asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will take steps to ensure that bicycle users abide by the Highway Code.

My Lords, the Highway Code and road traffic law apply as much to cyclists as to anyone else. The police can prosecute cyclists who drive dangerously, carelessly, ignore traffic signs or signals, cycle on the pavement or commit any other offence. Such offences carry maximum fines ranging from £2,500 to £500. Enforcement of the law and the Highway Code is a matter for the police and the relevant authorities.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply, which in its abstract way is extremely encouraging, but does she feel that the system of penalties is effectively applied? As an elderly resident much given to walking about central London, I constantly perceive riders on the pavement and persons popping through traffic lights that are against them and driving up one-way streets. Perhaps I should declare a kind of medical interest, in that my wife was bumped into by a cyclist going the wrong way up Bond Street—at least it was a good street—and as a result she suffered a fractured pelvis. I will say of the offender that he said he was sorry, but that was rather by the way.

The law is not very effectively applied; I know of one person who, when a cyclist was going along the pavement, said to a nearby policeman, "Oughtn't you to do something about that?" The policeman replied, "The road is very crowded". That seems to me to be turning a blind eye to serious offences in the most unsatisfactory way.

Finally, I draw the noble Baroness's attention to the special needs of the blind in this regard. They are peculiarly vulnerable to the offences committed by cyclists, particularly when they are crossing with one of those beeping lights in their favour and the cyclist offends against the rule against going through red lights.

My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord that there is no excuse for cyclists to commit offences such as riding on pavements, although cyclists sometimes tell me that they feel safer in some of the traffic conditions that they experience if they ride on pavements. However, there is no excuse for such offences.

There is a penalty of £500 for causing a serious accident by riding on the pavement. The noble Lord talked about how well that penalty was applied. The Government recently brought in the policy of fixed penalty notices so that people who ride on pavements or break the law as cycling offenders can be served with a fixed penalty notice instead of a prosecution. That is certainly having an effect in reducing the number of such incidents. In addition, community support officers have recently been given special permission to apply the fixed penalty notices, so there is more activity and application is certainly increasing.

My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House that the kind of boorish and anti-social behaviour from cyclists, which has just been so vividly related to the House by the noble Lord, Lord Quinton, forms part of the Government's agenda in their admirable efforts to promote respect between members of society?

My Lords, that is absolutely right. I agree with my noble friend that the cycling fraternity knows that it must abide by the Highway Code, as do other road users. The Highway Code has recently been extended to the relationship between cyclists and drivers. As well as cyclists being aware of their responsibilities, drivers are also now being told in the Highway Code to be aware of other vulnerable road users, including cyclists. I agree with my noble friend, and I say to the noble Lord, Lord Quinton, who asked the original Question, that there was a decline in the number of pavement accidents between 2000 and 2003. The number of casualties arising from accidents on pavements has gone down from 87 to 51.

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that Members of your—

My Lords, the Cross Benches first, then the Liberals.

My Lords, that seems a proper priority. Does the noble Baroness agree that there could be a major problem if the police really took this seriously and spent a lot of time on it? They would do nothing else in central London but prosecute cyclists. Is not the problem largely that the cycles are totally silent? If they had bells on them, as they used to, at least you would hear them moving. Is that not the problem?

My Lords, I shall take that suggestion back to the department. To put this slightly in context, I must say that the number of prosecutions of cyclists in England and Wales in 2004 was 830. The equivalent number of prosecutions for motoring offences in 2003—I do not have the 2004 figure—was 2,325,553.

My Lords, I always give way to seniority. Is the noble Baroness aware that Members of the House who, like me, have offices across the road are more in danger of being injured by cyclists when using the pedestrian crossing outside than by motorists? It is a serious problem. Can she give the House any figures for cyclists unfortunately killed in accidents in recent years? In addition to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, would it not be a good idea to insist that cyclists should wear fluorescent yellow shoulder belts during the daytime, at night have lights both front and back, and wear protective head gear at all times?

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Steel, on that last point. He asked for the number of cyclists killed and injured over recent years. The number killed in 1995 was 202, with 23,623 injured. In 2004, the number killed was 127, and injured 15,876. The numbers are coming down, but obviously there is no room for complacency. The Leader of the House answered a question on the state of transport facilities and facilities for pedestrians around the Westminster estate recently, and the House authorities are aware of the problems faced by noble Lords trying to get access to the House.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that because of—

My Lords, we are in the ninth minute, and we have had one from each of the four quarters, so let us move on.