“Never about road safety, but about populist vote winning”: Cyclists slam harsher penalties proposed for dangerous riders, arguing “motorists get away with it on an almost daily basis”, but others claim “it introduces parity” + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
‘Forensic spray’ trials, cyclists versus “supersized” SUVs, more 3D-printed saddle shenanigans... your road.cc bank holiday weekend roundup is here
With another sunny bank holiday behind us, I’d hope you got in your weekend rides plus some more. So, in case you were busy doing that — or watching Zhao Xintong clear frame after frame against the Welsh Potting Machine Mark Williams en route to becoming the first Asian world snooker champion — your live blog host has you covered, lest you miss any bit of news and info from the cycling world.
> Police force trials use of ‘forensic spray’ to identify anti-social bike riders
> One cyclist dead and three seriously injured after being hit by bus driver in Mallorca
“What once felt like everything to me no longer does”: Caleb Ewan announces immediate retirement from professional cycling
Australian sprinter Caleb Ewan has announced he is retiring from professional cycling with immediate effect, bringing the curtain down on an 11-year career that saw him become one of the sport’s most explosive finishers.
The 30-year-old joined Ineos Grenadiers for the 2025 season and made a flying start, winning his very first race with the team at the Coppi e Bartali before adding another victory at Itzulia Basque Country. But despite rediscovering his winning ways, Ewan said today that the time had come to step away from the sport that had shaped his life.
“After much thought, I’ve decided to retire from professional cycling, effective immediately,” he said in a heartfelt message explaining his decision. “This sport has been a major part of my life, shaping my path and offering experiences I’ll carry with me forever.”
“Over the course of my 11-year career, I’ve accomplished more than I ever imagined possible. From personal milestones to professional achievements, the journey has exceeded every expectation I once had, and I’m deeply grateful for the opportunities, challenges, and growth that have shaped my life.
“For as long as I can remember, my world has revolved around racing. The intense routine, the sacrifice, the search for constant improvement, the hunger to win — it’s been my rhythm, my identity. But what once felt like everything to me no longer does. The last few years haven’t been easy but in 2025 I found something again — not just legs, but belief — thanks to the INEOS Grenadiers. They gave me space, trust, and the environment to rediscover what I am capable of. I won again. I felt like myself again and I felt respected again. For that, I can’t thank them enough.
“But the truth is that even when I crossed the line first, that feeling — the one you chase for years — faded quicker than it used to. My experiences of the past two seasons, in particular the second half of 2024, has taken a significant toll on my relationship with the sport. I’m happy I didn’t let that period define the end of my career and I am proud of what I achieved in a short but successful time with the INEOS Grenadiers.”
Paying tribute to those who supported him throughout his career, Ewan thanked his teammates, coaches, fans, and his family. “To my country — wearing the green and gold has been one of the greatest honours of my career,” he said. “Representing Australia has always meant something special to me.”
He reserved a special thanks for Ineos Grenadiers, naming individuals who helped him rediscover his best: “John Allert, Scott Drawer, Mehdi Kordi, Paddy Harrison, and everyone at INEOS Grenadiers — you helped me write one last chapter the way I wanted to.”
Ineos Grenadiers CEO John Allert also paid tribute, saying: “Thank you Caleb, on behalf of INEOS Grenadiers and everyone in our beautiful sport, for thrilling us with your unique and explosive brand of racing. You leave the sport with our respect and best wishes, and as a winner – in every sense of the word.”
Ewan closes the book on a remarkable career that saw him claim five Tour de France stage wins, five Giro d’Italia stages, a Vuelta stage, and become one of the peloton’s most feared pure sprinters — his low, aerodynamic sprint style becoming his signature.
He concluded the farewell message saying: “This journey hasn’t just been mine; it’s been ours. Your love, patience and belief never wavered, even when things were hard. I couldn’t have done any of it without you.”
Q36.5 launches episode two of documentary TOM, with behind-the-scenes from Milan-Sanremo, Flèche Wallone, and pre-Giro training
Q36.5 has launched the second episode of TOM today — and in case you forgot, it’s the team’s awkwardly acronym’ed cycling series, standing for ‘Team on Mission’…
The latest episode dives into the Swiss Pro side’s growth with Pidcock as the team leader, featuring insights from riders Milan Vader and Xabier Mikel Azparren, Head Coach Carles Tur, and General Manager Doug Ryder, following the early season highs and lows — from a hard crash at Milan–Sanremo to the emotional podium at Flèche Wallonne, as well as preparations for Giro.
Legendary bike journalist, shouty northern bloke, dog whisperer, all round good egg and a massive part of road.cc and the wider cycling community, John Abbott Valentine (Stevenson)…
He was with road.cc a bit before my time, but every now and then, I would come across an article written by John in the annals of the website. It might come off as a cliché, but for some reason, you could instantly derive a picture of his disposition from his writing — punchy, fearless, and steadfast — from everything that I’ve read about him, I’ve gathered that he was all that and much more.
The least I can do on this blog is share the story of his recent change of name in October last year, when he decided to let go of Stevenson and adopt the name he wanted to be known and remembered by.
The cycling community’s lost a good ‘un. Here are some comments in his memory…
alexb: “I raced against him back in the day, if you could call it racing… He was a larger than life character who was a lot of fun to be around. Very sad to hear he has gone.”
Rendel Harris: “RIP John and sympathies to his family and friends. Whenever one saw an article with his byline one would feel a sense of anticipation, knowing that it would be interesting, opinionated and that there would always be something with which one would passionately agree or disagree – often both in the same article! In a world of anodyne, often AI-produced space filler (not on road.cc of course!) human voices like his are ever more valuable and will be much missed.”
Eddy Berckx: “Genuinely sad news, I always enjoyed his writing and loved the way he spoke from the heart with little filter.”
A few words from road.cc’s Simon Withers: “I’m genuinely in tears writing this. John was my big boss back in the day (that is, above my immediate boss). I echo what Tony says. And like Tony, I don’t think I could ever say I knew John well.
“He was never short of opinions, or afraid to express them forcefully, often with language that might be described as ‘industrial’. I liked John a lot, respected him a lot, and he’ll be sadly missed – by me and by many others.”
And from his wife, Caroline: “Yes thank you Tony for not sugar coating. Yes he had an adblocker so right on that count and of course republican! For anyone we hadn’t reached via other channels, funeral info and a message board can be found at isjohndeadyet.co.uk.”
Best put your scran aside for a minute before reading this...
> Firefighters cut cyclist free after rider impaled leg on handlebar
“One final dance”: Romain Bardet to race Giro d’Italia, announces Team Picnic PostNL
“UCI is playing dirty… Fair play, my a**”: Team Visma-Lease a Bike slams UCI following La Vuelta Femenina team time trial disaster
The fallout from the opening stage of La Vuelta Femenina has continued, with Team Visma-Lease a Bike publicly criticising the UCI after what they described as organisational chaos during Sunday’s team time trial in Barcelona. And although Marianne Vos salvaged the weekend with a victory on stage two, the team’s anger over the handling of the first day has grown.
In a statement released on Sunday, Visma-Lease a Bike outlined exactly what went wrong: riders reportedly arrived in plenty of time for the mandatory bike checks, but delays caused by Movistar arriving late — combined with the fact that initially only one commissaire was conducting the inspections — meant that some of Visma’s riders got their bikes back too late to start on time.
A second official was eventually deployed, but by that point, the damage had already been done. Imogen Wolff and Femke de Vries missed their designated start, although De Vries was able to rejoin her teammates mid-ride. The Dutch outfit ultimately finished tenth, conceding twenty seconds to stage winners Lidl-Trek.
Head of Coaching Jacco Verhaeren said: “I went straight to the UCI jury after the stage. They too admitted that this was not handled properly. We operate in elite sport, and this is one of the major races on the calendar.
“Of course, we congratulate today’s rightful winners, Lidl-Trek, on their victory. At the same time, we want to stress that sport is about fair play for all teams. Sadly, that was not the case today, and we deeply regret it.”
The team has confirmed it will pursue further steps and file a formal complaint with the UCI management.
Team manager Jos van Emden was even more direct in his criticism, posting on Instagram: “To give an idea of how the UCI operates, I want to share some information. To be clear: many teams were disadvantaged by the bad behavior of the UCI, so I don’t blame the teams.
“But the UCI is playing dirty, telling other teams, in this case Movistar, that we asked to disqualify them. My trust in the UCI was already low, but now it’s completely gone. Fair play… my a**.”
The opening stage had been billed as a key opportunity for general classification contenders to gain time, with the race kicking off with a short 8.1km team time trial through the streets of Barcelona. Lidl-Trek set the fastest time with 9 minutes and 30 seconds, while Visma-Lease a Bike, despite the disruption, clocked 9 minutes and 51 seconds with only five riders for much of the effort.
Van Emden praised the resilience of the team under the circumstances, saying: “Despite the situation the ladies were in, they rode a very good time trial. They started the time trial with five, but luckily Femke was able to join. The ladies battled to the finish and handled the conditions very well. They showed that the level is good. We are looking forward to the rest of the week, where hopefully we can show what we are worth.”
Chinese bikes to US down 17% ahead of Trump tariffs, but global exports rise as China Bicycle Association highlights European growth
“I joined this team to help Pogacar win the Tour de France, but I've also stepped up my own level”: Adam Yates looking forward to leading UAE Team Emirates at Giro d’Italia
After two years of serving as Tadej Pogačar’s trusted mountain lieutenant at the Tour de France, Adam Yates is getting another shot at Grand Tour glory after last year’s Vuelta. The Brit will co-lead UAE Team Emirates-XRG at the 2025 Giro d’Italia, sharing leadership duties with Spanish rider Juan Ayuso.
“I joined this team in 2023 to help Pogačar win the Tour de France, but I’ve also stepped up my own level and become more consistent,” Yates told Wieler Revue. “When you develop like that, it makes sense to be given a shot at the biggest races yourself. I want to see what I’m capable of.”
This will be Yates’ 15th Grand Tour, but only his second Giro appearance. His first came in 2017, where he finished ninth overall and second in the Best Young Rider classification. “What I remember most about that Giro is that it didn’t rain – funny, since people always talk about the cold and bad weather,” he laughed.
Yates also recalled inadvertently assisting Tom Dumoulin’s overall win that year: “I didn’t help Dumoulin win. He just happened to be in my group, along with Bob Jungels and Bauke Mollema. But it always helps to be a decent guy in moments like that. I was happy for him – he deserved that Giro win.”
Reflecting on his own performance, Yates added: “I wore the white jersey for best young rider for a few days but I’d been sick two weeks before the race and lost three kilos due to food poisoning. Not exactly ideal preparation for a Grand Tour.”
This time, Yates enters the Giro with solid preparation and big ambitions. “Winning a stage in the Giro would mean I’ve taken a stage win in all three Grand Tours, but that’s not my main motivation,” he said. “Of course, it would be nice – but my first goal is the general classification. If that doesn’t work out, I can always go for a stage win later in the race.”
However, Yates will have to contend with his own teammate, Juan Ayuso, in the battle for the maglia rosa. The 22-year-old Spaniard has been in scintillating form this season, claiming victories at the Faun Drôme Classic, Trofeo Laigueglia, Tirreno-Adriatico, and a stage of the Volta a Catalunya, and enters his first Giro with high expectations, with UAE Team Emirates-XRG confirming a dual leadership strategy.
The team’s formidable roster also includes climbers like Isaac Del Toro, Jay Vine, Brandon McNulty, Rafał Majka, Igor Arrieta, and Filippo Baroncini, providing strong support for their leaders.
Cartlon Reid’s tribute for John…
Noted transport journalist Carlton Reid has taken to social media to share his memories of his peer, a stalwart of cycling journalism, former road.cc editor at large, John Abbott Valentine (Stevenson), who died this weekend.
RIP John Stevenson. We rode together lots in the early days of British mountain biking. He was loud, opinionated and very very Yorkshire. road.cc/content/news…
— Carlton Reid (@carltonreid.com) 5 May 2025 at 04:26
“RIP John Stevenson,” Reid said. “We rode together lots in the early days of British mountain biking. He was loud, opinionated and very very Yorkshire.
“He always told me he got into journalism because my bike reviews (in 1980’s Bicycle Times) were so bad! And he was right.
“I remember riding with him testing the first proper suspension forks and him telling me — while we were clattering down a rough descent — that the forks were ‘like bolting on 10mph.’
“We followed each other on Strava. His rides around Cambridge turned into short walks around local parks. His last were in March. He faced cancer… stubbornly.”
The Primož show, starting 9 May
Red Bull-Bora-Hansgrohe has announced its squad for Giro d’Italia, and with domestiques like Jai Hindley and Jan Tratnik there to help Primož Roglič secure back-to-back Grand Tour wins (after his Vuelta triumph last year), the Slovenian would be itching to get the show on the road.
MASSIVE crowd shows up for Dom Whiting’s Drum and Bass bike ride at Bristol
It’s an annual ritual at this point — and with Bristol City securing their play-off spot in the Championship (in other news, Cardiff is going down, RIP Severnside derby) — there was an added bonus to celebrate (and get drunk), as cyclists showed up in hordes to mark Dom Whiting’s Drum and Bass on the bike on Sunday.
the bristol drum and bass bike ride
— itsderek (@its-derek.bsky.social) 4 May 2025 at 20:47
“The reality is you’re a lot safer simply cycling on the road”: Rising number of cars parked in bike lanes — despite 180 penalty notices dished out in a year — “creates major danger” for cyclists, say campaigners
The number of penalty charge notices (PCNs) issued for parking in mandatory cycle lanes in Belfast has risen dramatically over the past three years, with cycling advocates warning that the problem is creating serious safety risks for riders.
According to figures from the Department for Infrastructure (DfI), just 15 PCNs were issued in 2022 for mandatory cycle lane contraventions. By 2024, that figure had shot up to 180.
Andrew McClean, Northern Ireland Advocacy Lead for Cycling UK, said parking in these lanes — which are usually separated from the main carriageway by kerbing, bollards, or a solid white line — is more than just inconsiderate.
“These are really important safe spaces for people to feel confident when they go and cycle and they are parked in really frequently, and that’s not only inconsiderate but it does create a danger for people cycling,” he told BBC News NI.
“Quite often we’re seeing people saying they will only be a minute but in that minute, if a cyclist has to jump out onto the road, that can be at best an inconvenience but at worst a major danger.”
The rise in PCNs has coincided with a number of cyclist safety improvement schemes between 2022 and 2024 — but campaigners argue the current situation is still discouraging many people from cycling.
“The reality is you’re a lot safer simply cycling on the road from the start of your journey rather than in a cycle lane which you have to jump in and out of,” McClean said. “It has changed cyclists’ behaviour because it has created dangerous scenarios.”
Meghan Hoyt, chair of the Belfast Cycle Campaign group, said she regularly encounters parked cars obstructing cycle lanes and echoed those safety concerns. “It’s a significant problem,” she said. “It’s just really dangerous, it means that you have to constantly leave the lane and go out into traffic, and cars are maybe not prepared for that.”
Hoyt said the presence of parked cars undermines the entire purpose of cycle infrastructure. “So the whole point of the cycle lane is lost,” she added. “I totally understand why it puts people off [cycling] and it’s such a shame because getting on the bike and realising what a pleasure it is to cycle around the city, I wish it was something more people could avail of.”
Despite the frustrations, there’s a huge potential to grow cycling in Belfast if authorities address the core problems, according to Hoyt.
“I think there is a pent-up desire for cycling in Belfast and I think if you did address some of these issues with cycle lanes you would see a real uptake in the number of people cycling around Belfast,” she said.
Team SD Worx-Protime’s Femke Gerritse wins Stage 3 of La Vuelta Femenina and takes overall lead
Femke Gerritse (SD Worx-Protime) secured her first WorldTour victory in the third stage of La Vuelta Femenina, out-sprinting Visma-Lease a Bike’s Marianne Vos in Huesca to claim both the stage win and the red jersey.
The 132.4km stage from Barbastro to Huesca concluded with a bunch sprint, with Gerritse expertly led out by teammates Anna van der Breggen and Mischa Bredewold and launching her sprint 175 metres from the finish. Vos, who had to settle for second, now trails the 23-year-old Dutch rider by 12 seconds in the general classification.
“It’s really crazy, I didn’t expect this,” Gerritse said post-race.
Are you an elite cyclist who WANTS to take potentially performance-enhancing painkillers? The University of Kent wants to hear from you
“Never about road safety, but about populist vote winning”: Cyclists slam harsher penalties proposed for dangerous riders, arguing “motorists get away with it on an almost daily basis”, but others claim “it introduces parity”
With the Department for Transport (DfT) proposing a new legislation that could see cyclists who cause death by dangerous cycling face life imprisonment two weeks ago, reactions of all sorts have been mounting.
The changes, led by Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander, are intended to replace the current use of the 1861 ‘wanton or furious driving’ law, under which cyclists who kill or injure while riding recklessly can be prosecuted with a maximum sentence of two years in prison.
Campaigners such as Matthew Briggs, whose wife Kim was killed by a cyclist riding without a front brake in London in 2016, have welcome the move — with an anonymous government source even saying that Alexander claimed changing the law “at the first opportunity” was “definitely personal” to her as she was Mr Briggs’ MP when his wife was killed.
However, yesterday, an expert from a specialist law firm said that the new law was “unlikely to improve road safety in a meaningful way”, and that it focuses on a “tiny fraction” of causes of pedestrian deaths, while “speeding motorists” continually remain a factor in fatal collisions with vulnerable road users.
It would appear that most cyclists are in agreement with this line of thought. On Facebook, Paul said: “It won’t make any difference to road safety. Maybe they should actually start dishing out appropriate punishment to drivers who kill, now that would make a difference,” while Nick wrote: “What an absolute joke when drivers get away Scott free for killing cyclists!”
Jon Price took an even more cynical route, saying: “It’s not there to ‘improve road safety’. It’s because Labour is engaged in a frantic campaign of throwing red meat to knuckledragging binburners everywhere, who along with hating refugees, lefties, trans folk & anything they can scream ‘WOKE’ at, also want cyclists off *their* roads, behind bars — or preferably dead.”
Ian Clark elaborated: “If indeed this law is passed, it’s simply a paper exercise to bring an antiquated (almost non-existent) law up to date and in line with more modern laws AND in line with the current ‘maximum sentence of life imprisonment’ for motorists who kill through dangerous driving etc.
“What is the probability of a cyclist being sentenced to the maximum extent of the law? Probably VERY low because let’s face it, motorists literally get away with it on an almost daily basis.”
He added: “This proposed law is to catch the idiots hooning down pavements, running crossings on regular bikes and e-bikes with no regard for others’ safety. Not those of us who ride fast but responsibly.”
In the road.cc comments, Safety wrote: “This measure was never about road safety, it is and always has been about populist vote winning,” and bloodycyclistan… added: “We have officially become just another minority to discriminate against and things won’t be getting better any time soon. The times of economic hardship and uncertainty are a breeding ground for bigotry, as history teaches us.”
However, others have backed the introduction of harsher penalties, suggesting that “it introduces parity” and “provides justice for the victim and their families”.
Jonathan Crellis wrote on Facebook: “Well, it introduces parity, and generally cyclists (like most drivers) are pretty safe and careful. It’s just the few percentage that are lethal (and obviously more lethal in a motor vehicle due to weight and speed). But buying a forward facing camera becomes less optional, as the onus is often on a lone cyclist to prove ‘not at fault’. Like car drivers, many pedestrians only look for approaching cars.”
Finally, road.cc reader Rendel Harris chose the middle ground, commenting: “I really don’t see that. I think the legislation is unnecessary, petty, populist and won’t change a thing, and it undoubtedly stems from anti-cyclist sentiment, but I don’t think that we can claim that facing the same maximum penalty as drivers for the same offence is discriminatory. If they’d brought in a higher sentence for cyclists, or a lower standard of proof, for the same offence it certainly would be, but equal treatment doesn’t equal discrimination, does it?”
Do you think that the law change is an update to a Victorian-era law, or is it another “populist” ploy for getting at cyclists? Let us know in the comments…
Help us to bring you the best cycling content
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £1.99. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
24 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
I should know, I was one Must be why you're so good at writing bollocks, especially pro-police bollocks
the excuse that cycles are not fitted with speedometers seems very lame in this day and age The police just love their dodge that no cyclist speedometer is anything other than a worthless child's toy, rather like the bike it's monitoring, so I'm not keen on the idea that the b******s can suddenly choose to accept them when looking to victimise cyclists. LancsFilth initially said they couldn't do anything about offences like this because I 'might have been travelling at less than 10 mph which would make the manoeuvre legal '. https://upride.cc/incident/t27gjh_astra_dwlcross/ This was before they hit on the Master Dodge of just ignoring all reports of driver offences from cyclists.
Well done for doing the research. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/20/suv-risks-warnings-road-safety-buyers-uk-study
Not as rare as they should be after taking milage into account. Clearly part of that equation is better education of pedestrians , but I have no issues with making cyclists subject to the speed limits. The majority do not exceed 20mph, except for the rare occasions they have a good breeze or an incline in their favour. Those that have the capability are often already recording their data anyway, the excuse that cycles are not fitted with speedometers seems very lame in this day and age.
But then there would would have been grounds for prosecuting the driver in that circumstance as he would have been substantially exceeding the speed limit. The cyclist was innocent under the law but I consider him profoundly responsible for that death. We ask for considerable consideration by motorists and we have now been given legal backing for it, it does not become us to defend hairing round public park roads in substantial excess of a speed limit considered to offer reasonable safety to vulnerable road users.
Not as rare as they should be after taking milage into account. Clearly part of that equation is better education of pedestrians , but I have no issues with making cyclists subject to the speed limits. The majority do not exceed 20mph, except for the rare occasions they have a good breeze or an incline in their favour. Those that have the capability are often already recording their data anyway, the excuse that cycles are not fitted with speedometers seems very lame in this day and age.
I believe "hi-vis" isn't actually worth that much - certainly not compared to eg. the value of "reflectives" as soon as it gets darker. But even those are still just PPE though - this is the lowest rung (least effective) on the hierarchy of health and safety hazard controls. And "visual aids for drivers" do nothing if drivers don't do their part, no matter how much is worn...
Not the best timing, but not the major issue he's trying to turn it into either. Fitness amongst young people is a problem when it comes to armed forces recruitment, as many are having trouble with the requirements needed to pass the tests because of their inactive lifestyles. This investment will help deal with the problem.
Seemed pretty visible to me - and she was sporting light-coloured hair, bag, footwear and bright trousers. What if she'd been approaching a motorist "out of the sun", or passing a field of oilseed rape or stand of autumnal trees later in the year? If you think that's flippant, note that "sun" and "tree leaves" have been advanced as defense / mitigation in court despite cyclists following guidance ('should'). Frankly she's already done the best preaching possible: been a "normal person" riding a bike.
@60somethingcyclist Looks like you've stepped straight into silly comment mode without looking at all at the actual facts of the case. It has nothing to do with shared paths, the cyclist was on a public road on the vehicle carriageway, the pedestrian was standing on a traffic island waiting to cross. Evidence from independent witnesses shows that the pedestrian stepped out into the path of the cyclist without warning when he was around two metres from her. Much has been made of the fact that he was possibly riding at 5mph more than the motor vehicle speed limit for the road but he could have been riding at 10 mph and he still would have had no chance of avoiding her. The pedestrian was solely responsible for the incident and no amount of "mutual consideration and respect" would have changed that. Suggest reading the articles and evidence in future before commenting with such nonsense.
24 thoughts on ““Never about road safety, but about populist vote winning”: Cyclists slam harsher penalties proposed for dangerous riders, arguing “motorists get away with it on an almost daily basis”, but others claim “it introduces parity” + more on the live blog”
If this was about parity they
If this was about parity they would have introduced a causing death by careless cycling offence, that would be far more appropriate than causing death by dangerous cycling.
The fact they haven’t shows this is nothing more than performative legislation, aimed to satsify the Daily Mail/Telegraph readers whilst achieving nothing for road safety.
Based on MOJ stats, only 25% of drivers convicted of causing death by careless driving received an immediate prison sentence. This increased to 95% of drivers convicted for causing death by dangerous driving.
If it was about parity, it
If it was about parity, it would have been causing death by careless/reckless road use offences, that would have covered all road users, regardless of their mode of travel. The fact that it singles out cycling shows that it’s more about populist dog whistling than anything else.
Dog whistling to whom though
Dog whistling to whom though ? I really don’t think the politics of it are in play here.
It’s been nodded through because no one across the political spectrum had any major issue with it, and it plays directly into modern day MPs sense of “fairness” in the law, and that most of them dont understand existing laws.
stonojnr wrote:
Telegraph readers, GBNews viewers, and others who’ve been whipped up into a froth about the need to Do Something about the Evil Cycling Lobby and their army of Killer Cyclists.
It’s been nodded through because no-one wants to be seen as standing up against Good Old-Fashioned Common Sense©, and most don’t care one way or another about cycling anyway.
mdavidford wrote:
How are we doing with recruitment for that?
Well I hear the talks with
Well I hear the talks with North Korea are going well…
mdavidford wrote:
I’m not sure their cycle licencing scheme is helping increase numbers.
Perhaps they sent a bunch of the cyclists to Russia to “help out” though?
TonyE-H wrote:
They have, the amendment also includes causing death by careless or inconsiderate cycling with a maximum sentence of up to five years and causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate cycling with a maximum sentence of up to two years.
The Victorian-era law does
The Victorian-era law does need updating and the level of reposibility be the same regardless whether you drive an HGV or a mobility scooter (taking into account the heirarchy system). Whether a change in the law will have any effect is another question, the average motorist doesn’t drive around thinking, well if I do this I could get nicked, so why would the average cyclist think otherwise, but the law should have a level playing field regardless of who you are or your mode of transport.
I’d absolutely love a level
I’d absolutely love a level playing field. Which would mean RAISING the punishment for killer drivers, eliminating the stupid excuses (“just didn’t see them”, “they wobbled in front of me when I was giving them a very wide berth”), and removing the exceptional hardship rules.
As always, compare and contrast the fates and cases of Maurice Broadbent, Dave Horrocks, Wayne Wilkes, and Thomas Harland (the four cyclists from Rhyl killed by a driver with an unfit vehicle), with that of Kim Briggs (killed by an idiot on a fixed gear bike).
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/coroners-damning-verdict-cycling-club-2872741
(for those unaware)
Jonathan Crellis wrote:
Okay, it doesn’t introduce parity as a bicycle isn’t two tonnes of metal that can go at arbitrary speeds with just a press of a pedal. There’s no requirement for passing a test to be in control of a bike due to the lack of danger that bikes pose, so how would a “dangerous cycling” charge be determined?
Also, I don’t quite get why a camera would be necessary as surely there would have to be independent proof that the cyclist was as fault and cycling in a “dangerous” fashion.
To be honest, I can’t think of a situation where “dangerous cycling” would be appropriate rather than “careless cycling”.
Jonathan Crellis wrote:
Pretty sure that’s not how the law works. It is surely up to the Crown to prove “at fault”?
There are so many disparities
There are so many disparities between danger and motivations to drive / cycle safety that sometimes I wonder if it’s even worth comparing them. Just a couple of other differences:
“Relative vulnerability” – cyclists are at least as vulnerable as pedestrians. And (as those keen on suggesting cycle helmets are effectively saying) possibly *more* vulnerable than pedestrians.
“Human communication” – easy to overlook – but a motorist is sat hidden in a metal box. Unless you’re in an aero position and/or on a recumbent bike you’re more or less like a person on foot on a bike – upright and in a natural position to communicate visually or verbally. Your entire body is visible, not just head/hands. And you’re sharing the same environment as others (weather, sound, smells…)
In any place where driving is anything other than a minor mode of travel – and especially where cyclists and motorists generally share most roads * – I think the human social / psychological feature of “playing fair” will rear its head. In general people are going to see others in the same space as competitors and thus potential cheaters!
Hence the complaints about cyclists particularly being “in the way” and “undertaking” / “always running red lights” and “not paying road tax”.
* Noting that every high-cycling modal share place I can think of e.g. NL the majority of the road space is shared. The crucial difference is where and how this is done. Example: in NL the (vast?) majority of sharing is on low speed streets (although they still have some 30mph stuff with bike lanes…). Here through-traffic is generally limited and the street design is quite different. It’s made to both cue low speed and sometimes in fact physically limit it. All of which aids drivers in not considering this as “their” space where cyclists should conform to expectations more appropriate for other motorists.
Where speeds are higher there is usually separate provision and often cyclists have to use it. That means motorists can be content with their exclusive “motorway” and perhaps also helps them accept “different rules for different modes” (and things like yielding to cyclists when turning). It becomes conceptually similar to UK drivers not thinking that pedestrians are “cheating” when they walk past your car.
Another cyclist down in
Another cyclist down in Glasgow, https://archive.is/UvuG3
But drivers are not the problem are they?
Re “parity”: Bez explained
Re “parity”: Bez explained perfectly why this law does NOT create “parity” when it was proposed 8 years ago:
What constitutes dangerous or careless driving or cycling is to be determined by a jury who are instructed to “apply the standard of the ordinary prudent motorist [or cyclist] as represented by themselves”.
Which is why so much objectively dangerous driving gets downgraded or found innocent — there but for the grace of god go I thinks the ordinary prudent motorist on the jury. The accused might have been breaking the highway code and doing something that would be an instant fail on a driving test, but the average jury member would have done the same.
Now consider what standard is going to be applied in a dangerous cycling case when the jury includes several people who think that cycling a metre out from the kerb is “in the middle of the road” and imagine that they see people doing 50 mph laps of the park. The accused might have been breaking no highway code rules and riding exactly as bikeability instructs, but the average jury member thinks the cyclist should have known better.
Anonymous wrote:
Surely they’d have to get a jury of cyclists as the definition of dangerous driving is that “it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous”. Imagine trying to apply that to Charlie Alliston’s incident – cycling along the road and obeying green traffic lights, but on a fixie with no front brake – that’s not immediately obvious to me that it would be dangerous, or at least extremely unlikely to result in someone’s death.
Presumably there’s nothing
Presumably there’s nothing procedural – only “cost” and “novelty” – stopping people bringing in expert witnesses to help advise jurors if they’re being asked to judge things which are not necessarily within their experience?
As presumably they could do with driving instructors in motoring offense cases to testify as to whether this behaviour was in their view consistent with passing a driving test. (Presumably the prosecutors have never thought this would help because they expect a) most people will have a view on “how you should drive” even if they’re never driven themselves and b) most people would feel that is an “artificial” test and likely that standard would be too high for “normal” driving?)
In fact – IIRC John Franklin was brought in in a civil action reported in road.cc here where two cyclists collided on a Sustrans path in Scotland – detail here.
We don’t demand a “jury of peers” in the sense of e.g. dodgy builders only being assessed by builders, or indeed gangsters facing a jury of gangsters. BUT I agree that there is likely to be a systematic “lack of understanding” in both the technical and more importantly emotional sense in the case of accused cyclists just as there may be a systematic “feeling of sympathy” for poor drivers who’ve been overwhelmed by the challenge or “been unlucky that one time”.
chrisonabike wrote:
However, as the offence itself makes an explicit mention of what a competent and careful cyclist would believe, I don’t see how a non-cyclist could possibly judge that. As far as I know, sentencing dodgy builders for sub-standard work doesn’t rely on the jury guessing what a competent builder would do, but instead the work can be judged according to building standards and building experts.
chrisonabike wrote:
CPS on Expert Witnesses:
Whether issues relating to cycling are “common sense” or things a judge or jury would be expected to have knowledge and experience of is an interesting question. I expect that expert evidence would be allowed on technical and scientific issues (e.g. braking distances or reaction times) but not on issues of behaviour (e.g. is it careless or dangerous to cycle on the pavement).
Yeah – there’s the rub.
Yeah – there’s the rub.
While obviously the system is designed around having humans administer it (hence juries and more or less lattitude for judges) to what exent does the it take into account that there may be significant population biases? And further that those so affected will quite often be entirely unaware of them?
Cycling regularly and not being a lawyer my obviously understanding will be wanting and I’m biased also. But from my lay understanding and scanty court details reported it seems sometimes that police, prosecutors and judges lack understanding of these situation (never mind magistrates or a jury)?
Or am I missing the careful calculation that some things can’t be challenged or that the jury / judge just won’t follow them?
Hence in part the incompetence paradox maybe? It does seem odd that when a driver effectively admits they’re not good at driving they aren’t both picked up on that and challenged on how that relates to the specifics of the case.
So e.g. “you say the sun was in your eyes so you couldn’t see them – but why didn’t you just slow down and perhaps stop, as the Highway Code advises (rule 237)? I put it to you that continuing to drive without slowing in that situation is by definition not the act of a careful and competent driver” or the like?
But perhaps the process as a whole should not take too “detached” or “abstract” a viewpoint e.g. society has biases? Of course it must – and not the job of courts to address that! Yet … it does seem in some parts of the system we can say “ignorance is no defence” and completely ignore “common belief” and “normal practice” as the majority might understand. Even if that “standard practice” regularly seems to conflict with the letter of the law.
Perhaps some new laws for car
Perhaps some new laws for car passengers
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/25139825.egg-thrown-cyclist-car-green-road-brandon/
Comments are the usual ignorance and hatred.
To be convicted of causing
To be convicted of causing death by dangerous driving, you’d have to be driving in such a manner that the risk of causing death was highly likely. Previous incidents of similar driving causing death would be numerous and could be referred to in justification. However, deaths caused by cyclists riding behaviour are so rare that every cyclist who ends up in a fatal collision with a pedestrian will be deemed to have been riding dangerously regardless of any other facts. They will imprison every cyclist involved, and this law will be far from ‘parity’ with motorists treatment. Killing someone with a vehicle is the best method for getting away with murder. Has anyone asked Matthew Briggs to quantify the number of families he claims to be fighting for? Have any cyclists who caused death by dangerous cycling ever gotten away with it, or even had a lesser sentence than the least sentence given to a motorist who killed a pedestrian or cyclist? Matthew Briggs should be sent a list of the cyclist and pedestrian families impacted by deaths caused by motorists, I’ll wager there’s more in just this last month than the total number of families impacted by cyclist caused deaths in the entire 9yrs since his wife died. It wouldn’t surprise me if he tried to drag Charlie Alliston back to court to get a life sentence once this law is passed because after all his campaign is simply a hate fuelled revenge crusade.
Racing fans might be
Racing fans might be interested/pleased to know that TNT sports announced yesterday that a free highlights package of the Giro will be transmitted every night on Quest, 7-8PM. Not sure why they have left it so late to announce this, possibly hoping that as many people as possible would sign up for the full coverage thinking there was no alternative? Anyway, better late than never and better than nothing…
I’m tempted to buy 900
I’m tempted to buy 900 knackered and broken bicycles from the car boot, paint them blood red and leave them outside Briggs or IDS houses so they could get a real insight into the number of cyclists that have been killed by motorists since Brigg’s wife stepped off the pavement into the path of a cyclist who had no front brake.
In 2016 there was just one pedestrian killed in a collision with a cyclist (Mrs Briggs). The cyclist was imprisoned for 18mths.
Also in 2016 there were 102 cyclists and 448 pedestrians killed in collisions with vehicles. I very much doubt anywhere near 550 drivers were imprisoned for those deaths.
9yrs later the government is hailing it a success they are introducing a law to improve pedestrian safety by being able to imprison dangerous cyclists for life.
We are living in Idiocracy.