Martin Dann said:For those of you that are interested and understand political speak it
is at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmstand/output/deleg/dg03070627-01.htm#start
The principal concern expressed by cyclists and others
about the original version was that it would introduce a
new statement, or a new slant, on the question of
contributory negligence. Following the ruling in Pepper v.
Hart, it would be helpful if the Minister could state that
that was not the Department’s intention and that it would
not be appropriate for the Department for Transport to
alter the law on something as important and wide-ranging
as contributory negligence. I always felt that some of the
concerns in question were over-stated, but as they have
been put in the public domain it would be helpful if the
Minister could say something.
Dr. Ladyman: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his concern
again? I am not quite sure that I understood it. What he
said seems so overblown that I am confused.
Mr. Carmichael: I am saying that the principal concern of
many of those who commented—I think that 11,000
representations were made to the Minister’s Department by
cycling organisations—was that the proposed wording before
the Committee would have an impact on the law relating to
contributory negligence. Although it is accepted that it
will not now be used when the new Highway Code is
published, the concern was that a cyclist who followed the
procedures would have been in some way contributorily
negligent. I accept that we have moved on from there, but
I think that it would help everyone if the Minister
confirmed that that was not and, indeed, never was the
position.
Dr. Ladyman: I can give the hon. Gentleman that absolute
assurance: it was never the intention that that should be
the case. In fact, the wording of rules 61 and 63 that is
before us was arrived at as a result of consulting
cyclists. Following many of the comments that were made,
we refined the wording in the old version of the code. I
met the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on
cycling, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South
and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), who represented to me a
further view of these matters. I was under the impression
that I had agreed with her a form of wording that would
meet cyclists’ concerns, which is the wording before us in
the March version of the Highway Code.
There was no intention to try to change the law. We
thought that we had a version that would satisfy cyclists.
When this version was tabled, I was surprised to discover
that it did not meet cyclists’ concerns, because I thought
that I had gone out of my way to meet those and the people
who were making representations. We withdrew it
subsequently and replaced it with a new version, which we
are not in a position to debate today.
Mr. Carmichael: I am grateful to the Minister for that. We
have probably dealt with that point.
Mr. Brazier: I wholeheartedly agree with the hon.
Gentleman’s point. The concern is exactly the same as that
of the British Horse Society about riders. The problem is
that the new wording could be used as an aggravating
factor in a negligence case in court. As I said, it is
exactly the same concern, which is why I looked to the
Minister for evidence that the Government have moved on
the BHS’s concerns.
Mr. Carmichael: I will come to the BHS concerns in a minute.
I should commend the Minister for having met, eventually,
the CTC—the UK’s national cyclists organisation—and taken
its concerns on board. My impression of it as an
organisation is that it is responsible and prepared to
engage, and I hope that the Minister would concur with
that. However, further to the point made about the
process, it is unfortunate that it took so long to get
around the table with the CTC. There is a residual feeling
in that organisation and among many of its members that
the effort required to get their point across should have
been unnecessary.
I hope that when we come to deal with this situation in
the future, the Minister, his successor or successors will
be mindful of the fact that such organisations have a good
understanding of what they are talking about—possibly even
better than some of those who are advising him or her—and
that, as is evidenced by the fact that the Government’s
position has changed on rules 61 and 63, they have a
contribution to make.
This has been a long, drawn-out process. It should not
have necessitated last-minutes changes. Part of the
concern was that the wording before the Committee would
force cyclists to use cycle facilities that are sometimes
inadequate, perhaps because they have not been maintained
or were not appropriately installed in the first place.
That needs to be addressed perhaps well beyond the scope
of the Highway Code.
My other concern about cycling provisions in the code
relates not to rules 61 and 63, but to rule 77, in respect
of which no alteration has been made. It concerns the
correct approach to roundabouts by cyclists. I shall read
it into the record for the benefit of the Committee. It
states:
“You may feel safer walking your cycle round on the
pavement or verge. If you decide to ride round keeping to
the left-hand lane you should”
follow the instructions in three bullet points that
follow. My concern, which I know is shared by many
cyclists, is that that seems to suggest that cyclists
should ride round only in the left-hand lane. There must
be safety concerns about that if a person is turning right
at a roundabout. It seems a somewhat inelegant form of
wording. I know what the Minister will say about how he
interprets it, but we should not just be thinking about
how we here interpret it. We should consider how the
ordinary man or woman in the street will interpret it,
which was my initial point about the nature of the Highway
Code. Rule 77 could have been much better worded.
Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The
wording of that rule seems extraordinary. Does he agree
that it would be better if the words
“keeping to the left-hand lane”
were simply omitted so that it read, “If you decide to
ride round you should” and so on?
