IT IS literally, say the critics, the work of a nanny state with bells on.

In the name of public safety, the Government is considering making a fully functioning bell compulsory on every bicycle so that cyclists can warn pedestrians of their approach.

Those cycling without an “audible warning instrument” could then be subject to on-the-spot penalties or even a four-figure fine. Opponents argue, however, that the proposals would be impossible to enforce and have questioned whether a new law is really necessary to help those on two wheels avoid those on two feet.

At present, bells must be fitted on all bikes when they are sold, but buyers are free to remove them and there is no requirement to use them.

Now, with harmonised European standards due to come into force in November, Stephen Ladyman, the Transport Minister, has decided that it is time to scrutinise cyclists’ behaviour.

Promising a public consultation on the matter, Dr Ladyman said: “Although they do not cover bicycle bells, the introduction of these standards makes this a sensible moment to review our current policies on cycle construction, including the question of bells.” The proposal, however, is in its early stages.

The issue was raised in Parliament by Phil Willis, the Liberal Democrat MP for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who has started a campaign to make bell-free cycling an offence. He said that the recent surge of interest in cycling meant that more safeguards were needed to prevent unpleasant collisions. “It came to my attention when an elderly constituent said to me, although she liked seeing people cycling, she found it worrying when they came up behind you with no warning,” he said.

“There have been some horrendous accidents simply because no warning has been given. But just one click and you would know somebody was there.”

Mr Willis said that cyclists who did not use their bells should be punished in the same way motorists can be prosecuted for driving with a defective horn. “I’m not interested in introducing draconian penalties,” he said. “But if a cyclist is stopped by a policeman, and they didn’t have a functioning bell, then that should be committing an offence.”

Philip Aspey, of the Police Superintendents’ Association of England and Wales, was unconvinced. Pointing out that such prosecutions of motorists are scarce, he said: “It would be helpful to distinguish between all things which are common sense and others which are enforceable.

“I would say it is unlikely to be a priority for police in most parts of the country.”

Graeme Obree, the world record-holding cyclist, has already lambasted the idea as “a pointless exercise in red tape”, while Craig MacLean, the Commonwealth Games gold medallist, said he doubted that the move would deter irresponsible riders.

The last annual casualty statistics, published in May, showed that the number of cyclists killed on the road rose by 10 per cent to 148 in 2005.

In an online forum, where bloggers debated the need for bicycle bells, one cyclist said: “I do not have a bell and, yet, I can easily warn the public of my presence by speaking. Slowing down, and saying ‘Excuse me’ in my best oratorical voice has always worked for me.”

This month Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, launched a campaign aimed at curbing aggressive cycling.

CYCLE CLIPS

Bells on new bikes were compulsory until 1983. They were later made mandatory on point of sale 21 years later

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers