Cycling

Debate between Fiona Bruce and Mike Weir

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce]

The hon. Gentleman makes excellent points and he is right that we need to consider a compendium of solutions to the problem.

On training, my constituent points out that it will help if we train young people,

“to redress the years and lost generations where cycling has been side-lined.”

He adds:

“Not only does it benefit the children now with greater independence, less obesity and much greater road awareness but will also mean that the next generation of learner drivers should have a greater understanding of road etiquette and the place of cyclists.”

Incidentally, he feels that that should be extended to

“include funded cycle training for adults and greater cycle awareness within the instruction given to drivers in general and professional drivers in particular”.

Mr Bolton says that wider implementation of a 20 mph speed limit would not only make things safer and more pleasant for cyclists and pedestrians, particularly in residential areas, but reduce the differential between the time taken for journeys made by car or by bike, thus

“making journeys by bicycle that bit more enticing.”

He supports appointing cycling commissioners. I suggest that we might consider the appointment of voluntary local champions in that regard, in these times of local funding austerity.

Bob Norton, the chair of the Congleton cycling club, raises two innovative points. He suggests that in most of the EU, national legislation adopts the position that the less vulnerable road user causing harm is deemed to be responsible or culpable, unless evidence is produced to show the contrary. Secondly, he says that the UK should legislate for a minimum passing distance, along the lines of those in force in other European countries.

Other residents, Nick Harwood and Paul Fradley, point out that the poor state of road maintenance is a serious concern, as other hon. Members have mentioned. Often

“a cyclist may have to move out from a line close to the left hand edge of the thoroughfare into the path of fast moving cars, lorries and vans.”

They comment that

“secure bike storage at railway stations and in town centres could all work together to enable more people to leave the car at home”.

My constituent David Ball supports the campaign to raise driver awareness of the vulnerability of cyclists, and reminds us that, whereas some people say that cyclists do not pay road tax, neither do cycles emit CO₂, or damage roads, as cars do.

Finally, I want to quote from the letter I received from Keith Austin, whose son was killed when he was hit from behind by an HGV. He is disappointed—to say the least—to find that the CPS

“have ensured that the driver is to be sentenced in a magistrates court, not the Crown Court”.

He writes that

“it does seem to highlight the unwillingness of the…CPS to bring adequate prosecution against drivers who kill cyclists. Perhaps you can use something from my letter in the debate in Parliament, if you are called.”

Mr Austin writes that Karl, who was a very well-known racing cyclist and had competed for 35 years all over England, was very safety conscious on the roads, and on the day he died was wearing bright clothing. He adds:

“he had attached to the rear of his bike a very small but super-efficient “Exposure Flare” rear light. This emits a very bright pulsating red light, which on a wide, straight road such as the A50 should have been visible for hundreds of yards. A fellow competitor on that evening saw Karl’s bright light and had Karl not been killed later was going to ask him where he could buy one, as it was so powerful.”

Just a few days ago, a report was published in which the head of the Scotland Yard’s road death investigation unit, Detective Chief Inspector Oldham, stated that motorists who cause death on the roads should face stiffer penalties. Mr Austin says that he is now left with the fact that his son’s case will be dealt with in a magistrates court, rather than in a Crown court with a judge presiding. He will be dealt with in a court where petty criminals are dealt with. He says:

“Is killing a man through carelessness on a par with minor offences? Under similar circumstances”—

that is, killing a man—

“where no vehicle was involved, would that qualify for a magistrates court?...To lose a child under any circumstances is utterly devastating. But to have that death…treated in such a…trivialising manner, just deepens the wounds further. My wife and I have suffered all this before, in 1986, when our only daughter was killed in a car crash; her killer charged with ‘driving without due care and attention’ and fined about £200.”

With great grace, however, Mr Austin says that he is not vengeful towards the HGV driver, who himself has to live with the consequences of the incident. He ends his letter to me by saying:

“Whatever sentence he would have faced would be as nothing compared to ours”,

even if the case had been dealt with in a Crown court. Is Mr Austin’s letter alone not sufficient reason for us all to consider the issue of road safety for the benefit of everyone: cyclists, pedestrians and drivers?

[Mr Mike Weir (in the Chair)]

As a result of the number of Members who wish to speak in this debate, I am, with the authority of the Chairman of Ways and Means, imposing a time limit on Back-Bench speeches of seven minutes. The rules are exactly as they are in the House. Each of the first two interventions accepted stop the clock and gives the Member who gives way an extra minute, and I appeal for short interventions.

Unlike in the main Chamber, the mechanisms here do not yet enable the Member speaking to see a countdown clock in the displays around the room. To assist Members, I will cause a bell to be rung when a Member has one minute left.