Road Safety Bill [HL]

Let me enlighten the Committee about that section—not that I am hanging the whole of my argument on it; very far from it. If we repealed that section of the 1835 Act we would allow horses on pavements as well, which would lead to some interesting issues for pedestrians. There is some merit in the 1835 Act in protecting the pavement for pedestrians. I am in great danger of appearing a killjoy of antique vintage in my inability to share the enthusiasm that has been expressed on all sides of the Committee. I share it in one obvious sense, in that I can see that the form of transport has great potential. I recognise the strong advocacy of it. I was a little shocked to hear it suggested that I would be advised by officials who would not know one end of the machine from the other. It might be that Ministers do not have the privilege of getting close to such machines, but I reassure noble Lords that officials have a close acquaintance with the human transporter. Obviously, there is a safety issue here. I heard what the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, said, and the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, also mentioned its use by police. Let me be clear: we will not be able to justify a machine because it is of particular use to the police. They are entitled to avail themselves of all sorts of technology to deal with criminals that we would not give to the ordinary citizen. I hear the point that the machines can be extremely useful for law enforcement, but so can mountain bikes ridden by a policeman in pedestrian precincts. But we would not then say that because a policeman is empowered to use such machines safely in a pedestrian precinct that opens the way for all mountain bikes to be deployed in the same way by an ordinary member of the public. I am not going to accept the argument about police use, although I commend the machines on that feature. I hear that certain sections of the British constabulary are availing themselves of the opportunity to try them out, and that fills my heart with great joy if it aids in dealing with crime. There is a safety issue in the use of these machines our pavements. First, a machine that can travel at 12 mph needs some careful handling and could be a threat to other pedestrians. Not all pedestrians are as adroit and competent as your Lordships undoubtedly are. After all, from what I hear everyone managed the technology of the new machine almost as soon as they were introduced to it. That speaks volumes for our youthfulness and ability to learn. However, other pedestrians have all sorts of incapacities that make them a good deal less mobile. Our pavements are used by many people with limited walking ability and a limited ability to get out of the way of a machine moving at a speed even approaching 12 mph. There is a question of where this machine should be used. I am not going to appear a killjoy; I am delighted to hear of its development, and I can see ways in which it will add to the advantage of all of us. I cannot, however, accept the amendments at this stage. We would need the fullest consultation before we introduced primary legislation to make arrangements for this machine. I am not at all clear that it should be used on the pavement. We may have to start thinking of designated track ways.