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.
38 thoughts on “Government reportedly set to announce new causing death by dangerous cycling offence this week”
It doesn’t have to be one or
It doesn’t have to be one or the other. We can have a dangerous cycling law as well as stiffer penalties for dangerous driving.
I have no problems with a dangerous cycling law, but let’s hope more attention is paid to the pathetic punishments drivers receive for flouting current laws. And lets see more lifetime bans please. For instance, if you’re banned once, that’s your final warning – commit a bannable offence once more, and you’re banned for life.
Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:
Agreed. I would like to see very clear, unambiguous road laws for cyclists.
Equally, I desperately want to see appropriate punishments for those who drive dangerously etc. I’m tired of drivers beeping at me, swerving at me and telling me to get off the ****ing road, it would be nice if it was made very explicitly clear that cyclists are allowed on roads.
Rather too many ignorant people out there (regardless of their means of transport)!
As expected, the review of
As expected, the review of cycle safety, a euphemism if ever I heard one, was apparently held in secret by people who hate cycling. I for one am astonished.
From the Guardian website:
“A Department for Transport spokesman said: “We are carrying out a review to improve all elements of cycle safety.””
No they aren’t. They are carrying out a witch-hunt because a publicity seeking widower got the attention of the petrolhead media.
No government has done right by cyclists, but this government really is the worst ever. Perhaps best described as a cactus; everything on it is a prick.
Well with cyclists being
Well with cyclists being responsible for 0.18% of deaths on the roads every year this is time and money well spent by the government.
Housecathst wrote:
Cyclists are responsible for only 25% of those. The victim was responsible in the other 75% (stepped off kerb without looking etc). So 0.045%.
The don’t give a monkey’s
The don’t give a monkey’s about doing the right thing; they care about being seen to do something percieved as popular.
The right thing would be to clamp down on shit drivers.
Plasterer’s Radio wrote:
Since when did the government do the right thing, they pander to populism and pressure groups not giving a shit about anyone except themselves.
I see media outlets reporting
I see media outlets reporting pedestrians killed and injured by cyclists, cyclists killed and injured on the roads, but not pedestrians killed and injured my motorists.
Doing so I believe would put the ‘problem’ of dangerous cycling into perspective.
Mr. Briggs needs a more constructive outlet for his grief I think.
Cunts the lot of them
Cunts the lot of them
It’s a very very long way
It’s a very very long way from a review of road safety and traffic offences, isn’t it.
The thing I don’t understand
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.
Three thoughts on this…
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
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
Any chance you could sum that up in a nice sentence or two so that I can be bothered to read it?
burtthebike wrote:
Any chance you could sum that up in a nice sentence or two so that I can be bothered to read it?— Jimmy Ray Will
It’s perfectly readable and comprehensible for anyone with an attention span greater than that of a gnat.
burtthebike wrote:
Any chance you could sum that up in a nice sentence or two so that I can be bothered to read it?— Jimmy Ray Will
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!
Pushing50 wrote:
What I don’t like is when people quote really long posts…
alansmurphy wrote:
Meaning you have to scroll down forever…
alansmurphy wrote:
It’s a waste of the internet
Twowheelsaregreat wrote:
Don’t give them ideas! They’ll start rationing it in the name of austerity!
Pushing50 wrote:
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.
burtthebike wrote:
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.
burtthebike wrote:
Any chance you could sum that up in a nice sentence or two so that I can be bothered to read it?— Jimmy Ray Will
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
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:
The first phase will analyse the case for creating a new offence equivalent to causing death or serious injury by careless or dangerous driving to help protect both cyclists and pedestrians. This will address a specific issue emerging from some of the most distressing cases seen recently and will be informed by independent legal advice. The conclusions from this phase are expected to be reported in the New Year.
The second phase will be a wider consultation on road safety issues relating to cycling. It will involve a range of road safety and cycling organisations, as well as the general public and will consider different ways in which safety can be further improved between cyclists, pedestrians and motorists. It will consider the rules of the road, public awareness, key safety risks and the guidance and signage for all road users.
Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-launches-urgent-review-into-cycle-safety
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.
Only if this is followed up
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.
I wonder if the wording will
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.
Given the possibilities of
Given the possibilities of deaths caused by dangerous cycling, shall we expect neq laws on dangerous extreme ironing and dangerous selfie shots?
I hope they don’t lock people
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)
Guys, this really isn’t a
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.
Crampy wrote:
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.
oldstrath wrote:
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.
Crampy wrote:
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.
Great, the Daily Mail is now
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.
Based on a bad experience I
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?
I fail to see how Dangerous
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…
The Dailyy Mail and Express
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 wrote this on the CUK
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.)
Best get some insurance
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.
Given the similar injury and
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?