58. Viscount CURZONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the very serious accident which occurred at Enfield on the 21st June, resulting in two deaths, where the coroner stated that the accident was caused by a cyclist not carrying a rear light, and that the sooner the rear light Regulation was imposed, the better it would be for everyone concerned, which was further endorsed by the coroner's jury; and whether, in view of these facts, he will take steps to reimpose the carrying of rear lights by cyclists, either by regulation or legislation, at the earliest possible moment?
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal)I am aware of the serious accident 37 referred to and of the statements made by the coroner and the jury. There is no power to make Regulations requiring pedal bicycles to carry rear lights, but as the hon. Member is aware, the First Interim Report of the Departmental Committee on Lights on Vehicles recommends that rear lights should be carried. I fear that it will not be possible to secure time for the passage of legislation this Session.
Viscount CURZONDoes not the hon. Gentleman's answer amount to this, that, pending his Department doing something in the matter, the road users have got to run the greatest risks possible?
Mr. NEALNo, it is not a question of the Department doing something; it is a question of finding time for the House to do something.
§ Mr. HOWARD GRITTENIs the hon. Gentleman aware that there were more accidents when the rear light was carried by cyclists than since it was abolished, and is he also aware that more accidents and deaths are caused by rash and un-conscientious motor road hogs, commonly called "kill-and-run-cads," in three days than by the 4,000,000 cyclists in a year?