---

Road Safety Bill [HL]

My Lords, of course it is helpful, but we do not know how many of those accidents involve the head, how serious the injuries were, and, indeed, what proportion of the total number of child cyclists it represents. I appreciate, none the less, what my noble friend says, but I do not think that human freedom should be eroded in order to save the occasional individual injury. There is one other point. The amendment extends, rather surprisingly, to tricycles, which surely are much safer than bicycles. I should not have thought that was necessary. However, that is for the sponsors of the amendment to answer. There is a further practical objection, which has been touched on obliquely by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. The law requiring equestrians under the age of 14 to wear protective headgear when riding on a public highway is sometimes prayed in aid, but realistically it is difficult—not impossible but difficult—for someone of that age to go riding without adult input or, at any rate, adult co-operation. The horse has to be stabled or, if not stabled, kept in a paddock owned by an adult. It has to be watered and fed daily. The bridle, saddle and other tack has to be provided and kept in good working order. So it is fairly unlikely that a child under the age of 14 would ride out on a public highway without the knowledge of the parent or the guardian. How very different where the bike is concerned. A 12 or 13-year old could grab his bike and zoom off out of sight of older members of his family in no time at all, and children of that age nowadays take instructions from their parents with a giant pinch of salt. For all those reasons I believe that the amendment is misconceived.