Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

No plans to introduce specific offence of using mobile phone while cycling, says minister

Baroness Vere tells House of Lords: “It is really important that we do not demonise all cyclists”

Transport minister Baroness Vere has told the House of Lords that the government has no plans to introduce specific legislation banning cyclists and e-scooter riders from using mobile phones while riding.

Speaking in a debate tabled by fellow Conservative peer Baroness McIntosh of Pickering, who as Anne McIntosh was Member of Parliament for Vale of York from 1997 to 2010 and subsequently Vale of York until 2015, she also said that “It is really important that we do not demonise all cyclists.”

Baroness McIntosh had brought yesterday’s debate to express her regret that last month’s changes to Highway Code Rule 149, which now makes it an offence to use a hand-held mobile device for almost any purpose while driving, and not just to make and receive calls and texts, did not “go far enough” since it does not extend to people riding bikes, including e-bikes, or e-scooters.

“There must have been a very good reason why that was not the case,” she said, illustrating her point with an example taken from her journey by foot from her London flat to the Palace of Westminster ahead of the debate.

“I was midway across a pedestrian crossing and was approached by a cyclist on his mobile phone – one hand bicycling and one hand on the mobile phone – on the wrong side of the road, and it was not clear whether he was going to stop.

“Cyclists and those on e-scooters and e-bikes are using handheld phones inappropriately and I would like to understand why the Department [for Transport] has not addressed this issue,” she said. “That has to be a cause of concern.”

She also asked the government how it planned to respond to insurance trade body the ABI “about insuring e-scooters, e-bikes and bikes generally, and properly ensure the regulation of their use,” and when it would amend the law “to create criminal offences relating to dangerous, careless and inconsiderate cycling for users of pedal bikes, electronically assisted bikes and e-scooters, as for other motor vehicles.”

Baroness Pickering has twice previously tabled private member’s bills calling for an offence of dangerous cycling to be introduced – neither was successful, but she said yesterday she plans to introduce a third one – and has also tabled several questions in the House of Lords relating to people cycling on the pavement or riding their bikes through red traffic lights.

> Dangerous cycling bill introduced to House of Lords

In her response to the motion, Baroness Vere, who is Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Transport, said that “Road safety is a key priority for the government,” and that revised wording of Highway Code Rule 149 reflects changes made to the law on 25 March this year.

> Tougher laws on mobile phone use while driving set to take effect

“This change will make it much easier for the police to enforce the offence,” she said. “No longer will the police have to prove what the driver was doing on their phone; they will simply have to be satisfied that a driver was indeed using their phone while driving to impose the appropriate sanction.

“This should act as a substantial deterrent to those who might be tempted to pick up their phone and risk not only their own life but the lives of other road users.

“Cyclists and e-bike riders tend to be covered by other laws,” the minister continued. “The laws that we have changed most recently are under the Road Traffic Act, which tends to cover [motor] vehicles.

“However, like all road users, cyclists and e-bike riders are required to comply with many road traffic laws in the interests both of their own safety and that of other road users, and we reflect that in the Highway Code.

“So, it is not a specific offence to cycle and use a mobile phone or headphones, but cyclists and e-bike riders can be prosecuted by the police for careless and dangerous cycling, with maximum fines of £1,000 and £2,500 respectively.

“It is really important that we do not demonise all cyclists,” she said, while acknowledging that “there are some bad apples out there, and we need to make sure that they are held to account,” and that the government “want to ensure that we crack down on reckless cyclists.

“We launched a review exploring the case for a specific dangerous cycling offence, and we are looking at what we will do next and will publish our response shortly.”

On the subject of e-scooter riders using mobile phones, the minister said: “It is the case that an e-scooter user falls under the regulations, and it is an offence to use a hand-held mobile phone on an e-scooter. They can be fined, and they could also get six penalty points.

“I reiterate that we do not feel that our approach to the Highway Code has been incorrect,” Baroness Vere said.

“In the circumstances we were presented with, it was important to choose specific topics and put them into the Highway Code when they were ready, or when either the law had changed or the consultation had reached its natural conclusion.

“We will continue to do so, but of course we will combine changes if it makes sense to do so,” she added. “The next big change probably will be automated vehicles.”

In response to the minister’s comments, in her closing remarks to the debate, Baroness McIntosh said: “I look forward to seeing how automated vehicles will respond to reckless and furious cyclists, e-bicyclists and e-scooters, but we live to fight another day.”

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

25 comments

Avatar
Fignon's ghost | 2 years ago
2 likes

I had a beautiful sunshine ride this afternoon. It's why I love my bike. Landscape and adrenaline. Nothing better...

But I could never ever see myself surviving such a ride browsing a mobile fucking phone.

But I'll be damned if they are ever going to stop me listening to music on my ride.
It's been a bad day. Please don't take a picture...
REM

Avatar
macbaby | 2 years ago
7 likes

“It is really important that we do not demonise all cyclists,” she said
So "demonising" some cyclists is ok, then. How about a little judicious demonising of those on the phone or launching their multi ton vehicles at vulnerable road users?

Avatar
Rick_Rude | 2 years ago
2 likes

Don't think I've ever seen a lycra clad cyclist doing the phone cycling thing. Seems to be more student, yob and druggo types in towns. 

Real cyclists are already too busy looking at their power meter readings to use a phone. 

//www.ridemedia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Froome_GW.jpg)

Avatar
ktache | 2 years ago
3 likes

Why were headphones even mentioned?

Avatar
ktache replied to ktache | 2 years ago
3 likes

And it wasn't the highway code update that closed the loophole in the mobile phone law, it was a change in the legislation.

Avatar
Jenova20 | 2 years ago
6 likes

"Baroness Pickering"

Related to Ronny by any chance?

Avatar
Bucks Cycle Cammer | 2 years ago
11 likes

Baroness McIntosh said: “I look forward to seeing how automated vehicles will respond to reckless and furious cyclists, e-bicyclists and e-scooters, but we live to fight another day.”

I'm more concerned with how they'll respond to the 99.9% of ordinary cyclists (not sure why e-bicyclists is a separate thing) and e-scooterists, and pedestrians - given they can't even correctly respond to completely stationary cycle lanes and bollards right now.

Avatar
nosferatu1001 replied to Bucks Cycle Cammer | 2 years ago
2 likes

Or in one case, steer towards cyclists after the vision systems decided the road was clear 

Avatar
Spats Bellini | 2 years ago
4 likes

Penalty points on what? Library card? 

Avatar
nosferatu1001 replied to Spats Bellini | 2 years ago
0 likes

Ghost licence. Get to twelve banned from driving, in theiryntreeated more seriously when they're caught again

Avatar
wycombewheeler | 2 years ago
5 likes

Quote:

“I was midway across a pedestrian crossing and was approached by a cyclist on his mobile phone – one hand bicycling and one hand on the mobile phone – on the wrong side of the road, and it was not clear whether he was going to stop.

Interesting that she makes no mention of the cyclist proceeding through a red light. was she crossing when the red man was iluminated? She doesn't describe a zebra crossing either.

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism | 2 years ago
7 likes

One line I find interesting is wondering how the government will respond to the "insurance" question raised by the ABI.

One, what is this question?
Two, the answer will probably depend on how many Tories are on insurance companies payrolls.

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to AlsoSomniloquism | 2 years ago
2 likes

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

One line I find interesting is wondering how the government will respond to the "insurance" question raised by the ABI.

One, what is this question?
Two, the answer will probably depend on how many Tories are on insurance companies payrolls.

Only comments I can find related to this are

1) the ABI calling for increased regulation of escooters to improve take up.

(I find this baffling, because I doubt anyone has ever decided not to take up an activity due to unsufficient number of rule attached.)

2) a astement from the ABI abut use of private escooters on roads being illegal.

(not sure how they would want the government to respond to that, aslo it's not clear how escooters could be any more regulated than outright banned in public places.)

Avatar
mdavidford replied to wycombewheeler | 2 years ago
1 like

wycombewheeler wrote:

1) the ABI calling for increased regulation of escooters to improve take up.

(I find this baffling, because I doubt anyone has ever decided not to take up an activity due to unsufficient number of rule attached.)

If they were talking about regulation as to roadworthiness, etc., or perhaps regulation that improves people's ability to make a claim should they have an accident, then that might have a marginal effect in increasing the number of people willing to hire them.

Even then, i can't see it being a meaningful factor though.

Avatar
brooksby replied to AlsoSomniloquism | 2 years ago
0 likes

Good point.

Avatar
joe9090 | 2 years ago
8 likes

I like to think I am a fast and "furious cyclist"... but then i wake up and see my beergut.

Avatar
PRSboy | 2 years ago
4 likes

With all thats going on these days do these people waste parliamentary time debating crap like this?

Avatar
jh2727 | 2 years ago
5 likes

"Baroness Vere, from the article" wrote:

“We launched a review exploring the case for a specific dangerous cycling offence, and we are looking at what we will do next and will publish our response shortly.”

There is already a specific offence of dangerous cycling. It has about the same level of penalty as careless driving, which seems fairly reasonable.

Avatar
the little onion | 2 years ago
10 likes

Can anyone point to a case where a pedestrian was harmed when a cyclist on a phone collided with them? Google suggests not. All it produces is instances, some tragically fatal, where a cyclist collides with a pedestrian on their phone

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to the little onion | 2 years ago
9 likes

the little onion wrote:

Can anyone point to a case where a pedestrian was harmed when a cyclist on a phone collided with them? Google suggests not. All it produces is instances, some tragically fatal, where a cyclist collides with a pedestrian on their phone

No, I've had a reasonably thorough look around to see if there's any evidence for a certain sub-bridge-dweller's claim that it "can and does" cause the death and injury of pedestrians, can't find a single instance anywhere in the world. I would hazard a guess that this is because, unlike with drivers, cyclists using phones (and I see a fair few in London, mostly Deliveroo etc) generally do so at walking pace, usually trying to check satnav or receive orders. I've never, ever seen someone riding 20mph+ and using a phone. It's still a stupid thing to do in my opinion, but unlikely, as Google shows, to have tragic results.

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to Rendel Harris | 2 years ago
6 likes

I would add "... apart from to the cyclist" at the end of the last sentence to be more accurate. However as mentioned, actual evidence for this after someone stated "can and does" so categorically is scarce. No wonder they are a shit economist. 

 

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to AlsoSomniloquism | 2 years ago
7 likes

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

I would add "... apart from to the cyclist" at the end of the last sentence to be more accurate.

Yes, true - and as jh2727 points out on the other thread, this decreases the likelihood of cyclists using phones in hazardous scenarios as every cyclist knows that any period of prolonged inattention will end up in a wipeout, whereas drivers in a comfy seat inside a big metal box don't perceive the danger in the same way.

Avatar
TheBillder replied to AlsoSomniloquism | 2 years ago
3 likes
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

No wonder they are a shit economist.

I beg to differ. Not a person who is economical with the shit IMO.

Avatar
andystow replied to Rendel Harris | 2 years ago
3 likes

Rendel Harris wrote:

I've never, ever seen someone riding 20mph+ and using a phone.

I've had people call me when I'm out riding, and when I'm well away from traffic I might answer it. With headset, without headset, or on speaker, at anything over a few MPH neither one of you can hear a word the other is saying due to wind noise. If I want to take the call, I stop.

Avatar
Sriracha | 2 years ago
10 likes
Quote:

Baroness McIntosh had brought yesterday’s debate to express her regret that last month’s changes to Highway Code Rule 149, which now makes it an offence to use a hand-held mobile device for almost any purpose while driving, and not just to make and receive calls and texts, did not “go far enough” 

She's right of course, and the Transport Research Laboratory agrees with her:

Shaun Helman, Chief Scientist at TRL, explains: “The focus on ‘hand-held’ devices misses the point – drivers’ eyes and minds must be on the road and it is not enough to only ensure that their hands are on the steering wheel.

https://www.trl.co.uk/news/distracted-driving-research

Whatever happened to "follow the science"?

Latest Comments