Road Safety Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 53:"After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—"    ““Cycle lights    A pedal cycle fitted with a flashing or pulsating white or red light shall be deemed to satisfy the lighting requirement of the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 (S.I. 1989/1796).”” The noble Lord said: Under the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989, a cycle fitted with a pulsating or flashing light is not lawfully lit. Many cyclists recognise the importance of making themselves visible to other motorists and road users, and many purchase flashing or pulsating lights or lights that are comprised of light-emitting diodes. Many of them purchase that equipment in cycle shops, not realising that, technically speaking, if they use them on their cycle, it will not be properly lit for the purposes of the 1989 regulations, unless the lights are used in addition to other fixed lights. The police may not enforce that law much because they recognise that it is better to have a cycle with a pulsating or flashing light, albeit an illegal one, than one with no lighting at all. The significance of the existing ambiguity in the law is found in the civil courts: if a cyclist is involved in an accident, civil liability is based on whether they were complying with the road traffic laws. If the cyclist has a pulsating or flashing light, but no other illumination, it is possible that they will be regarded as having breached the law on lighting requirements, reducing their chances of receiving damages and perhaps raising the issue of contributory negligence. That is a significant issue for cyclists and road safety. Many cyclists have used their judgment and reached the conclusion, which many road users share, that a cycle with a flashing or pulsating light is probably more visible than one without. The need for technical consistency to prevent any flashing or pulsating lights being used on the highway other than by emergency vehicles has been eroded by the effluxion of time and the behaviour by cyclists on our streets. If the noble Baroness is unable to accept the amendment today, she is guilty of giving out mixed messages: on the one hand the Government cannot accept white pulsating lights, but on the other it is giving a wink and nod that their continued use is acceptable. It is time that we cleared up that anomaly, moved with the times and accepted that technology in this case has the ability to save countess lives and needless injuries. This is a sensible and common sense-based amendment, and I hope that the noble Baroness, being the sensible and commonsense person that she is, will be able to accept it. I beg to move.