HC Deb 24 May 1982 vol 24 cc719-24 `The Secretary of State may make regulations generally as to the use of pedal cycles on roads, their construction and equipment.'.—[Mr. Booth.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.45 pm
Mr. Booth

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause gives the Secretary of State for Transport power to make construction and use regulations for pedal cycles. It is not clear from the construction and use regulations that they apply to other than motorised vehicles.

The United Kingdom bicycle industry has for a considerable time been involved in the formulation of voluntary bicycle safety standards, both nationally and internationally, with some success. That has resulted in the publication of the international standard ISO 4210 entitled "Safety Requirements of Bicycles". That was followed in November 1981 by British Standard 6102, which is virtually the same as the international standard except in one significant respect. The British braking standard is much higher than the international standard. A braking distance of half that of the international standard is specified in the British standard. That has been made possible by research and development work on brake block materials in this country.

The Department of Transport, in its consultative document, invited comments on the desirablility of having construction and use regulations. In January 1982 a cycling policy statement was issued by the Secretary of State for Transport which stated that the consultations had produced a response which indicated the regulations that were required and that the Department proposed to proceed with draft regulations that would make it an offence to supply a bicycle that did not comply with prescribed standards and was not so marked.

If the Department drafted regulations, it would have a number of significant benefits. The only objection of which I know, raised by a representative of the Department in consultation on the making of regulations, relates to reflectors. Part 1 of the British standards refers to a reflector specification to appear in part 2. That has not yet been produced. Apart from that, I see nothing in the standard to prevent it being used straight away.

Considerable progress has been made. The proposal would have support from the industry and responsible bicycle interests. On Britain's crowded roads cyclists face enough danger without the added danger of having to cope with a poorly manufactured or badly adjusted machine. The proposal would prevent the importation of bicycles that were not up to standard. That would be welcomed by the hard-pressed British industry. It would also meet the only other serious complaint that I have heard voiced—that bicycles supplied through mail order or big stores are not necessarily adjusted to safe conditions. Bicycle use and construction regulations would deal with all that.

Mr. Peter Griffiths

I strongly support the new clause for two reasons which arose locally, but which have broader national implications.

This year a number of cases have been reported in the local press of bicycles suffering serious structural damage while being ridden in the street. In both cases of which I know, they were imported, folding bicycles, which need to be carefully made. Sudden fracturing of the frame causes serious injury. The situation is not uncommon throughout the country. Stricter standards of manufacture must be applied.

The inclusion of the new clause in a Transport Bill will remind people who use bicycles that they are a form of transport and not simply playthings. In my city bicycles have risen in popularity since the increase in the cost of fuel. We have a new generation of cyclists who do not follow the traditions of those who used them as transport to work in the 1930s and 1940s. This new generation of cyclists see bicycles simply as fun instruments. They use them recklessly, ignore one-way street regulations, sometimes ride across pavements, and have little concern for pedestrians. It is clear that the riders do not recognise that they are road users in the sense that a vehicle operator is a road user.

Therefore, I welcome the new clause on two grounds. First, if it gives us the opportunity for safer bicycles on the roads, that will be of great and immediate advantage. Secondly, I trust that it will remind bicycle owners that they are road vehicle users and are subject to the law in the normal way.

Mr. Sheerman

I support the new clause in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth). It is embarrassing that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) and I have agreed on so many things in the Bill. I am sure that we shall disagree on many others, but he is right when he says, with my right hon. Friend, that this is an important new clause. I hope that the Government will see their way to accepting it.

I came across the importance of the need for such a clause when examining accidents that occur to children on bicycles. There was, as the House will recall, a fashion for bicycles for children in the 1960s. During that period, and since, there have been a number of serious injuries to children, not because of the dangers of riding on public roads—which is dangerous enough—but because of the construction of many of the bicycles. Bicycles that looked sporty and exciting were designed in such a way that they could cause severe injuries.

I have spoken to a large number of surgeons, who have told me about injuries to small boys, in particular penis injuries, which are well known, and have been well documented in many hospitals. They were injuries that would affect the life of the child from then on, and they have been examined carefully by the Child Accident Prevention Committee. The design of some bicycles is appalling. For example, models of "chopper" bicycles were designed actually to chop, even in small accidents.

The design of bicycles is a very important matter and I take up the point made by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North about collapsible bicycles. Some of the cheap versions imported from Third world countries that have come to my notice can be dangerous when there is only a slight collision. I support the new clause wholeheartedly because of the serious damage that has been caused to a large number of children and adults.

Mr. Anthony Steen (Liverpool, Wavertree)

I remind the House that on 1 April the Friends Of The Earth sent a telegram to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport congratulating him on preserving wildlife in our inner cities. They pointed out that potholes now play a vital part in preserving flora and fauna, and that there is one pothole in Soho that is so large that it has become a habitat for mice and other rodents. There are others in other parts of the country that are of sufficient size for rabbits and badgers.

I add my congratulations to the Minister on his efforts in preserving wildlife, but I am sure that he will agree that it is as important to preserve human life. Last year 19,252 cyclists were injured on the roads. Of those, 5,234 were seriously injured and 302 were killed. Some of the cyclists who met with accidents were pedalling on cheap, nasty, unsafe, imported bikes that should not have been on the road. The bikes were bought from garage forecourts, supermarkets and on a cash-and-carry basis through send-away brochures.

The flood of foreign imports from Yugoslavia, Poland and Taiwan now accounts for 40 per cent. of sales in the United Kingdom. A growing number come from the East. The price of cheapness has been component failure. One must ask how many of those who have been maimed or killed were riding imported bikes with chains that fly off when one is pedalling, with brakes that disintegrate when they are applied, with saddles that twist when one turns a corner, with frames that warp and with front forks that sag.

Cheaply and badly make bikes might be acceptable if we had properly maintained and surfaced roads and an integrated transport policy. That is not the case. There are roads with dramatic potholes. If these unsafe bicycles are to be allowed into the country, it is important that we have roads and a policy that can cope with them. The Friends Of The Earth have recorded 100,000 commuter cyclists coming into London every day because of the expense of public transport. Without efficient transport segregation and using these dangerous bicycles, they are extremely vulnerable.

Unless we find a means of raising the social esteem of being seen on a bicycle and unless it can be made safer and part of a national transport policy, it will not be treated as a serious means of getting around. In turn, this means that local authorities and the Government will not treat cycling safety as a matter of serious consideration.

The cavalier attitude of many planning officers and county engineers in failing to provide facilities for cyclists has not helped, and the number of those injured and maimed has increased. Instead of waiting for the planners, which is like waiting for Godot, the Government should perhaps support the new clause, which would make cycling safer. To insist on minimum standards and to ban unsafe bikes being imported into this country would render a great service, not only to cyclists and pedestrians but to the public at large.

Hon. Members will be familiar with the research that Raleigh Industries have completed with Fibrax to develop a new brake block that will improve braking in wet weather by up to 50 per cent. This is but one of the many imaginative efforts by British cycle manufacturers in carrying out research to provide greater cycling safety. It is essential, if they are to continue this work, that they are not browbeaten by cheap imports. To sell bikes at those prices would allow no profit for essential research.

We wish to protect the cyclist. By supporting the new clause the Government can be certain that they will be providing minimum standards of manufacture that will give the cyclist increased protection and increased safety on the busy roads of this country.

Mrs. Chalker

I welcome the short debate provided by new clause 6. It is most important that we take every possible step to improve the safety of bikes on our roads. It is also most important that we bring within British Standard 6102 the requirement for reflectors and other parts of the bike. I would, however, point out that British Standard 6102 is already fairly extensive and that some of the matters mentioned by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) about sharp edges and other aspects of bikes are already included in the standards.

The Government fully recognise the vital transport facility that bicycles now provide for many people. As the House knows, an important policy statement was made by my predecessor in January of this year which set out present and proposed Government action to encourage cycling. Alongside that must go the scrutiny of bicycles imported into Britain, which my hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs is doing. I know of the concern that has been expressed about bicycles that come from abroad. In early June, I shall meet the National Association of Cycle and Motorcycle Traders. I am fortunate enough to have its vice-president in my constituency, who supplied me with my latest bike.

With one exception, I have nothing but sympathy with the new clause. The exception is that we do not need it at present. I say that advisedly because I would not have known but for the increasing interest that I now take in the law of cycling as opposed to actual cycling. I find that under the Road Traffic Act 1972 there are already powers for my right hon. Friend to make regulations relating to the construction and equipment of pedal cycles, their brakes and lights and to their use on the roads. The powers relating to brakes and lights have already been exercised.

Additional powers, including powers to require markings, exist in the Consumer Safety Act 1978. We need to ensure that we use existing powers. The need to use such powers has been pointed out by hon. Members on both sides of the House in this short but important debate.

I ask the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) to withdraw the new clause on this occasion, given my determined intent to utilise, where reasonable and in the interests of safety the existing powers that are already on the statute book and to which we do not need to add. Although I have replied briefly to the debate, we have a high regard for policy on cycling and for the safety of cyclists. Whether if be asking cyclists to think about other road users, and asking other road users to think about cyclists or whether it be improving the large holes mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) I can assure the House that I shall do my best to see that the Road Traffic Act 1972 is used to put right some of the criticisms that have been growing in recent months. Those criticisms will be put to me at the meetings that I have already arranged with cycle traders, friends of cycling and other groups that have the best interests of cyclists at heart. I hope I have them at heart too. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his new clause because I intend to do what he wants me to do, anyway.

Mr. Booth

Where in the 1972 Act is there a construction and use provision that covers pedal cycles? The construction and use section, section 40 does not refer to pedal cycles. It gives power to the Secretary of State to make regulations with regard to the use of motor vehicles.

Mrs. Chalker

It might help the House if I refer the right hon. Gentleman to section 66 of the Act in which, I am assured, we do have the power to do what he wants us to do.

Mr. Booth

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary. Section 66 does not appear wide enough to cover the British standard. As the hon. Lady has said, the British standard has yet to be extended although it is a considerable piece of definition on the safety of bicycles, as anyone who has studied it will see. However, if the hon. Lady is giving an assurance that section 66 is wide enough to bring construction and use regulations within the British standard and permit a part II to be framed, that will be a considerable step forward. I shall take the hon. Lady's advice on that matter.

I urge the hon. Lady to accept that we should not delay in the making of a part II of the British standard before proceeding. Part I covers a range of important safety issues and, on the narrow issue of defining effectively the type of reflectors that we want, we should not delay in making regulations. That is a matter of judgment but I hope that the hon. Lady will respond to it. If she will give us a satisfactory assurance and say something about proceeding with construction and use regulations on matters agreed to and covered by part I, and not delay that by protracted consideration of the contents of a part II of the British standard, it will be unnecessary to press the new clause. I recognise the simplicity of introducing a construction and use regulation that merely states that any bicycles used on British roads shall accord with BS "X". That is obviously a simple thing to do if the British standard lends itself to that. However, there is no reason why it should be done in that way and there is no need to delay the introduction of agreed standards.

Mrs. Chalker

In section 66 (1) (c) there is a specific reference to the equipment that comes within the section—for example, lighting equipment and reflectors I hope that that, taken in conjunction with the Consumer Safety Act 1978, will meet the right hon. Gentleman's argument. I see no reason to delay the introduction of part II. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the new clause.

Mr. Booth

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for what she has said and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to