A new ‘dangerous cycling’ law, which will bring punishments for cyclists who kill or injure by dangerous or careless riding in line with those for drivers, is set to come into force, after the government’s Crime and Policing Bill was given royal assent this week.
According to the Crime and Policing Act, which Labour branded “one of the biggest legislative updates to policing for decades”, cyclists who kill pedestrians by riding dangerously could be sentenced to life in prison, while cyclists who cause serious injury by dangerous cycling could face a maximum five-year term in jail.
Transport secretary Heidi Alexander says the updated law, granted royal assent on Wednesday, means “the tiny minority of cyclists who recklessly disregard others face the full force of the law”.
The move, which was expected for some time, has been hailed as a “victory” by campaigners such as former Conservative leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith and Matthew Briggs, whose wife Kim was hit and killed by a cyclist in London in 2016.
The following year, Charlie Alliston, who was riding a bicycle with no front brake at the time of the fatal collision, was jailed in 2017 for 18 months under the 1861 offence of causing bodily harm through wanton or furious driving (which carried a maximum sentence of two years).
The previous Conservative government had originally been set to introduce ‘dangerous cycling’ legislation in 2024, with Duncan Smith spearheading that renewed campaign following the death of pedestrian Hilda Griffiths, an 81-year-old woman who died in hospital two months after a collision with a cyclist riding laps of Regent’s Park in London as part of a group ride travelling at speeds between 25-29mph at the time of the crash.
The cyclist involved, Brian Fitzgerald, had no charges brought against him after the Metropolitan Police said there was “insufficient evidence for a real prospect of conviction”.
The inquest received widespread media attention and Duncan Smith urged his government to introduce stricter laws for cyclists, legislation which looked set to be passed when that year’s snap election was called, putting the plans on hold.
However, Labour pledged to follow through with the proposals when elected, and introduced the stricter laws as part of amendments tabled last year to the Crime and Policing Bill.
Now passed into law, the act adds “appropriate offences” to the Road Traffic Act 1988, with the corresponding maximum penalties being set out in the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. It applies to England, Wales, and Scotland.
The four offences and their maximum penalties that are being introduced are:
- Causing death by dangerous cycling: On conviction on indictment, up to life imprisonment.
- Causing serious injury by dangerous cycling: On conviction on indictment, five years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both. On summary conviction, the general limit in a magistrates’ court (currently 12 months) (in England and Wales), or 12 months (in Scotland); or the statutory maximum fine, or both.
- Causing death by careless or inconsiderate cycling: On conviction on indictment, five years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both. On summary conviction, the general limit in a magistrates’ court (currently 12 months) (in England and Wales), or the maximum term of imprisonment on summary conviction (currently 12 months) (in Scotland); or the statutory maximum fine, or both.
- Causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate cycling: On conviction on indictment, two years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both. On summary conviction, the general limit in a magistrates’ court (currently 12 months) (in England and Wales), or the maximum term of imprisonment on summary conviction (currently 12 months) (in Scotland); or the statutory maximum fine or both.
Of course, while these are maximum sentences listed, in reality the sentences currently handed out to motorists for the corresponding driving offences are often far shorter.
Last week, for example, we reported that a motorist who fatally struck a 64-year-old female cyclist, because he was apparently distracted by a set of temporary traffic lights, was recently sentenced to a two-year community order, banned from driving for a year, and ordered to undertake 300 hours’ unpaid work, after admitting causing death by careless driving.
Following the sentencing, Jane Blackwell’s family said they were “disappointed by the day’s outcomes”, while noting that “no sentence can truly reflect the depth of our loss”.
Announcing the government’s intention to introduce stricter laws for cyclists who kill or injure last September, the Home Office said that the maximum penalties previously on offer “are not adequate for those incidents that result in serious or fatal injury”.
The department’s own statistics highlight that over the last 10 years, an average of three pedestrians have been killed per year by cyclists. In the same time period, an average of 283 pedestrians were killed per year in collisions involving drivers of cars.
The passage of the bill into law has been welcomed by campaigners such as Briggs, one of the leading voices calling for change in the last decade.
“I am absolutely delighted. Since losing Kim 10 years ago, I have campaigned persistently to have this gap in road legislation closed and can’t quite believe we have finally got there,” he told the Telegraph.
“This is a victory for the many families that have suffered bereavements and endured a judicial process reliant on archaic laws as the only way to prosecute cyclists; laws which carried minimal tariffs and were complex to prosecute.
“I am so grateful to all these families who joined me in this campaign and to the Labour government for finally passing this into law.”
Former Tory leader Duncan Smith also told the newspaper: “At long last we have a law for dangerous cyclists and e-bikes.
“Those who cycle or ride e-bikes recklessly causing fatal accidents to pedestrians or road users can now feel the full force of the law. Matt Briggs and others who have campaigned for justice should be congratulated for their perseverance.”
In a statement, transport secretary Heidi Alexander said: “Laws that date back to the Victorian era simply weren’t designed for today’s roads.
“These changes will mean the tiny minority of cyclists who recklessly disregard others face the full force of the law.
“We promised to update these laws, and this bill will deliver bringing offenders to justice and making streets safer for pedestrians.”
70 thoughts on “New ‘dangerous cycling’ law – including potential life sentences for riders who kill pedestrians – granted royal assent, as Labour says move will “make streets safer””
I look forward to dangerous driving laws now being enforced with the full vigour demanded by the increased danger from tonnes of extra metal
Hooray! Now all we need is road tax (sic!), MOTs, number plates and insurance and then all death and serious injury on the roads will be eradicated. Lord knows, drivers of motor vehicles have had these requirements for years and we all know how successful they’ve been.
Now all we need is road tax (sic!), MOTs..
Agreed! BF64 TGE, HN21 VXB, GM21 HVD, SM12 NWB etc. etc. (all seen recently) show how successful DVLA and the police are when enforcing those on vehicle drivers
Round here they don’t bother with actual number plates any more. A local grab hire firm has it’s trucks on the road with no front plate showing at all (it’s coyly flipped up – a feature of the plate holder on their trucks, ready for the excuse that the driver only just forgot to flip it down). The rear plate proudly shows GRA83ER which is not a valid registration, but happens to be the name of the firm:
https://www.kidderminstergrabhire.co.uk/contact-us
However that seems too much of a challenge for the police to detect and prosecute.
Wow! Another police force going down the ‘Hopelessly Inept and Idle’ Lancashire route.
The old “otherwise spotless record” and “…but the pedestrian came out of nowhere & wasn’t covered head to toe in hi-viz” defences still apply though right?
I think pedestrians’ behaviour will come under more scrutiny. The right wing press will no doubt jump up and down when acts such stepping out into the road without looking or while looking at a mobile phone remove any blame from a law abiding cyclist who happens to run into them.
As everyone seems to agree – this – if it affects anyone at all apart from a few campaigners and the shouting media – will only be relevant in a tiny minority of a tiny minority of situations. That is: if it’s only a tiny minority of cyclists, and given only around 1% of trips are even cycled…
Given that there *are* new charges I think they will get applied. (Lots of people want to be the first / try out new things, even in the legal business).
Plus with the rarity of these “everyone will be watching”.
Then: given regular cyclists remain an uncommon group which many who don’t regularly cycle regard as an “other” * i suspect there may be both more chance of conviction AND greater punishment.
Perhaps we’ll see a more “follow the guidance as it is written” sentencing approach. Of course we’re used to what sometimes looks like extreme leniency in motoring cases, probably because motornormativity.
(eg. it was technically unlawful but really an accident / OK it wasn’t an accident but everyone does it, the victim was unlucky / OK it was beyond the usual lawbreaking that we see every day, but the terrible consequences were because the offender just happened to be in a car when they lost their rag, and we know that’s as normal as wearing shoes … so those don’t relate the *real* level of criminality which was still rather minor…)
* When on the road cyclists aren’t using a motor vehicle / aren’t “tested and licenced” (even though most of us are because we also drive), when not on the road we’re “far too fast”.
Looking forward to more “sun was in my eyes” (after all few cycles come with a sun visor). And “they were walking all over the (shared use) cycle path – I tried but I couldn’t avoid them”.
Or “I didn’t make contact but they suddenly wobbled and fell in front of my bike”.
I was running late after working a 12 hour shift and had the children in the handlebar basket and they were playing up.
I have replayed the collision in my head many times and keep suffering flashbacks.
I won’t cycle again. Until I need to.
Don’t forget “I am responsible for cycling my aged mother 100ft to the shop next door, and am sole carer for my 3 sick ferrets”.
How about being ploughed off your bike by a vehicle weighing almost a tonne because the driver was impatient because the cyclist was holding him up by 5 minutes?
If this does actually lead to a disproportionate rise in cyclist being convicted, compared to drivers…
Could this lead to more cyclists using cameras?
I often say that I don’t use mine primarily to catch and report dangerous drivers, but in case of a collision I can show the police (/insurers) that it was the driver’s fault.
I will continue to use cameras for every ride I do.
I think the main danger is pedestrians stepping out in front of me. I always give 2m so I have managed to avoid colliding with them so far but just in case one is too quick for me I want it on film.
I also want evidence for the the fact the light was green for me.
I’m curious why you don’t want to use your cameras for that – for me it’s the main reason as I experience a lot more close-passes than actual collisions (luckily I’ve never been caught up in legal proceedings).
Sorry, my wording was off/confusing.
I meant to say, my main reason for using cameras is primarily to have evidence that a collision was not my fault, but the driver’s/other party’s fault.
Thankfully, I’ve not had a collision yet to have to do so.
The actual usage I get, which is my secondary reason, is to catch and report dangerous drivers.
Which I have done a fair bit, but not as much as other more famous examples.
http://www.youtube.com/themitsky/videos
Okay, that makes more sense to me.
I cycle with cameras front and rear but Kent Police are useless so I rarely report anything as it’s just a waste of my time. However, in case of something more serious happening I have the evidence that it – presumably – wasn’t my fault, plus it’s fun to post clips of suicidal squirrels!
The police do nothing anyway. I’ve sent footage of numerous dangerous passes and collisions and nothing.
Geordiepeddeler wrote : The police do nothing anyway. I’ve sent footage of numerous dangerous passes and collisions and nothing.
This used to be the case in Gloucestershire and they gave an interview explaining that inconvenience has to be shown for them to take action for careless or inconsiderate driving which is the way close passes are dealt with. As far as I can make out they think that the offence is careless AND inconsiderate driving, or at least that is how it is seen by the CPS and the courts.
https://road.cc/content/news/close-pass-isnt-offence-says-police-officer-310433
What was generally missed from that interview was the fact that they had decided to send advisory letters to drivers for close passes rather than NFA which always happened before. Since that announcement the vast majority of my close pass reports have resulted in advisory letters being sent. I am aware that this shouldn’t be the case and that it should be possible to give points and a fine to close passers but an advisory letter is better than nothing and I have noticed an improvement in the way I am treated by most drivers. Not sure whether it was the highway code changes or the letters but it has changed.
There are still the “punishment passers” and the “MGIFers” but the close passes by the “incompetents” are declining in my experience.
Fortunately the punishment passers and MGIFers occasionally make the mistake of forcing oncoming cars to stop or pull in and then Gloucestershire police will take action as someone (the other driver) has been inconvenienced.
Here is my latest one.
I suppose what I am trying to say is that despite my dissatisfaction with the way many of my reports are treated at least close passes are no longer ignored.
I reported a dangerous close pass to Kent Police – caravan towing driver forced 3 oncoming cars to emergency brake, the rear one to a halt, and forced my wife into the gravel at the side of the road, then did the same to me a few seconds later. Video evidence, the works.
Result? Advisory letter.
Useless.
Result? Advisory letter. Useless…
I agree- the drivers all know now that the police don’t possess the wit or the willing to notice that an offending driver has received a letter before, so they just do nothing or click a button to send out another one. However, it’s your own fault, you know…Kent Police have made it clear: No Collision = No Offence.
Does the law apply to illegal electric motorbikes with vestigial pedals, which are not bicycles? Or could they be prosecuted under dangerous driving as it’s a motorized vehicle?
The latter – if it’s not a pedal cycle or a lawful EAPC, then it’s a motor vehicle (regardless of the presence of pedals or how bicycle-like it looks) and dangerous driving can be used.
Almost certainly not as the definition for death by dangerous driving is mechanically propelled – i.e. has a motor.
EAPC’s are I think explicitly excluded from said definition, but the minute they have a throttle or don’t cut out at ~15mph they meet the deifnition for DBDD which would become the more appropriate offence.
I assume that there will be a new law on the way to lock up people who walk into the road without looking or being oblivious to their surroundings by virtue of headphones etc. Causing cyclists to swerve to avoid them. And crash, and maybe die?
I may remember it wrong, but I believe the case that kick started this whole knee jerk legislation was where someone walked out in front of the guy on his bike.
Is that how dangerous cycling is defined – having jerky knees?
You’ll be showing us some “souplesse”, sunshine, or we’ll take you back to the station…
Ironically, Mrs Biggs death would likely have been avoided if she had been wearing a helmet.
I’m not a fan of trying to legislate for pedestrians as that will likely lead to Big Motoring making jaywalking a crime over here. As annoying as oblivious pedestrians can be, it’s our responsibility to do the utmost to avoid hitting them, especially as it’s often the cyclist that comes off worst.
I am a fan of shouting at pedestrians who are oblivious though. If I’m in a mischievous mood then I do it when I’m very close to them so as to give them a bit of a scare.
A friend went over the bars badly fracturing his wrist after hooking the rucksack of a pedestrian who walked out in front of them and off, leaving them lying in the road.
While a “loud audible warning” at the last minute is tempting I find that tends to scatter them in random directions which is more dangerous, just as you can rely on a group of pedestrians spread across a path all crossing to the other side (from where they were) when a cyclist approaches.
The reason why, when on foot, I refuse to hold my non-cycling partner’s hand when crossing the road 🙂
It’s a good idea to reduce your speed as soon as you notice an errant pedestrian (even more so if there’s a group), so that you can take avoiding action if the ped is deaf, headphone encumbered or just plain stupid.
Mrs Biggs death would also likely have been avoided if she had not stepped out between two parked cars without looking, and used the nearly pedestrian crossing.
Her killer is a complete a**e, and he definitely had responsibility. But I stand by the argument that if the situation were identical but he were in a car rather than riding a bike, he would have not have been prosecuted
It’s a conundrum. While there is precedent for eg. motorists with defective or dangerous vehicles not being “hit with the full force of the law” (and it’s hard to see an exact equivalent) there have been prosecutions eg. of the truck driver who obscured his windshield and killed someone. The cyclist in this case seems to have done everything possible to advertise his culpability before the fact and then continued to hamper his defence afterwards by showing his poor character.
However, I think it’s fairer to say that I don’t think the victim’s husband’s campaign would have got as far off this has been a motor vehicle.
@the little onion I am aware of that one, and while there are multiple things the driver did (or rather didn’t do) which have me thinking “oh come on” I believe that in that one (rightly or wrongly) the court genuinely accepted that the outcome wouldn’t have changed had the vehicle been in legal condition.
Again I know there are arguments about the braking evidence in the case of Mrs. Briggs, but again it seems it was settled that braking ability *was* held to have been key there.
(And yes, the outcome might have been so different had she done things differently. But I don’t think that matters legally – it’s still on cyclists – or drivers – to avoid pedestrians under all reasonable circumstances, and I’m not calling for pedestrian helmets any more than for cycling ones.)
As chrisonabike alludes to, for the situation to be near-identical, a driver would need to be driving e.g. a car which failed its MOT for defective brakes – you’d *hope* that would have been prosecuted.
I give you this incident – https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/aug/04/transport.world
And get press + twitter groups proclaiming ‘cyclists and cyclist organisations are protesting the change’ because said organisations have previously suggested this should be a minor part of road law review (objecting to the process, not the change)…
Great, we have added cycling offences.
If anything this REDUCES available sentences. Previously cyclists were charged with manslaughter – which had far more open sentencing and allowed for life (so life sentences aren’t new).
This entire mess is political theatre – adding lifetime sentences as a possibility when judges will HAVE to consider the equivalent driving offences where the maximum sentence has never been issued despite far more dangerous behaviour than any cyclist can ever achieve.
The only affect this should have is it will stop this being used as a political football to avoid discussing the need for general road traffic law updates – it should have been done 5+ years ago as a relatively trivial change to existing laws and minor update to sentencing guidelines…
It’s great that some more accountability is being introduced. Once license plates get become a legal requirement cycling standards should improve and there will be less tension between motorists and cyclists. Yes I know I’ll get lots of hate for this but the truth sometimes hurts..
Yes I know I’ll get lots of hate for this but the truth sometimes hurts..
No, we just think you’re a sad git troll who would know there aren’t going to be any ‘licence plates for cycles’ if he wasn’t a sad git
Following this, I’m now looking forward to the new Dangerous Farm Animals Law (farm animals (cows) kill or injure more pedestrians per year than cyclists do)
Just on a point of interest, the Animals Act 1971 already covers that.
One important aim of this legislation is to discourage cows from cycling. That would be a lethal combination.
Cows could chase dogs and dog walkers for miles before running them down.
The only reason they’re not allowed to cycle is due to them using their horns rather than a decent bell. It can be quite dangerous if they’re not herd when they overtake to go pasture bike.
I don’t really see what your beef is with the cows. Personally, I think it’s an udder disgrace that they’re so demonised just because they have horns. There are much bigger issues at steak in road safety.
You obviously ruminated on that for some time but don’t you think you’re milking it now?
Cud we put this thread out to pasture now?
Yes – let’s all just moove on.
Will Road CC be tracking the sentences handed out under the new legislation as well as the driving ones?
So that sentencing consistency can be evidenced.
Cyclists should be treated the same as motorists – motorists should be given a life sentence if they cause an accident and kill a cyclist.
That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
Cyclists should not be treated the same as motorists due to the huge difference in danger that they pose. Your proposal would seem to treat a six-year old kid on their bike with the same responsibility as a multi-ton lorry driver. What is needed is responsibility being proportional to the level of danger posed.
I’m not aware of any life sentence given to a motorist just for killing a cyclist. I do think that lifetime driving bans should be handed out to any motorist that causes the death of another road user though.
“Cyclists should not be treated the same as motorists due to the huge difference in danger that they pose. ”
– hawkinspeter
That has some logic when it comes to regulation (e.g. we choose not to licence cyclists because of the relative simplicity of riding a bike / relative danger posed).
But shouldn’t punishment be more (though not exclusively) outcomes based? I.e. just because cyclists pose a lower risk overall it doesn’t necessarily follow that the tiny minority who do kill should therefore be treated more leniently.
I recognise it’s not that simple, but when someone has actually been killed, the “cyclists pose a low risk” argument doesn’t seem relevant to sentencing.
It often is, but actually that’s a pretty terrible way to go about things. It’s exactly why we see people turning up in court having killed someone with their car, having had a string of previous non-fatal incidents for which they were basically let off with a slapped wrist, even though the only difference between them and the fatal one was basically dumb luck.
Generally, courts try to avoid relying too much on the outcomes for sentencing, though they do take it into account. Sentencing should be mainly based on the nature of the illegal behaviour and the likelihood that it could cause a bad outcome.
E.g. Drivers that speed a few mph over the limit will be fined/prosecuted despite very few outcomes of a collision and those that speed even more will usually receive bigger fines or harsher sentences. The idea is to dissuade the speeding behaviour as otherwise, just prosecuting those that end up in a collision will lead to more motorists choosing to speed (people don’t generally believe that bad outcomes will actually happen to them).
Purely outcome based sentencing (at least with regards to traffic enforcement) is a regressive policy as it cannot deal with the likelihood of damages from certain behaviour and instead it will overly punish the less fortunate criminals.
shouldn’t punishment be more (though not exclusively) outcomes based?
And Kent Police agrees with you where offences against cyclists are concerned and they openly declare that if the cyclist can’t be bothered to get KSI’d, they can’t be bothered to look at a video. So much for the much vaunted ‘Hierarchy of Road Users’ which has been simply ignored and ridiculed by the police- try citing the hierarchy when some bearded bloke in a baseball cap in a black Audi pulls out right in front of you from a side road- the police will either ignore it or say ‘you should have braked’
Talking of dangerous driving, it looks like there are now charges being brought in this old case:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2026d7586zo
Presumably this is down to the persistence of the parents of the victims?
Still “wait and see”…
If for nothing else to get her banned and off the road.
As I’ve said before, the challenge with dangerous cycling, is what does that objectively look like in real terms… for motorists, my understanding is that its consciously and knowingly driving with excessive speed, driving whilst impaired, making obviously dangerous manoeuvres that go against training / instruction.
What does excess speed look like when cycling? Especially when there is no legal requirement for cyclists to be able to monitor their speed.
What does driving impaired look like when, as far as I know, there aren’t any set regulations for cyclists. Maybe there is…
What do obviously dangerous manoeuvres look like, when cyclists have no requirement to undergo training / read the highway code? i.e. how can they knowingly and consciously cycle in a dangerous way, if they’ve never had dangerous explained to them?
I think this legislation will ultimately create further control / legislation for cycling, as I can’t see any jury being able to objectively convict someone for dangerous cycling, unless there is an accepted understanding of what dangerous cycling is, and an obligation for cyclists to know what that is.
And its easy to say, ‘well it’s obvious, blah blah blah’, but that’s not how the law works, and I believe any half decent legal team could dismantle a prosecution case fairly easy.
So basically there will be parity between motorists and cyclists after all!
I would guess that riding through red lights or hitting someone on a zebra crossing would be the kind of thing that would count as dangerous cycling. Possibly including non road-worthy cycles, though there’s not many objective standards for that, so that might only mean non-working brakes.
It does highlight how this legislation is poorly thought out and is a waste of time.
of course the issue with the definitions your proposing is, per existing case law for motorvehicles, hitting a pedestrian on a zebra crossing is careless not dangerous (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c78x4qvp44vo)
Note the driver in this case was also speeding and had no insurance (intentionally disconnected required black box).
I’m sure if I look I can find a death by careless driving example for red light jumping…
‘Hitting a pedestrian on a zebra crossing’ is neither careless nor dangerous driving. What would determine which it was (if either) should be the actions of the driver that led to the collision, and whether they fell below or well below the standard of a careful and competent driver. And equally for a cyclist (but substitute ‘competent cyclist’ for ‘competent driver’). What that standard means is left largely as an exercise for the court (albeit CPS provides some (non-exhaustive) guidance on how things should be prosecuted).
As the old saying has it, ignorance of the law is no defence: if a cyclist kills or injures a pedestrian whilst breaking the law saying that they haven’t had training or haven’t read the highway code would not be an admissible defence. There are plenty of obviously dangerous and illegal things a cyclist might do that could cause injury, e.g. riding at speed through zebra crossings with pedestrians on them, riding on crowded pavements et cetera. The primary contentious area, one imagines, is going to be the question of speed; with speed limits not applicable to cyclists it’s going to be a subjective question as to whether they were going too fast for the circumstances and conditions at the time of an incident.
Snap!
On the subject of speed limits: in theory, the same should be true of motor vehicles – speed limits being a limit, and not a licence to go that speed regardless of circumstances and conditions (in practice is a different matter).
Filtering in traffic is an activity that comes to mind, it is specifically allowed in the highway code but if a pedestrian steps out from behind a van without looking and you knock him over how will a jury of motorists view that?
In my view, the cyclist should be travelling relatively slowly for filtering by the side of traffic, so hopefully the collision will be minimal with just a bruise or two. If it were more serious, then I would consider that both the cyclist and pedestrian were being careless with maybe a 50-50 fault. Whether a typical jury would go with that is another question.
Something I see regularly while filtering through traffic on my local high street is drivers waving pedestrians across the road where there’s a pedestrian island. They’ve indicated to the pedestrian that it is safe to cross, but the approaching cyclist has no idea they’ve done this and isn’t required to stop to allow them to cross.
There are. They’re subject to much of the same law as any other road user, plus some additional rules. Just because you’re not required to take a test on it doesn’t mean the law doesn’t exist (ignorance of the law is no defence and all that).
This isn’t really any different to the way of lot of the law works – there’s a responsibility on you to inform yourself and act with reasonable consideration of the way your conduct might affect others – saying ‘nobody told me!” isn’t really any defence.
The jury will be full of motorists who may never of cycled or will not have ridden a bicycle since childhood.
And then there’s the motornormativity of the police and CPS.
““Arrogant” cyclists riding at 70mph are ignoring police and making pavements “as dangerous as the road”, House of Lords told.”
What a load of b0ll0x. This reinforces the Daily Mail Reform-voting stereotype that is the hysterical Tory mindset, from the driving seat.
Few activities receive greater threats to life so frequently than cycling on the public highway in the UK, front line warfare aside.
Anyone riding 112kmh anywhere, should be in a national team. Unless Toryrant means an eBike thug. These aren’t ‘cyclists’ they are lawless thugs, just as joyriders are, but we don’t claim ‘drivers’ as a group with the description.
It’s clear that UK Tory/Reform continues the Daily Mail vitriol of hating people cycling for any reason.
I’ll continue to use my bike camera and ride like every driver is using their mobile to read Tory drivel and policing is nonexistent. That the CPS and judges are motornormative, and hope they all die earlier than me, from their sedentary diseases.
Riding at (woohoo) mph? They should be easy to spot…
I only upload videos of the worse close passes and dangerous driving observed whilst riding my bike. I will now upload and flood the police with every instance of careless driving my camera catches (typically at least 5 instances on every trip, so that will be 50 uploads every week). I suggest everyone does the same, so these fucking ignorant morons have a better understanding of where the real problem is and that potentially sending 1 cyclist every 10yrs to jail is not going to make the roads any safer. What they will do is seek to send random cyclists to jail to justify this new law. I hope karma comes to Briggs in the form of 2 tons of metal whilst he is crossing the road laughing at how he finally got revenge for anyone who rides a bike.