Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Hanham (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 10 January 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Road Safety Bill [HL].


Road Safety Bill [HL]

My Lords, I rise only because my noble friend mentioned me, and I want to say that subsection (2)(b) has certainly improved since we last saw it, in that it ensures that the person who is to be made culpable for this offence is at least an adult. I have not had a chance to talk to my noble friend about this much, but I still have concerns, because I am not sure many parents would like it suggested that they either were in possession of the cycle immediately before the child rode it, or had custody of it. My recollection of my children is that half the time I did not know where the bicycle was, and I was jolly lucky when I knew where they were along with it. The amendment would pin a criminal responsibility on any parent if their child went out on the cycle without them knowing about it. None of this belies the importance of children wearing safety headgear. The difficulty we are encountering here is where and how you lay that responsibility, and where the culpable area is. I do not want anyone to misunderstand. A hat on the head is essential, but how you pin the responsibility is much more difficult in legislation.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
677 c126 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Death Accidents Cars Dangerous driving Cycling Fixed penalties Disqualification Driving under influence Large goods vehicles Driving instruction Helmets Electric vehicles Roads Safety Road traffic offences Speed limits
Legislation
Road Safety Bill (HL) 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk