from me on that.
The Minister brought out a good example of TfL and the Met dedicating efforts to this area during his time. My final point is that he mentioned further data. My principal thought is to combine the data from the health service with that available from the Department for Transport and the police, so that they are fused together to give a comprehensive account.
Just finally, on insurance, I thought it was weak response. I can see the arguments and logistics against licensing and registration. It is a massive task; I do get that. But, in essence, this would fall to the insurance industry. There may be an argument about whether the premiums would deter cycling, but I suspect that it would not actually cost an awful lot if incidents were as infrequent as noble Lords suggested. If there are fewer collisions, presumably the premiums will be very low.
I thank everybody for their time, particularly the Minister and the Opposition Front Benches, who I know have many demands on their time. I thank the Government for their responses.