The big news that broke last night was the government agreeing to introduce tougher legislation to prosecute cyclists who kill or injure through dangerous or careless cycling. Ministers have backed Sir Iain Duncan Smith's amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill which is said to aim to ensure those riding bicycles "face the same penalties as drivers and motorcyclists" if they are responsible for death or injury through dangerous cycling.
Transport Secretary Mark Harper last week said the proposed amendment would be considered "with an open mind", the Department for Transport chief last night confirming the government's intention to move forward with the legislative change.
"Most cyclists, like most drivers, are responsible and considerate. But it's only right that the tiny minority who recklessly disregard others face the full weight of the law for doing so," he said.
"Just like car drivers who flout the law, we are backing this legislation introducing new offences around dangerous cycling. These new measures will help protect law-abiding cyclists, pedestrians, and other road users, whilst ensuring justice is done."
In the hours since there has been continued discussion on the topic, the issue having received widespread media and political attention since the bank holiday weekend when it was reported that a coroner's court had heard a cyclist who hit a pedestrian in Regent's Park would not face any charges.
Many have compared the plentiful column inches, radio rants and TV debates that have been afforded to one case of a person riding a bicycle involved in the death of a pedestrian versus the respective normalised nature of coverage of death and injuries involving a person driving a vehicle. But, the fact is, the noise has resonated with the government, who in the space of two weeks have moved from last year's position of an ongoing "review" seemingly lacking much urgency to now pressing forward with an amendment to the Criminal Justice Act. Last summer, the line from ministers was that there would be insufficient Parliamentary time to introduce legislation. Now, within 14 days things have changed.
The West Midlands' former cycling and walking commissioner, Adam Tranter, who this week resigned from his role, called dangerous cycling laws "a proposal based on fear not evidence" and suggested that while they might "sound reasonable" it is "an incredibly strange use of government time and resource given how rarely it'll need to be used".
"Every death is tragic but to put it into perspective, on average each year, more pedestrians are killed by cows than by cyclists," he said. "It is a proposal based on fear not evidence. Those working in road safety will be perplexed given England does not even have a road safety strategy (one of few developed countries not to) and many responses on topics that would save lives are still sat on ministers' desks."
The Guardian's Peter Walker took to social media too, arguing that a dangerous cycling law "won't make the roads less safe".
"If you were to write a list of the best ways to actually improve road safety, it wouldn't even be on the first A4 page. It's 95 per cent displacement activity," he said. "It's mainly an example of how in political terms, salience trumps normalisation. There have been two nasty incidents in London involving cyclists in the last few weeks. On an *average single day* there are 20+ hit and run incidents in London involving motor vehicles."
The first of those incidents also actually happened in June 2022, only being thrust into the spotlight following a Telegraph news story on the coroner's inquest, which was subsequently picked up across print and broadcast media, catching the government's attention.
Transport Secretary Harper's social media post about the move has also been flooded with comments and replies, many from cyclists questioning his attitude to other road safety issues.
Rory McCarron, a cycling lawyer at Leigh Day, said: "There have only been two fatal collisions in London where a cyclist was involved between 2020 - 2022 (last three years of available data from Stats19). This doesn't even mention who was to blame. Want to guess the total amount of fatalities on London's roads in that time?"
Many weren't particularly concerned by the idea of cyclists being subject to the same penalties as motorists, after all you can find more than a handful of old (and recent) stories from the road.cc archives along the lines of...
> "Arrogant" speeding driver with drugs and alcohol in his system avoids jail for killing cyclist, as prosecutor says incident was "just below" dangerous driving threshold
> No prison sentence for drink driver who fled scene after hitting cyclist and then kicked two police officers
> Suspended sentence for careless driver who killed two cyclists
Other comments included:
Andy Bell: "Yet again focusing on completely the wrong priorities. An absolute embarrassment of a transport secretary. Probably the worst yet and that's a pretty high bar."
Alex S: "You'd save more lives (directly and indirectly, better health etc.) by making cycling safer Mark. But that would require thought and effort, wouldn't it? And you'll be out in a few months..."
The Ranty Highwayman: "Where's the consultation results for footway parking?"
Steve Walker: "As soon as we achieve this equity between cars and bikes I look forward to drivers being hounded in the media with the same vigour for each and every incident."
Bob From Accounts: "So does this mean you'll get let off with a small fine and some community service if you kill someone?"
Add new comment
44 comments
This law, dangerous cycling, is one that will very rarely be used. The chances of being in a collision with a cycle are small, when compared to the population, and small when compared to being involved in a collision with any other form of motor vehicle. Your chances of dying if you are hit by a cycle are 3.4 times less than if hit by a car. Interesting I predict that the uptake of battery vehicles, and the corresponding increase in weight will lead to an increase in fatalities unless there's a reduction in the speed limits. Velocity x Mass = Death.
Two points:
1: Tesla Model 3 is lighter than a fair number of equivalent ICE cars, battery cars are not that much heavier than ICE cars, modern cars are heavy. It's the same when people talk about how expensive they are, like for like there isn't much cost difference it's just new cars are expensive and always have been. In most peoples head maths they are comparing a new EV with the used ICE car they bought some time ago.
2: The mass of the car is irrelevant in a pedestrian to car impact because the car is so much heavier than the person. Let's say a 1600kg car hits an 80kg person at 10m/s, the pedestrian will be accelerated to 9.5m/s. If the car was 2000kg they would be accelerated to 9.6m/s. The height of bonnet and it's compliance is far more important which is why vans and buses are so deadly as you head tends to get hit directly.
Read an article in the Telegraph earlier
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/16/competitive-strava-cyclists-...
It's behind a paywall but I read it on a link site somewhere - basically writing about a cyclist who hit 52mph whilst cycling along 20mph Chelsea embankment one Sunday morning. They got the data from Strava. I'm sure there are some guys out there capable of high speed but that strikes me as a motor vehicle driver and the Telegraph using this (unsubstantiated) data to stir further hatred.
I just saw that. Someone found a map of the segment - partly off road and partly underwater.
Faster than sprinters in the TdF.
Gps glitch.
This is the current Strava leaderboard for Albert Bridge to Battersea Bridge along the (flat) Chelsea Embankment, from whence they presumably drew this data, with the leader at 86 kmh. If they weren't so eager to grasp at anything to demonise cyclists they might have noted that her alleged power output to achieve this feat was 92W; by my reckoning, even for a 60kg rider on a 7kg bike, it should require over 3000W!
Id want my money back if Id paid to read it, the Daily Star used to print better quality storys than that, call that quality journalism ?
labelling anyone who uses Strava as an undercover athlete, ffs, and thats just a tiny part of its utter drivelness.
Front page today..
It should read 'Land Rover Louts...'
This is a subset of what Rendel posted - Tite St to Chelsea Bridge
Not bad for 101W
Bike calculator for 70kg rider gives 24.02 kph for 600m
I can't help but think that the cycling lobby should do better than a bit of "whataboutism" as the response to this.
The usual media suspects commenting on this are always pushing for higher punishment for driving offences particularly in the case of drivers "who kill". This despite the fact that there isn't brilliant evidence that harshness of punishment is particularly effective deterrent for any crime let alone one like dangerous driving where the ratio between an act of dangerous driving and a death by it is in the region of a million to one (about 300 convictions a year for death by careless/dangerous driving would mean the average driver would need to do less than 10 dangerous things a year to make it a million to one).
While we are at it the number of people killed by drivers using mobiles while driving last year was 22, yet a vast amount of effort is put into stopping this. It's also why people think cycling Micky is a dick.
Human nature is what it is, infrastructure and proper places to cycle are what is needed and what should be lobbied for not annoying the biggest single interest group (people with driving licences) by demanding that it's easier for them to be sent to jail or fined.
Oh that's OK then, only 22 mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, brothers and sisters killed for totally avoidable reasons. Only 674 injured too, and 4000+ injured where mobile use was "potentially" a factor (i.e. almost certainly was but can't be proved). Nothing to worry about at all.
At a society level of 65 million persons in the UK 22 and 3 deaths are pretty much the same.
Mobile phone use will sort itself out overtime as cars do a better job of driving themselves and interfaces get better on devices so people don't need to look at them or touch them.
Good, that's alright then. Presumably if your partner, mother or daughter was killed by some selfish idiot using a mobile phone while driving you would just shrug and say it's alright, mobile phone use will sort it self out over time.
Some quality whataboutism.
Were you at the Evil Cyclists Lobby meeting in the Church Hall earlier??
How to rein in a majority - well there is indeed a problem.
I'd have a listen to Chris Boardman again - less whataboutery, more "what's the real issue here folks?" I'd say.
Your idea of an alternative though ... isn't really any easier or free from the issue you identify. Where are you going to put that infra and those proper places to cycle without annoying the
biggest3nd biggest interest group (people with driving licences, a fair way behind people who use motor transport in some way, and "pedestrians" (broadly put) - which is everyone to a first approximation)?And those places to cycle - are they going to go anywhere? Perhaps it seems sensible to connect residential areas with schools, amenities, transport hubs and workplaces? Sorry mate - need that parking, and we can only just fit two Land Rovers down here.
It isn't a zero sum game ... but I think the notion you can get more than fractional change without rocking the motor transport boat is for the birds *. Because it's our addiction to an extremely space-inefficient mode of transport that displaces or suppresses other modes that is the root issue.**
* Whether we try to "police it better" - there's a fair bit of low-hanging fruit in the UK, but I think "diminishing returns" after that - or do the cycle infra + public transport transformation + motor vehicle journey reduction - which I'd agree is the ultimate way forward. (Or of course we can just "keep driving because everyone's a bit miserable but doesn't know better" - politically safe!).
** A convenient and (somewhat) flexible mode of transport to be sure, but one with "pushers" who - unlike the "cycling lobby" - are running the show.
That's 22 people who were proved to be using their mobile - I suspect a lot of other RTCs were caused by drivers using their mobile phones but it wasn't proven (e.g. reading messages rather than actually making a call just before the incidents)
Yes, see my stats above (from the RAC website): 674 people injured by proven mobile-using drivers but 4000 more incidents where "driver distraction" was thought to play a part, with the most likely distraction being mobile use.
I can't understand what difference giving a dangerous cyclist who kills somebody a longer prison sentence will do - it will not be a deterrent, save any lives and will not save the NHS and government any money. The occasional moron riding a bike is the price we have to pay for the freedom of the bicycle.
I was surprised British Cycling's latest sponsor partnerChip hadnt created more twitter angst. They've signed up with Kettle Chips. https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/news/article/20240515-about-bc-static-...
I think you'll find that should be "KETTLE® Chips" if the press release is anything to go by... 😀
Whilst I fully welcome Chris Boardman's efforts to improve road safety, he has to change his language.
"
"There's over 1,700 deaths caused by, or involved in, vehicles every year, 30,000 killed or seriously injured. It's important that we say that because there are three involving, not necessarily caused by, but three or less involving a bike rider.
"
Why is it "... vehicles..." but not " ... vehicle DRIVERS..." when it is "... a bike rider..." ?
http://rc-rg.com
Everyone probably does it occasionally just because it's so pervasive (presumably from age-old media strictures to avoid saying something that could be interpreted as prejudicial in any later case).
At least in the segment linked on Twitter on BBC Breakfast (Hirsute has it below) he says: "My mother was crushed to death by a driver..." and doesn't use any form which says e.g. "hit by cars".
He did use the word 'driver' when talking about his mum's death.
I agree with the broad point, but we shouldn't be too quick to criticise individual sentences in this instance.
Chris Boardman have been interviewed on Radio 5 Live regarding the new law. Usual measured response from him and, from the part I heard, the interviewers actually gave him time to talk and put his view across.
Also the Today Programme on R4.
twitter link
https://twitter.com/BBCBreakfast/status/1791007719706472709
And this was literally their very next tweet today
Baby dies after being hit by Land Rover in car park.
https://twitter.com/BBCBreakfast/status/1791047106301399389
Following IDS logic, given the number of children killed by Land Rovers, there need to be urgent new laws to deal with the vehicles and the drivers.
That would actually make a lot of sense. Land Rovers, and their imitators, have grown far too big, too heavy, too powerful, with bonnets so high that a child has to be a car's length ahead before they can be seen by the driver. But laws to either reduce the size of cars or require extra driver training for such large vehicles would impact on the profits of the motor industry. So, natually, don't expect IDS to do anything about them.
In the blog "There have been two nasty incidents in London involving cyclists in the last few weeks. On an *average single day* there are 20+ hit and run incidents in London involving motor vehicles."
And what do we hear on this from the mainstream - nothing and harsher penalties for hit and run driver shave been ignored again.
Pages