E-scooters and E-bikes

Lord Hogan-Howe Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I absolutely recognise the risk to pedestrians from e-scooters and, for that matter, e-bikes and ordinary cycles on the footway. I can assure the right reverend Prelate that we will consider fully the needs of disabled, partially sighted and blind people in bringing forward the appropriate legislation. We want people to feel safe walking around our towns, cities and countryside; riding bikes too fast or riding e-scooters on the pavements is completely unsatisfactory for those people.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the recent meeting on the potential regulation of cyclists in the future. On the issue of e-bikes, scooters and cyclists, one of the things that none of them has is insurance, which means that they cannot compensate victims. Insurance could play the positive role of modifying human behaviour. The premiums reflect the risk; the higher the risk, the higher the premium. Can the Minister explain the argument against these people having insurance?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The dialogue with the noble Lord continues. As he said, we had a very fruitful meeting recently, following the earlier debate in the autumn on the whole question of cycling. The practical difficulty of insurance is simply that clearly people do not need a licence for these things, and a requirement for insurance would itself need enforcement—on which he is better qualified to opine than I am. There is a real difficulty with some of the propositions around licensing and insurance, which we will have to fully consider. He is right that, in the absence of insurance, if there is an accident and people are injured or worse then there is a real problem, but we have to crack this in a practical manner.

Pedal Cycles

Lord Hogan-Howe Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Motion agreed.

Pedal Cyclists: Insurance

Lord Hogan-Howe Excerpts

Thursday 23rd May 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Hogan-Howe]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to require pedal cyclists to have insurance.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Davies of Gower) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government considered this matter carefully as part of a comprehensive cycling and walking safety review in 2018. The Government have no plans to require cyclists to have insurance, because the costs and complexity of doing so would significantly outweigh the benefits, and because it would be at odds with the Government’s aim of getting more people to switch to cycling for their everyday journeys.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I thank the Minister for his Answer. However, on the department’s own figures, over the last 20 years injuries of pedestrians hit by cyclists have drastically increased—more than doubling. Every day, we see people ignoring one-way signs, going across pedestrian crossings, through red lights and across pelican crossings while pedestrians are on them. Cyclists are not even governed by speed limits in the way that motor vehicles are. Has not the time come for the Government to consider insurance to compensate people for the damage that cyclists can cause, and for registration marks to identify those who have committed an offence and deter those who might? Finally, where a cyclist commits an offence and has a driving licence, their licence might be endorsed with points for the offences which they have committed as a cyclist. Many may consider this to be a vote loser, but I think it is a vote winner.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, dangerous cycling puts lives at risk and is completely unacceptable. Like all road users, cyclists are required to comply with road traffic law in the interests of their own safety and that of other road users. This is reflected in the Highway Code. If road users, including cyclists, do not adopt a responsible attitude or if their use of the highway creates an unsafe environment or causes nuisance, they may be committing a number of offences. The department has considered issues such as a mandatory registration and licensing system for cycle ownership as part of a comprehensive cycling and walking safety review in 2018. In light of the review, the Government have no plans to introduce a mandatory registration system, as the cost and complexity of introducing such a system would far outweigh the benefits.

Pedicabs (London) Bill [HL]

Lord Hogan-Howe Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 22nd November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I congratulated the Minister yesterday, but I commend him today: I think this was the first time I have seen a Bill being introduced in less than four minutes. One only hopes that other people will learn from that experience.

I support the Bill for three or four reasons. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, in order to enhance London as a destination, it is probably a good idea for these pedicabs to be regulated. We want tourists to have a great experience, not a bad one, and we want them to go away from London extolling it and not complaining about it. Therefore, it is important that we establish some standards, clearly around safety—we want to make sure both the passages and road users are kept safe—and obviously to restrict excess charging.

There are also some very simple things, such as: if lost property is found in these things, where does it go? It can be quite valuable. Taxis, buses and the Tube all have systems in place to make sure that people can recover their items. That is essential, as if you cannot identify the pedicab or go anywhere to recover the property, essentially it is lost, and it is quite hard to find these people afterwards. Therefore, for very simple reasons like that, it is essential that this legislation comes in.

Some of these questions may be answered by secondary legislation, which is inferred in the Explanatory Notes. However, it is worth exploring a just a little, perhaps more in Committee. My first question is about insurance. The notes say that the secondary legislation will talk about insurance, but is it insurance only for the passengers or will it also be against third parties? That will make it more expensive, but of course these pedicabs can hit people and they can be hit by other vehicles, and it seems essential that there is good insurance in place. If it is in secondary legislation, as we have heard, the rest of the country has its own local by-laws. However, this is a vehicle, and if we have inconsistent approaches to it, it may be important to try and establish a consistent approach for the future.

The second question is—this may be covered by secondary legislation—how will the public be able to identify each pedicab? At the moment, you can identify a bus or vehicle by a registration plate, but these things do not have them. Of course, the drivers may have some kind of badge like a taxi driver would, but how are you to be identified by a plate? We need to understand what that would be, because it needs to be big enough to be seen, particularly at night and, frankly, by those who are inebriate—and, frankly, for many of us our sight deteriorates at night. Therefore, it is essential that it is quite clear and not quite as small perhaps as those some of our Hackney carriages carry at the moment.

My third question is: is the taxi analogy to be a Hackney type or an Uber type? Is it to be ordered on the street or by an app? The app could work pretty well, I would think, but it imposes different types of thinking about how regulation should be developed. It would be interesting to hear the Government’s approach to this. Would they prefer the Hackney approach, the Uber approach or a little of both? It would be helpful to hear.

On the whole, legislation should be developed depending on data and evidence. Although the Minister set out very clearly why we are concerned in general—and we are all agreeing in principle—it might be helpful to hear some data on how often these things have been involved in collisions; how many times people were hurt; was any compensation awarded; were any regulations broken; and what was the outcome? We might hear from other parts of the country where they have already been regulated. What is the evidence that there is a need for legislation? That is not because I disagree with it, but because I think it is important for the Government to set out clearly why legislation should be introduced and the costs that go with it.

I wonder whether the fines mentioned, which are levelled at around £2,500, are of the right order. It says very clearly that prison is not intended to be included. We know one or two things about fines. One is that only 50% of any financial penalty, whether in a court or by fixed penalty, is paid, so it is not always the most effective form of enforcement. But £2,500 is the maximum. It is very rare for a maximum to be imposed by any court, and these fines are generally to be enforced by fixed penalties. We should consider that some of these pedicabs are worth something of the order of £6,000—they can cost between £1,800 to £6,000. Let us say that they generate income of £50,000 a year—we do not seem to know their income levels. Is £2,500 a deterrent? If you get caught only once a year, it might be regarded just as a business cost. The more severe penalty is probably seizing the vehicle, which is clearly indicated within the legislation, but I wonder about the level at which the fines are set.

My final points are fairly simple, but I think Hackney carriages might be interested. Are pedicabs to have some form of knowledge? As noble Lords know, the Hackney carriages still do, and I think it is a great thing for tourists. They do not only ask to go to a place, they often ask to go to a particular hotel, or they know roughly where they are going but not exactly, and our best taxi drivers are able to help. I know companies such as Uber often rely on satnav, and I do not dismiss it, but in central London, people often want not only the place but a particular thing, and it would be interesting to hear whether any thought has been given to that and whether it would helpful.

It is a very detailed point, but will there be a requirement for people to quit if they are asked to? Often, the police get involved when somebody refuses to get out of a cab or refuses to get off a bus. If you do not have the power, you can be there all night trying to persuade somebody to leave when you have no power. In my experience, people at their drunkest are at their least compliant and least rational. Can the Minister say anything on that?

My final point, which is an extension of the point of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, around electric cycles, is that if we learn any lessons about holding pedicab drivers and owners to account, could we consider whether we take those lessons and apply them to cyclists? I fear that my list of people who are dangerous is longer than just people who have electric scooters and electrically charged cycles. I fear that cyclists, particularly in London, seem to be entirely unaccountable. I know I have mentioned this before, and I accept that it is a big issue, but even having a registration plate somewhere on the back would not be a bad idea to make sure that people are held to account and it is not totally without consequences if they choose to ignore things that are meant to keep us all safe. On occasion they have terribly injured people, and on some occasions killed them. I know that is not in the purposes of the Bill, but there may be lessons learned here that could be applied elsewhere.

Low-traffic Neighbourhoods

Lord Hogan-Howe Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I take on board what she says, and I cannot disagree with it. There is nothing wrong with driving. Most of us use a car, and for many, life would not be liveable without one, but I take on board exactly what the noble Baroness says.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I add my own congratulations to a retired detective who has been put in charge of traffic, which is truly a remarkable promotion. What plans do the Government have to ensure that cyclists do not exceed 20 mph in the low- traffic zones or, frankly, anywhere else that they choose to break the law?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his kind words. He makes a very good point, and it is something, perhaps, that the Metropolitan Police should take good note of.