- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Big Ben © Simon MacMichaelGovernment reportedly set to announce new causing death by dangerous cycling offence this week
The government is expected to announce plans this week to introduce an offence of causing death by dangerous cycling according to a report in the Mail on Sunday.
The new offence would reportedly be subject to the same penalties as causing death by careless driving, which carries a maximum punishment of 14 years’ imprisonment.
However, cycling campaigners have said that the government should follow through on a pledge made four years ago to review all road traffic offences, as well as focusing on how the thousands of deaths caused by motorists each year, rather than the handful in which cyclists are involved.
Since cyclist Charlie Alliston was convicted at the Old Bailey last year of killing pedestrian Kim Briggs after crashing into her in London’s Old Street in 2016, there have been calls for cyclists to be subject to similar laws as motorists.
Alliston had been acquitted by a jury of manslaughter in relation to Mrs Briggs’ death, but was found guilty of causing bodily harm through wanton and furious driving, an offence created under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
In the wake of that case, the victim’s widower, Matthew Briggs, launched a campaign calling for the law to be updated that has received widespread coverage in the media.
Last September, his MP Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) asked Theresa May at Prime Minister’s Questions whether the government would extend the law on dangerous driving to encompass cyclists as well as motorists.
> Prime Minister urged to extend dangerous driving law to cyclists
Subsequently, transport minister Jesse Norman announced that the government would conduct a review of cycle safety, initially focusing on whether a new offence for cyclists equivalent to causing death by careless or dangerous driving should be introduced.
> Government announces cycle safety review in wake of Alliston case
A spokesman for the Department for Transport, quoted on the Guardian website today, said: “We are carrying out a review to improve all elements of cycle safety.
“This includes looking at the case for a new offence, equivalent to causing death or serious injury by careless or dangerous driving, to help protect both cyclists and pedestrians.”
Caspar Hughes, who is on the co-ordinating committee of the campaign group Stop Killing Cyclists, told road.cc: “Three people were killed by a speeding driver at a bus stop last month in one incident, the same number of people as killed by cyclists in the whole of the UK last year. In total there were nearly 1,800 people killed by drivers in the same period.
“Unfortunately, in this case the government isn’t strong enough push through evidence-based policy that keeps the safety of the majority of the population at its heart. Time and time again they are cowed into creating populist policy by the press and this an example of that process.
“A significant way to improve everyone’s safety would be to invest £3 billion a year on supporting cycling, a mode of transport that is far gentler on society than driving,” he added.
Cycling UK said that rather than focusing solely on offences that may be committed by cyclists, the government needed to undertake a full review of road laws and penalties.
Duncan Dollimore, the charity’s head of campaigns, said: “The way in which the justice system deals with mistakes, carelessness, recklessness and deliberately dangerous behaviour by all road users hasn’t been fit for purpose for years.
“Adding one or two new offences specific to cyclists would just be tinkering around the edges, when what’s needed is a full review of all road traffic offences and penalties, something the government promised back in 2014 but have yet to deliver.
“If they’re serious about addressing behaviour on our roads that puts others at risk they should grasp the opportunity to do the job properly, and conduct the holistic review that’s long overdue, rather than attempt to patch up an area of legislation that’s simply not working."
The offence of causing death by careless driving, which carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment, may be brought in cases where the standard of driving "fell below the standard expected of a careful and competent driver."
The more serious charge of causing death by dangerous driving, punishable by up to 14 years' imprisonment, is brought when the standard of driving "fell far below the standard expected of a careful and competent driver."
The offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, which has a maximum penalty of five years in jail, was introduced in late 2012 under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act following lobbying by road safety campaigners including Cycling UK.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- essexian 2 sec ago
From the piece: "One witness said he did not think Rashid would have had any time to react." At 41mph, perhaps not. At the posted 30mph, then very...
- Rome73 18 min 41 sec ago
The first time I went to Japan for work, the thing that made the biggest impression on me were the large, glass fronted vending machines on the...
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 10 min ago
That's not a bad idea, unfortunately what councillors like Mr Shepherd, council wardens and all too often police and magistrates as well regard as ...
- Rendel Harris 2 hours 28 min ago
The Specialized Tricross (of which I own an example, used for winter commuting, a bit of trails and general errand running (and occasional long...
- Keesvant 4 hours 4 min ago
Wish i had a camera, spotted a bus-driver. Driving a bus full of people using her phone while driving yesterday.
- Born_peddling 5 hours 53 min ago
Athletes will always be that it's the technology through the years that's pushed time trials and race times. As a former downhill rider (for fun) I...
- David9694 9 hours 28 min ago
Live: Car crashes into Sainsbury's petrol station kiosk at The Willows...
- Hirsute 9 hours 30 min ago
Hope it's at least a 3 season bag.
- wtjs 12 hours 50 min ago
car is costly but once the tax etc is paid (which you can't avoid - well, outside of Lancs...)...
Add new comment
38 comments
Given the similar injury and fatality rates can we campaign for s42 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to be replaced with the offences of causing death or injury by careless or dangerous dooring?
I wrote this on the CUK thread and I'll repeat it here, soz it's a bit long.
The problem I have is that riding a bike isn't inherrantly dangerous either to oneself or others, however a motor vehicle plus human driver/operator is, hencewhy so many 'safety' devices and protective systems plus devices to prevent loss of control are installed. If driving wasn't so dangerous there would be no need for this, nor would there be any need for pedestrian crash proection designed into motors.
The whole way the vast majority look at the act of a human not trained adequately and/or with a mindset not up to standard is wrong.
By mere fact that despite all the efforts of technology humans still kill over a million other humans every year by motor vehicle.
That in itself is proof enough that it's inherrantly a dangerous act.
Yet the powers that be devalue the protection of the vulnerable by insisting on using the term 'careless' when in fact it cannot be that by the simple fact a death or serious injury occured and does occur with great regularity, again despite all the modern technology in place.
And yet we now (yet again) raise the bar of responsibility for people on bikes, yet again the vast majority fail to understand that even when deaths and injuries occur that a large portion of them are out of control or of equal responsibility to the other party but because of the way the hatred (and it is that) , bias and discrimination has crept in and now part of 'normal'thinking we cannot even get the same level of understanding or sympathy compared to those whose actions kill and maim with impunity.
The Charlie Alliston case is a prime example, replace Briggs with a person on a bike and replace Alliston with a car and there is no charge, none, it would be local news of a sad death of a stupid cyclist who moved into the path of a motorist.
At worst the motorist would get a fine for a defective brake. No-one would make a deal out of the two (get out the effing way) blasts of the horn , no-one would mention the drivers looks or tattoos in judgement, no-one would suggest the choice of car predicted the drivers mindset or that they were predisposed to driving in a particular manner.
And yet Alliston was charged accused of an act that his actions clearly did not meet the threshold for (manslaughter was utterly ridiculous) his actions were not wanton or furious, someone who did what the vast majoruty would do in the same scenario, slow down and swerve around, slowed down to little more than a slow running pace (as low as 10mph as admitted by prosecution) and gave audible warnings as per HC advice.
And despite his actions to avoid someone whose own actions were dangerous to themselves he was handed a sentence right at the upper end, meanwhile those who didn't show any consideration for the other party are getting off scot free or a lenient sentence.
This 'act' because it is not a law, will only further serve to persecute people on bikes and be used to punish more severely compared to others (just as already happens) and from that the expectation that we must go about our business with a greater expectation toward safety than all other groups (again above what that is already.)
The Dailyy Mail and Express managed to lie their way to Brexthick so it's hardy any surprise that govt wouldn't bow to another of their hysterical prejudices.
I fail to see how Dangerous cycling == Careless driving.
Even with the most malicious intent, as a mode of transport I imagine it's near impossible to cause multiple fatalities on a bike, besides 1x ped + 1x rider, whereas we all know what motorised vehicles can do if the operator takes their attention away for a few seconds.
In reality this legislation will probably be barely worth the effort already applied, for reasons already mentioned, but it does feel like the latest chapter in the story of endless distractions aka the transcripts of the Houses of Parliament...
Based on a bad experience I had with a van whilst cycling, surely all any cyclist who collides with a pedestrian has to say is that they didn't see them. Or does that defence only work for motorists?
Great, the Daily Mail is now dictating what traffic laws we have. We can expect this one to be used about once every five years. It's about as well thought out as the one on dangerous dogs. Of course, enforcement of existing laws on road use will remain as lax as ever. And things that really cause risk to others, such as texting and driving which increases the risk of a crash by a factor of 23 according to TRL research, will still have a lower penalty than drink driving.
Guys, this really isn't a problem. If it gets inforced as agressively as the death by dangerous driving offence then we have absolutely nothing to worry about. Well, I say we, but this really only affects you guys who are riding in the UK.
So good luck with that.
I expect it to be enforced much more aggressively, because it will be much easier to get a jury of motorists to agree that cycling falls much below expected standards than driving. Since for most motorists the expected standard of cycling essentially boils down to 'out of my fucking way' I think they'd happily convict any cyclist put in front of them.
Indeed. A van driver who killed a four year-old girl who was ON THE FUCKING PAVEMENT got away with it, largely because driving standards are now so poor that driving on the pavement has become normalised. A jury of equally shit drivers will always acquit one of their own.
No such latitude will be given to a cyclist confronted by a non-cycling jury.
Jury if drivers, half of which are below average and 2 or 3 far below average fail to convict driver.
Jury of drivers where half of them just want all cyclists off the road just as likely to acquit cyclists? I think not.
And the CPS will respond to the probability of achieving conviction accordingly.
How many times have you heard cyclists described as going too fast, when they are far below the speed limit that drivers are not sticking to.
You think a cyclist would be acquired if they mounted the pavement and killed a child? Or hit someone while they were on the wrong side of the road? Think again.
I hope they don't lock people up for death by normal riding, or nearly hitting someone crossing the road on their phone (when witnessed by police).
At most when someone gets ran into while running across a pedestrian, it's 50/50.
If you're looking at your phone or veer off without looking to the side first you should be to blame.
Where is the death by dangerous walking when a cyclist is killed in a collision with a pedestrian or trying to avoid one.
I can imaging cyclists not sticking around when they've hit someone either, it's not worth the hassle (but then there would be calls for bike number plates)
Given the possibilities of deaths caused by dangerous cycling, shall we expect neq laws on dangerous extreme ironing and dangerous selfie shots?
Only if this is followed up by a presumed liability law, whereby the more vulnerable form of transportation has the benefit of the doubt, will they have made any positive difference.
In any case, the future is cameras all round unfortunately.
Best get some insurance covering legal fees. And a forward facing camera
Really beggars belief, no proper review, just a popularity contest.
What if it's a teenager involved in a fatal accident, who'll be liable, the parents.
What about training for cyclists, will it become compulsory?
Petrol heads will be the death of us one way or another, either mown down, lung diseases or an obese nation of overweight unhealthy people.
Three thoughts on this...
First up... pah, this matters not one jot. This will potentially affect say five people a year. It's a storm in a tea cup.
Second thought... what a waste of time and misplaced focus. There are thousands of potentially avoidable deaths, tolerated every year happening on our roads, and yet apparently the most important thing for our law makers is to crack down on killer bikers. Pathetic.
Thirdly... death by careless cycling, yep I'm all down with that... however I start to get prickly at the thought of death by dangerous cycling charges.
I am sure, absolutely certain, the CPS will have no issues at all going for the 'dangerous' charge for cyclists, as unlike driving, juries are not going to be made up of cycling sympathisers. I see a very high rate of convictions.
However... I can't see a dangerous charge going unchallenged. Unlike driving, cyclists are not governed by speed limits (odd exceptions aside), there is no licence to demonstrate that cyclists have a competent understanding of their legal responsibilities, there is no MOT In place to ensure equipment is roadworthy/legal.
To me it puts far too much responsibility on the cyclist in a way that it's not for car drivers.
One example... Imagine someone steps out in front of you whilst cycling along at 20mph. You grab the anchors and by terrible misfortune, your front brake cable fails.
Bang you hit pedestrian, pedestrian dies.
What happens here? You could arguably be seen as no different to Allison; you were riding a defective bike.
Now say you do your own mechanics, you have nothing to say that brake was ever up to scratch... only your word. Suddenly you are wilfully riding a defective bike.... you is going down for causing death by dangerous cycling.
In short I can't see how a dangerous cycling charge could be avoided unless there are also licences and MOT's for bikes.
Sad times
Any chance you could sum that up in a nice sentence or two so that I can be bothered to read it?
It's perfectly readable and comprehensible for anyone with an attention span greater than that of a gnat.
Burt,
I sometimes like to read your ramblings on this forum. Sometimes I agree with you, sometimes I do not. Always I can be bothered to read what you have written even if you do not summarise in a sentence or two (which is not often the case). Why? Because you have taken the time to write an opinion or comment that can be responded to. Therefore if you cannot be bothered to read others posts, why should anyone be bothered to read yours or take the slightest bit of notice of you? You are a grown man, grow up don't be rude.
Jimmy,
Sad times indeed. I understand your post perfectly!
What I don't like is when people quote really long posts...
Meaning you have to scroll down forever...
It's a waste of the internet
Don't give them ideas! They'll start rationing it in the name of austerity!
Burt,
I sometimes like to read your ramblings on this forum. Sometimes I agree with you, sometimes I do not. Always I can be bothered to read what you have written even if you do not summarise in a sentence or two (which is not often the case). Why? Because you have taken the time to write an opinion or comment that can be responded to. Therefore if you cannot be bothered to read others posts, why should anyone be bothered to read yours or take the slightest bit of notice of you? You are a grown man, grow up don't be rude.
[/quote]
You might be right, and perhaps my attention span isn't huge, but I would argue that life is too short to read endless waffle from people who are unable to make cogent points. Being succinct is a skill, and if you want to be read and understood, one well worth cultivating. I think that people who waste my time are rude.
I think that people who read reams of text that they'd rather not read are dim.
I think people who then call the author out for not customising their text to a particular reader's taste, even going so far as to say they're rude for wasting the reader's time, are not only rude, but desperately need a sense of perspective.
How about... I have three immediate views on this... read below if you want to know them.
But, for your personal pleasure...
I can't see how I can trunkate my first to points any further... the third however...
I question the fairness of a death by dangerous cycling law, when there is a lack of clarity on what constitutes dangerous cycling... i.e. without speed limits, without legal requirements to maintain a bike, without any formal training, everything will surely become subjective.
This is important when the jurors asked to make decisions in a land of grey are unlikely to have practical understandings of what they are being asked to judge.
The idea that this was ever going to be part of an evidence-based review failed at the first hurdle as the evidence points to motorists being responsible for the majority of KSIs on the roads. The government announcement of the cycling safety review helpfully confirms this:
Note how this doesn't mention the number of pedestrian KSIs caused by drivers or the number of motorists/passenger KSIs caused by other motorists (or even cyclists or pedestrians).
Despite this, it goes on to say:
Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-launches-urgent-review-int...
If improving safety was really was the purpose of the review, then the evidence would have told them they'd got the phases in the wrong order. That's why with phase one apparently all but finished, I'm eager to see phase 2 implemented, though I can't help but feel it will be put on the back-burner. The whole thing comes across as a knee-jerk reaction to the Alliston case and knee-jerk reactions tend not to be based on evidence.
I wonder if the wording will be similar to the dangerous driving charge.
“The offence is committed where the standard of cycling falls well below the standard expected of a competent and careful cyclists and, it would be obvious to a careful and competent cyclist that cycling in that manner would be dangerous.”
perhaps juries will be required to submit their strava miles before there allowed to hear the case. Or more likely it’ll be a jury made up of people who haven’t ridden a bike since they were 5 and have to use a car to move any distance greater than they couch to the fridge.
The thing I don't understand is this: if you kill someone carelessly using a cricket bat, a trombone or really any object then the charge is manslaugher. Any object it seems except a motor vehicle - and soon, a bicycle. Why do we need different l;asws for different objects?
Granted, there is an issue juries and the CPS who seem to regard killing someone while driving as "bad luck". Well during the week there as a TN lorry following me on the motorway (in my car) a bare 6 feet behind at 40mph on compacted snow. I think he was annoyed because I was leaving a huge gap to the car in front - what with not wanting to crash and all that. If he'd hit me, then that would not have been bad luck, it would've been him driving like a twunt. (Eventually I pretty much stopped and forced him to pass).
Anyway, it's fantastic to see that we live in a democratic country with one person one vote. Even if that one person is Paul Dacre.
It's a very very long way from a review of road safety and traffic offences, isn't it.
Cunts the lot of them
Pages