- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Cyclist in London with pedestrians in foreground - copyright Simon MacMichaelCyclists "horrified" by Iain Duncan Smith's Telegraph column suggesting "dangerous cyclists should be driven off our roads", as Conservative MP accused of ignoring main road safety issues in latest call for stricter legislation
Iain Duncan Smith's campaign for updated legislation to punish instances of "dangerous cycling" continued this weekend, the MP penning a column in the Telegraph newspaper titled: "Dangerous cyclists should be driven off our roads".
The language used "horrified" some cyclists online, many urging the Conservative politician to look beyond just those who ride bicycles if he is concerned with improving safety on UK roads. One accused him of playing into "culture war" feeling around cycling, while others suggested the "driven off our roads" headline could encourage violence against cyclists.
Duncan Smith has this year spearheaded the political campaign for new "dangerous cycling" laws, his proposed amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill likely to have passed had it not been for the sudden calling of a general election halting Parliament's work.
In his column published this weekend, he wrote: "The 1861 law ['Causing injury by wanton or furious driving', the law under which cyclists can currently be prosecuted if dangerous riding causes death or serious injury] simply doesn't deal with the issue of dangerous cycling, speeding and the dangerous practice of riding bikes on pavements and jumping lights.
"All this means that the existing legislation is clearly out of date and worse, is now leading to differentiation between dangerous behaviour on the roads – frankly, the punishment doesn't fit the crime or achieve justice for the victims' families.
Sadly, there are some who persist in claiming absurdly that if such restrictions were put in place, cyclists would stop riding bikes, which apparently trumps road safety. Riding safely within the law isn't a threat to cycling, it is only a threat to those determined to ride unsafely."
However, the reaction to the piece on social media, notably Twitter/X where it was shared by the Telegraph and Duncan Smith, includes much criticism of the Tory MP and the "driven off our roads" headline of the column.
One cyclist replied to Duncan Smith: "I'm horrified at this headline — I HAVE been driven off the road once, the physiotherapist took six months to get me walking properly again. It was very painful and difficult! And I'm just a mum trying to get home from school to make dinner for my kids, in one piece."
Another called the article "divisive" and said it leaned into "culture wars" around cycling.
Duncan Smith's campaigning largely centres around individual cases — such as the much-publicised death of Hilda Griffiths who died following a collision with a cyclist in Regent's Park, an incident the Metropolitan Police chose not to prosecute the rider for due to "insufficient evidence for a real prospect of conviction".
He also this weekend cited the case of a two-year-old child in Wales who was left needing stitches after a collision with a woman riding an e-bike on a footpath. Police said the legal 250w bike had not been modified to exceed the 15.5mph limit at which point the motor must cut out, and officers decided not to pursue a criminal case against the 65-year-old woman riding.
As tragic and horrific as individual cases of death and serious injury can be, the official casualty statistics do also clearly highlight that pedestrian death or serious injury in collisions involving cyclists is rare and, while incidents such as these attract much political and media interest, pedestrians are far more likely to be killed in a collision involving the driver of a car than involving someone riding a bike.
Between 2018 and 2022, nine pedestrian fatalities and 657 cases of pedestrians suffering serious injuries were reported in road collisions involving a pedal cycle. By contrast, in that same time period, 1,165 pedestrians were killed in collisions involving the driver of a car, while there were 20,557 reported serious injuries.
Some asked Duncan Smith why his road safety campaigning appears to centre solely on tackling the far rarer cases involving cyclists (on average, 2.25 deaths per year between 2018 and 2022) rather than those involving the drivers of a car (on average 291.25 deaths per year during the same time period).
One reply to Duncan Smith's piece asked him to "now do motorists", while another asked why "if he is so serious about road safety" he is less vocal in support for "separate walking and cycling infrastructure in all our towns and cities?"
An amendment made by the politician introducing such "dangerous cycling" laws had looked almost certain to pass earlier in the summer, however the general election being called suddenly by Rishi Sunak meant there was not sufficient time for the legislation to pass. During the election campaign, Labour said it would support new laws "to protect people from dangerous cycling", although little has been heard on the matter since the party formed a government.
Last week, new Transport Secretary Louise Haigh said she "met road safety experts to discuss how to make our roads safer for all", the government forming its Road Safety Strategy.
Today I met road safety experts to discuss how to make our roads safer for all.
This was stage one of our new Road Safety Strategy - the first in over a decade 🚗🚲🚶
We know there is more work to be done, and we are determined to prevent more tragic deaths on our roads. pic.twitter.com/FVkZRDeVVn
— Louise Haigh (@LouHaigh) October 7, 2024
Dan is the road.cc news editor and has spent the past four years writing stories and features, as well as (hopefully) keeping you entertained on the live blog. Having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for the Non-League Paper, Dan joined road.cc in 2020. Come the weekend you'll find him labouring up a hill, probably with a mouth full of jelly babies, or making a bonk-induced trip to a south of England petrol station... in search of more jelly babies.
Latest Comments
- ajuk.uk@gmail.com 2 sec ago
Well, if something is clearly engineered in a certain way, sticking a sign up telling people not to do it without any design changes is a bit of a...
- Aluminium can 30 min 54 sec ago
Exactly right. If were intelligent then it's behaviour would not be predictable. It may choose to never turn on the light to save power for...
- ktache 2 hours 49 min ago
Good luck to Kent's prisoners learning how to fix bikes for people who really need them.
- AidanR 3 hours 2 min ago
I find IDS's obsession with cyclists, to the exclusion of other (more dangerous) road users, both illogical and disturbing....
- Jogle 3 hours 5 min ago
Festival Way flipped car sparking calls for improvements...
- chrisonabike 3 hours 44 min ago
Because if they're dangerous they might make motor vehicle occupants fearful?
- NotNigel 6 hours 20 min ago
This is made all the worse by not being able to grab any text in Strava, well not on the app using iPhone, and being able to copy and paste any...
- chrisonabike 7 hours 37 min ago
Didn't bother as this is actually not bad and he was on transmit about this issue. Plus I'd managed to get one point of "you don't disagree with ...
- chrisonabike 10 hours 29 min ago
Au contraire - we have some excellent (if drastic) heuristics for wasting even less time. "An editorial in {insert hate rag of choice} called for ...
Add new comment
44 comments
I find IDS's obsession with cyclists, to the exclusion of other (more dangerous) road users, both illogical and disturbing.
That said, there's a very good chance that he didn't write that headline.
Although we shouldn't ignore IDS's anti-cycling campaign we should also see it for what it is; good old fashion dogwhistle politics. He's seeking to use current anti-cycling feeling for his own political ends. He's also a former leader of a party that has just had the worst electoral hammering in it's history and shows every sign of splitting, with the centre and the hard right going their separate ways. This government is not immune from anti-cyclist pressure but neither is it greatly influenced by it either. if the UK and it's devolved governments are looking to improve health and the environment then active travel is a must, whatever IDS says.
When a brexiter says "frankly", you know something good is coming.
I tend to think we need to have the same laws governing cyclists as govern other road users, it simplifies matters, it will allow us to show stats that are directly comparable. The number of cyclists that will be prosecuted under these new laws will be negligible. This will demonstrate far more effectively than anything else that cyclists as not a danger to the public in fact I suspect it will be quite the reverse.
Personally I don't think bringing in speeding for bicycles is terribly necessary but then I don't ride anywhere where there is a 20mph zone. Our local limits here in Suffolk are 60, 40, 30 and I am quite happy cycling about with those but I am in no danger of breaking the speed limit.
It doesn't make much sense to use exactly the same laws to govern cyclists and motorists. There's the obvious problem as to how to prevent motorists from using bus and cycle lanes which is one area where the law has to be different. Cycling without MOT and insurance doesn't seem applicable either.
What we should be doing is recognising that there are dramatic differences between 10kgs of bicycle and 1800kgs of car, especially when you consider the difference in speeds that they can go. I would suggest that we prioritise traffic law enforcement based on the danger that is presented by the various riders/drivers i.e. use KSI statistics to inform policy rather than just "hurr durr, everyone's the same".
The MOT and Insurance I agree with you but whether its 100kgs or 1800kgs that kills or injures someone you cannot expect the family of the person hurt to see that there is so much difference, their relative is injured or dead and if the person that caused that was driving or cycling in such a way that caused that to happen then surely they deserve to be dealt with by the courts in the similar way?
I'm sure people will feel the same (or ... they might feel "it was just an accident" in a collision involving a vehicle... ). However are there not already different laws and "usual penalties" for causing death in different circumstances (ignoring things with greater intent like murder)? See e.g. guidelines for food safety and hygiene offenses - although of course this might be upgraded to manslaughter. (Which presumably is available in cases of causing death on the road?)
No, there should be much more responsibility for the more destructive modes of transport. This is why there is a requirement for passing a driving test and holding a driving license for motor vehicles, with even larger vehicles (e.g. lorries) having more stringent tests and requirements. This is also why it is acceptable for a six year old to cycle around and not acceptable for them to be driving a transit van.
True enough about licensing. I tend to think parents should insist that their children do Bikeability before they go out on the road on their own. Largely because mine made me do the cycling proficiency test. I thought it a waste of time because I knew what I was doing on a bike, but it made me look at the highway code and learn a bit about what everyone was supposed to do and when, which was actually really useful.
I think it's worth teaching kids Bikeability, but it wouldn't be feasible to ensure that every cyclist on the road had done a cycling proficiency test. It'd be better to make the traffic safer for all road users and thus take away some of the requirement for cyclist training. I'd like to see a Highway Code test included in schools' curriculums - that would help cyclists and drivers.
We've apparently got some of these in the UK (though I missed out ...) - just add "dealing with road traffic as a pedestrian, cyclist or (go kart) driver" to the National Curriculum.
In between sessions for schools they can do them for all the drivers over n points. Don't want to practice slowly and carefully to improve skill (in a pedal car - or maybe a speed-limited electric buggy would be more accurate)? Don't get your licence back...
For some core rules/principles perhaps *.
In general as HP says different modes, different rules. (Which is already the case - I for one won't be demanding the right to cycle on motorways or insisting that no cyclist may filter past a motor vehicle or that you can't park your bike on the pavement).
I just don't think "we're all following the same rules" will do anything to change people's perception as things are in the UK. In fact regardless of the reality and of the law some motorists already feel that cyclists are "not playing by the same rules". So are "cheating" by using the same space. (I suspect this is part of the motivation for "you don't pay road tax!").
I think the only thing that will change people's perception is cycling being mainstream - so "everyone's doing it" at some point. Of course to reach that point in the first place we will have had to bring speed limits down on "streets" and removed some of the cut-throughs for motorists. Then - just like in NL - I predict that drivers will mostly be OK with sharing politely with cyclists in these areas (as they mostly are in NL).
I'm not against having a few cycling police at that point any more than I am against the current road police who will invariably be dealing with the predominant mode of transport e.g. drivers.
* Hence why I'm not too keen on "cyclists get to turn left on red / treat red lights as 'give way' ". Of course we can achieve something similar with greater safety without needing to create a legal exception.
I might have simplified it a bit. I was thinking one thing and wrote another. The motorway one would never happen since all sorts of vehicles are already excluded, but I used to cycle down dual carriageways quite often when I went to Chelmsford in my youth. I still cycle on the A11 once or twice a year for a short distance but it is a short distance.
I regularly cycle the dual carriageway bits of the A37 in Weston-super-Mud and whilst I can see why those kinds of roads are intimidating to cyclists, they should be safe if drivers ease off their aggression - long straight roads with excellent sight lines and an extra lane to easily enable safe overtakes.
It might be safer in some ways - if only because the number of cyclists is miniscule. I agree that it should be safer - but perhaps only in the sense of motorways e.g. safer for motor vehicles. Unless everyone sticks to the speed limits and you're close to their speeds... And like everything I'd guess as soon as the traffic volumes go up it becomes really inhospitable - that "overtaking lane" will disappear (until gridlock slows everyone).
Longer straighter roads may see people switching off (or failing to switch the phone off) - because straight road / smooth traffic flow. Or getting tunnel vision - with people swapping lanes and "discovering" slower cyclists hidden by other vehicles.
I'm guessing approx zero of those driving there would places with you (especially not taking their kids / cats / ageing in laws with them)? FWIW Never going to be 8-to-80 compatible even if there were police at every junction and all drivers had signed a pledge to be very very careful...
As far as I can tell, there are no laws governing motorists. It's like the wild west out there.
What we need are stringent laws to stop politicians siphoning money away from the public purse such as giving highly paid imaginary jobs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betsygate
It's clear that parliamentary watchdogs aren't able to do their jobs properly due to the poorly defined terms in Parliamentary Staffing Allowances.
Thinking about it, shouldn't we have some kind of law to prevent politicians like IDS from misrepresenting official statistics just so that they can push their own (usually cruel) agenda? We have the Code of Practice for Official Statistics, but it appears that it is just ignored. We wouldn't have so much food poverty if it wasn't for IDS' disastrous influence on the DWP.
But who would create the laws?
But who would administer the laws?
Turkeys will vote for Christmas sometimes but only if they get to define "Christmas". Or they're sure it's only going to apply to other turkeys. And generally only if something worse is threatened (they know that sleaze allegations come and go - people do get riled but are remarkably inconsistent about caring).
Needs some very clever and robust feedback loops to keep that doing what you expect, because if one thing is guaranteed it is people who already got to the top know how to work the system and have powerful mates.
Recall "we've had enough of experts" and Liz Truss deciding that advisory boards and then the entire civil service were in fact a fifth column.
As I recall, IDS was a supporter of Truss.
Replace "cyclists" with "drivers" and IDS might have a point, but sadly, and hardly for the first time, IDS is utterly pointless. Nobody interested in road safety would start at the threat caused by cyclists, so he isn't interested in road safety: he's just plain and simple anti-cyclist.
As in a previous article on road.cc, the tories are seriously into divisive, poisonous rhetoric, designed to garner the votes of bigots, not to solve problems.
You beat me to it Burt!
On a related (if admittedly superficial) topic, could I ask road.cc to stop plastering this idiot's mug shot across these stories; the additional free publicity really isn't warranted.
Expecting Ian Duncan Smith to say something intelligent and measured is like expecting walking in the rain to make you dry. IDS stands for 'is definitely stupid' in the halls of Westminster. Remember, he's the man who claimed a college course of a few weeks was degree level.
Apparently known at school as "Wally Duncan Smith" and in the army as "Ian Drunken Smith".
99.6% of pedestrian fatalities are associated with collisions with motor vehicles.
The vast majority of the time, pedestrians are separated from motor traffic, because they are walking on pedestrian infrastructure.
Some of that pedestrian infra is now shared infra with cyclists, and certainly cyclists and pedestrian journeys are aligned more closely on the highway, as cyclists generally cycle to the left, close to the ped, infra.
Not mentioned in the data is the analysis of fatal collisions where a pedestrian has been in collision with a cyclist. A few years ago I read the summary of a medical PhD student's investigation into this. If memory serves me correctly, he examined 20 fatal incidents that occured in the East Anglia region. His results showed that 25% of the pedestrian fatalities were caused by 100% culpability of the cyclist. the remaining 75% were either 50-50 culpability between the Ped and Cyclist, or was 100% the fault of the pedestrian.
If this was projected onto the national statistics shown above, then only a maximum of three fatalities over that 5 year period could be attributed to dangerous, reckless cycling.
Once again, the danger posed by mobility scooters is missing from these statistics. They are not classed as vehicles (well, mostly - it depends on the type), but scooter-pedestrian crashes result in around 10 pedestrian deaths per year.
I'm not arguing that they should be covered by dangerous driving offences, although there is merit in that idea. Rather, I'm pointing out that it is yet another area where a more dangerous group of users of the highway are overlooked in favour of cyclist-bashing.
Source?
"The 1861 law ['Causing injury by wanton or furious driving', the law under which cyclists can currently be prosecuted if dangerous riding causes death or serious injury] simply doesn't deal with the issue of dangerous cycling, speeding and the dangerous practice of riding bikes on pavements and jumping lights."
Well, no. That's why Dangerous Cycling, Careless Cycling, cycling on pavements, and failing to obey traffic signals are already offences which *can* be used to deal with those 'issues'.
When they say "it doesn't work" what is their definition of "works", given that cyclists have been prosecuted and convicted under the existing legislation? Then there are offenses for motorists that the same people apparently believe "work" but many of them lead to no longer sentences and there doesn't seem to be much evidence that this has "worked" to e.g. make motorists drive more safely / obey the law better?
But hey, why not spend time to add some more laws which are going to be applied once or twice a year?
OTOH (and still "Conservative") money for some extra "cycle police" (who probably would spend as much time chiding drivers as cyclists) might show genuine interest in making the world a better place. AFAIK IDS isn't proposing that though. Nor regulating those food delivery companies and sellers of illegal-to-ride-almost-anywhere e-motorbikes and scooters.
Could this really be to "fix" things ... for him? (Well - and Mr. Briggs which I believe IDS cited in another interview as a spur for his interest in this issue?)
Indeed. BeyondTheKerb Bez wrote about this around the time of Alliston's conviction: "it seems odd to suggest that this old law is unfit for purpose: it is perfectly capable of punishing people more harshly for killing with a bicycle than new laws often do those who kill with cars"
https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/the-law-must-be-fixed-mustnt-it/
I suggest that we stiill understand the word 'grevious' in large part due to its appearance in the 'outdated' 1861 act, because GBH is common. I also suggest that the writers of any updated laws (which will be coming about any day now due to the promised review of all driving offenses) might do well to look at the 'wanton and furious driving' part to see how to write clearly.
I don't object to updated laws at all, but they don't exist in a vacuum: I wonder what portion of the public (and thus the police, juries., and judges) believe that no careful and competent person would cycle apart from on specific (and of course remote) facilities.
Pages