Cyclists who cause death by dangerous cycling could face life imprisonment, according to new legislation proposed by the Department for Transport this week.
As part of a series of amendments tabled on Thursday to the Crime and Policing Bill, branded “one of the biggest legislative updates to policing for decades”, cyclists who kill pedestrians by riding dangerously could be sentenced to life in prison, while cyclists who cause serious injury by dangerous cycling could face a maximum five-year term in jail.
If the legislation is approved by parliament, cyclists convicted of causing death or serious injury by ‘careless or inconsiderate cycling’ could also face up to five and two years in prison, respectively, the Telegraph reports.
The amendments, tabled by the Department for Transport (DfT) and the Home Office, and led by transport secretary Heidi Alexander, would update and replace the current legislation under which cyclists who kill or injure while riding recklessly can be prosecuted under the 1861 ‘wanton or furious driving’ law, which carries with it a maximum sentence of two years in prison.
The move comes after former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith spearheaded a campaign last year to introduce an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill which would lead to tougher sentences for people who kill or injure while cycling dangerously, while also ensuring bikes would be required to be “equipped and maintained” to certain legal standards.
Announced in the wake of a coroner’s inquest into the death of 81-year-old Hilda Griffiths, who was fatally struck by Brian Fitzgerald in Regent’s Park in 2022, the cyclist facing no charges for his involvement in the crash, Duncan Smith said the proposed legislation would ensure people on bikes “face the same penalties as drivers and motorcyclists” responsible for the death of pedestrians.
Duncan Smith’s amendment looked almost certain to pass last summer, following a fast-tracked push through parliament, but was stopped in its tracks by Rishi Sunak’s decision to call a general election in July, meaning there was insufficient time for the legislation to pass.
> Iain Duncan Smith’s anti-cycling crusade is anti-reality
The former Conservative leader’s much-publicised push for a new ‘dangerous cycling’ law attracted criticism from cycling and active travel campaigners, such as road safety charity Brake, who described the attention and emphasis placed on cycling as “disproportionate”.
Meanwhile, Active Travel Commissioner Chris Boardman pointed out that more people are killed by lightning and cows each year than cyclists.
“This is such a tiny minority,” Boardman said last May. “More people are killed by lightning, or cows. And that same thing [cycling] is joyous. It’s good for society.
“And we put the focus on this minuscule, negative thing. Absolutely, everybody should obey the laws of the road. But is this really the best use of our time to be talking about this now?”
During the election campaign, however, Labour said it would support new laws “to protect people from dangerous cycling” if it formed a government.
Nevertheless, after a prolonged period of silence on the matter, during a debate on Labour’s new Crime and Policing Bill last month, Duncan Smith renewed his campaign for tougher cycling laws, urging the government to include his proposals as part of its new legislation.
“The main point I was making was we have had deaths on the street where cyclists cannot be prosecuted for having killed someone,” the Chingford and Woodford Green MP said, criticising those who “genuinely abuse the Road Traffic Act”.
“We are still using a piece of legislation from the mid-19th century, which was offensive and wild carriage driving, which is not acceptable but it hardly ever commits anybody and convicts them either.”
Duncan Smith’s wish appears to have been granted, with this week’s amendments to the bill reviving his attempts to impose tougher sentences, including potential life terms, on dangerous cyclists.
However, a source within the Department for Transport has stressed that, despite the amendments, there is still a need for “proportionality”, especially taking into the consideration the 1,600 people killed or seriously injured by motorists every year.
“Dangerous cycling is completely unacceptable, and the safety of our roads is a key priority for this government,” a DfT spokesperson said.
“The government is proposing new offences and penalties for dangerous cycling, updating legislation that is over 160 years old, to ensure that the tiny minority who recklessly disregard others face the full force of the law.
“These are being brought forward as part of the Crime and Policing Bill, and will be debated in due course.”
This week’s move has been welcomed by Matthew Briggs, a longstanding campaigner for a dangerous cycling law, whose wife Kim was hit and killed by a cyclist riding with no front brakes in London in 2016, with the cyclist Charlie Alliston later being jailed for 18 months after being found guilty of causing bodily harm by ‘wanton and furious riding’.
“After losing Kim in 2016, I began campaigning the following year to have these laws enacted. The use of the wanton and furious charge for so many cases has been inadequate and archaic,” Briggs told the Telegraph.
“I’m absolutely delighted that this Labour government has followed through with our calls for new legislation.
“This isn’t just a victory for me and my family, it’s also a victory for all the families who have worked tirelessly through their unbearable tragedies to have these laws changed.”
He continued: “I sincerely hope that, despite their initial opposition, the cycling lobby will now support this Bill.
“I recognise that any death on the road is a tragedy. But this campaign has been focused on correcting a gap in the law. I believe updated laws will serve as a deterrent and make our roads safer for everyone.
“I am grateful to the Secretary of State for Transport, Heidi Alexander, who has shown me not just recently but also as my constituency MP tremendous courtesy.”
136 thoughts on “Cyclists who kill pedestrians could face life sentences under proposed new ‘dangerous cycling’ law”
This proposed law does not
This proposed law does not affect 99.999% of cyclists, so I’m not bothered!
What I am anticipating, is either a change in the wording in the Highway code, or perhaps even a change in the law, requiring cyclists to use cycle lanes or paths where provided. If this did materialize, this will have an affect on me, and many other cyclists.
Yep. Plus, momentary lapse
Yep. Plus, momentary lapse in concentration, otherwise good character, sun was in my eyes etc. Slap on the wrist & a £50 fine if current application of dangerous/careless driving offences is anything to go by.
Don’t forget the old classics
Don’t forget the old classics :
“The pedestrian came out of nowhere.”
“I am filled with remorse and wish I was the one who had been killed (And I’m due to go to Mallorca on holiday next week. Can I still leave the country if I get a suspended sentence.”)
“I hadn’t had a drink for 3 hours.”
Mr Anderson wrote:
That doesn’t seem to be on the table at the moment (and I would certainly hope it stays that way).
I believe this (implied
I believe this (implied compulsory use of cycling infra) was proposed as an amendment to the HC about 10-15 years ago, but was rejected at the time.
But it would seem, a section of motorists already think it is law and act accordingly as per ““Road rage” van driver who punched cyclist for not riding in the “f****** bike path” handed community sentence” report recently.
I still think it is a possibility for the future, as cycling infra has significantly increased in recent times, even though much of it is crp, we could be compelled to use it anyway.
This is always a possibility
This is always a possibility of course – and thus a concern to the few current cyclists.
OTOH it’s also possible that cyclists might be banned full-stop or required to fulfil other less pleasant conditions (perhaps we’re a problem for the “world-beating” autonomous vehicles – cyclists blocking “progress” again!)
Note the regular appearances of “helmets / number plates and licences / insurance / we need tougher laws for bad cyclists” etc. from our legislators (fortunately all dismissed on grounds of cost / cost/benefit / common sense).
Currently most people (AKA “potential cyclists”) in the UK are effectively banned from cycling because the activity simply doesn’t feel safe and is usually less convenient – sometimes far less – than driving * (which we provide for very effectively). It’s extremely rare to see e.g. this or this, and never this or this, here.
On the argument in general see:
https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/25/we%E2%80%99ll-be-stuck-on-terrible-cycle-paths
Quoting from David Hembrow (as part of http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/02/all-those-myths-and-excuses-in-one-post.html – which now seems to bounce me to some advertising now):
I think this argument is more often seen coming from e.g. US cyclists. Cycling as transport is (overall) much less regarded than even cycling in the UK. And it’s not too much of a stretch to imagine places there just banning cycling.
* There are of course lots of reasons why people in the UK don’t cycle – and probably the main one is “but we have cars” and “but it’s normal to drive, and it’s not normal to travel by bike”. However there are also some blockers e.g. where it doesn’t feel safe, most people just won’t. Where cycling is a bit inconvenient or doesn’t feel social, most people just won’t.
Mr Anderson wrote:
Only if also changed to ensure that motorists use a motorway or dual carriageway where available, and use A or B roads as a last resort.
There is a tiny little road
There is a tiny little road near me that genuinely is wide enough for about 1.2 wankpanzers for much of it and yet is used by a huge number of people. It shouldn’t even be considered for use by anyone who doesn’t live there because its so bad. Going down there I had god knows how many vans drive straight at me at over 30mph. Coming within 10cm of my bars at times. Its OK though because you only need to give 1.5m when overtaking, not going head on. Fun ones were when they had stopped to let a car past but as soon as they saw me coming they just drive straight at me.
There are so many roads in the UK that are inappropriate for cars. They should also be changing the speed limit on all the pokey little roads to 20mph to try and discourage people from using them. Perhaps, just perhaps 60mph isn’t appropriate for roads with blind bends and 1.5 lanes.
The speed limit is just that
The speed limit is just that though, the max limit not a target, you are meant to drive at appropriate safe speeds for the road, that means slowing down for particular sections if necessary.
We don’t sign everything, because that route lies madness anyway and enforcement would be impossible, so we rely on people using their common sense, which I know is increasingly in short supply lately, but that’s just what we have to go with.
Signs everywhere – isn’t that
Signs everywhere – isn’t that where a Welsh style default speed limit comes into play?
Make it expensive to go faster: https://www.wsfp.co.uk/news/porlock-residents-told-more-traffic-calming-not-needed-as-average-speeds-below-limit-786001
The trouble is that a great
The trouble is that a great many of the motorati presume that the national speed limit is indeed a target to maintain. Anything that prevents that is seen to be causing an obstruction.
I can’t see a way out of that unless the national speed limit is changed. Let us (them) keep the 60NSL for single carriageway A & B roads, but reduce the NSL to 40 for all the others not already limited to 30 and reduce all residential streets to 20.
Even as a professional driver, I would not find these limits unduly onerous; they might be a bit of a crack in the plaster for the M Type / AMG brigade though.
There’s a road next to the
There’s a road next to the A14, it’s actually the old route of the A14 before it was dualled, been turned into like a single track road with passing places, perfect for a modal filter to stop rat running and promote a cycling/bus route.
Yet the amount of drivers who use the single track road vs the dual carriageway is astonishing, and they all get very upset when they have to slow down for you, alot don’t and it becomes a game of chicken.
But why pick a single track road over a dual carriageway?
Motornormativity. It’s a
Motornormativity. It’s a paved road, so why the hell shouldn’t I use it as fast as I can without impediment.
I’d expect cyclists to be
I’d expect cyclists to be more likely to be found guilty by a jury than the equivalent driver as cyclists are pushed by the media as an outgroup. Meanwhile a jury of driving peers will give the benefit of the doubt to a driver.
More bollocks from Labour who are intent on trying to win favour from the right when this is not going to be sucessful and alienating their existing supporters or those who vote tactically.
Indeed.
Indeed.
The motorist classic, “Momentary lapse in concentration“, won’t cut it for cyclists.
The motorist classic,
The motorist classic, “Momentary lapse in concentration”, won’t cut it for cyclists
In my first case, the driver who hit me while on the wrong side of the road got away with it, because it was ‘only a momentary loss of concentration’
Are we absolutely sure that
Are we absolutely sure that the Labour Party Govt aren’t all secretly members of the Conservatives…?
brooksby wrote:
Are you taking bets?
brooksby wrote:
Well someone has to be. After all, aren’t all the Conservatives secretly members of Reform?
mdavidford wrote:
If everyone (as it seems) is playing musical chairs and taking one step to the right, I wonder where Reform are really sitting?
Secretly?!
Secretly?!
Tony Blair was in part a
Since “what works, works” and the Conservatives have generally been in power longer / done better at elections, I guess it’s not a surprise that Labour will usually impersonate them when they want to get into government
Tony Blair was in part a Thatcher drag act, Cameron clearly wanted some of the staying power / apparently untouchability of “Teflon Tony” etc.
I’m sure Starmer would like to be around a bit longer than any of May – Boris – Sunak though…
I’m sure Starmer would like
I’m sure Starmer would like to be around a bit longer than any of May – Boris – Sunak though…
Crikey! You’ve forgotten the All-Time Champ!
I have!
I have! I think I’m not alone…
wtjs wrote:
The lettuce?
” Any news yet on the wider
” Any news yet on the wider review of road traffic offences, “to ensure people who endanger lives and public safety are properly punished”? Or is Labour just picking on cyclists to feed the Daily Terrorgraph? “
If they do bring in new, fit
If they do bring in new, fit-for-purpose legislation, you still have the problem of a lack of enforcement. I’d be in favour of cameras at all traffic lights, including roadworks, and average speed cameras along all ‘major’ routes in towns, as well as traffic calming measures on all side roads and residential streets, as well as default 20mph zones. The latter do become accepted over time – it’s now unusual to have anyone sitting way too close to my rear bumper when I’m driving where the new limits were introduced about 3 years ago.
The cameras would probably pay for themselves before too long, and the enforced lower speeds might have the added benefit of reducing road damage. Possibly.
Having been knocked off three
Having been knocked off three times by pedestrians, unless this law applies equally to them, it is biased. There are cases of cyclists being killed by pedestrians, so this does happen, and those three pedestrians could have killed me.
It would much comfort my grieving relatives if they knew that the person responsible for my death was banged up for life: that’s ridiculous and so is this proposed law.
Aparently Nick Ferrari, that completely objective observer of current affairs, discussed this on LBC this morning. I might just play it back, if only to see how long it takes to fill the anti-cycling bingo card: my guess is seven minutes.
Well that would be the Auriol
Well that would be the Auriol Grey case situation, which did result in a conviction, even if it opened up a can of worms.
stonojnr wrote:
And the conviction was overturned.
The can of worms for me was more to do with the lack of provision for cycling, a local authority who clearly had no idea about the status of their public spaces (was it shared use? They weren’t sure at least at first…) and perhaps the oddity of the CPS going “too high” with their charges as opposed to their usual “haggle ourselves down to ‘careless’ …”
dangerous walking – love it!
dangerous walking – love it!
I would add to that dangerous
I would add to that dangerous mobility scooter driving! I have once been nearly taken out by some one who just came off the pavment and onto the cycle path (murder strip, just a white line between you and trafic) without looking, now that was a close call!
The shroud-waving continues.
The shroud-waving continues.
And reality:
And reality:
This brings the offences in line with driving.
While sentencing guidelines will require that the hazard presented by the vehicle is considered – i.e. it being a bicycle is a mitigating factor vs a car in sentencing.
So sentences will have to be comparable to those issued to motorists, as will bringing charges etc.
If anything I expect this will REDUCE the actual outcomes, despite opening up a wider sentencing range, because we are so bad at prosecuting drivers…
Edit: I also expect the reason we are so bad at prosecuting cyclists for manslaughter is juries going ‘but what if I do the same in a car’
qwerty360 wrote:
No. The truth is that we are very GOOD at prosecuting cyclists for manslaughter. The reason why such prosecutions are rare is because it is vanishingly rare that a cyclist kills a pedestrian, not because it is common but not prosecuted
You have a fair point.
You have a fair point.
The reality is we don’t have enough incidents to know whether we are good or bad at prosecuting cyclists for manslaughter – similar levels of injury for both parties AND equal fault splits – just as likely the pedestrian stepped off a footway in front of a cyclist proceeding legally (and normally) along the road as the cyclist ploughing through a red light into a ped (etc).
To use Charlie Alliston as an example;
If a ped stepped infront of a car doing 18mph and they honked rather than braking, would they even get prosecuted… I expect that to prosecute they would require a 2.5s reaction time allowance before expecting them to brake…
And per the Rhyll cycling club deaths, a vehicle not being roadworthy isn’t driving without due care/dangerous driving…
(n.b. I would argue that 18 months was light for what Alliston did; But it is harsh compared to similar incidents involving cars… I have had abuse for stopping for pedestrians who enter the road, both from drivers and other cyclists; The idea that the first response to a ped stepping out has to be brake, regardless of who has priority doesn’t seem to compute.)
From my understanding of the
From my understanding of the Alliston case it was very harsh for what he did. The pedestrian was crossing the road looking at her phone, he alerted her to his presence and went to pass behind her, she panicked and stepped back into his path giving him no chance to stop. I’m not saying there was no fault on his side and but compared to what drivers get away with…
ChasP wrote:
I thought the phone was invented by Alliston as a defence?
eburtthebike wrote:
You’re thinking of Alexander Graham Bell.
I think the phone point is
I think the phone point is disputed so should be ignored.
Not disputed is that she stepped out in front of him, he alerted her, attempted to avoid her, she stepped back into his path, unfortunately hit her head on the kerb when she fell and that his bike wasn’t fitted with a front brake.
Also not disputed is that he was sentenced to a custodial sentence of similar length to those imprisoned for deliberately running people over with a large SUV.
He clearly intended her no harm but his negligence in not fitting a front brake contributed to the outcome versus a clear intent to cause serious injury.
I thought he was riding a
I thought he was riding a fixie, which relies on just stopping pedalling. I don’t think anyone in the Netherlands has a front brake, although it is many years since I rode a rental bike there.
Spokesperson wrote:
The older style in NL have a coaster brake on rear only, which is not the most effective way of stopping but easier that braking with a fixed gear / demands less skill. But newer bikes there are more likely to feature other brakes, and ebikes (EAPCs) often discs.
None of that is terribly relevant in the UK where legally you should have two independent braking systems on a bike, and this chap deliberately chose to remove the more effective one AND document that.
* There are sensible reasons for having a coaster brake even though it’s not as effective as others (you keep your hands free for eg controlling the bike and signaling, no cables to get caught when parking amid thickets of bikes, much less likely for casual riders to over- brake and cause a skid). There are also very good reasons for having two braking systems on a bike eg. redundancy, greater control…
She had a phone in her
She had a phone in her possession. He claimed she was using it but there was no evidence of this.
If he hadn’t been such a dick on social media, he would have likely had a better outcome.
I just posted a comment
I just posted a comment regarding the CCTV evidence.
I just posted a comment – The
I just posted a comment – The was CCTV evidence.
Alliston himself retracted
Alliston himself retracted his assertion that she was on a phone, and CCTV was viewed in court.
qwerty360 wrote:
I find it EXTREMELY illustrative that we always use Charlie Alliston as an example. Because there simply aren’t other examples of cyclists killing pedestrians as a result of their manner of cycling. It is a law that has been created in response to ONE incident dressed up as a widespread problem.
Cycle like a prat and kill someone, it is front page news in national newspapers, and special laws are created in response. Drive like a prat and kill someone and it won’t even make front page news on the local newspaper.
Hate to say I told you not to
Hate to say I told you not to celebrate the demise of this last year when the election happened, but I told you it only needed someone to raise another amendment to the crime bill for it to come back.
There simply wasn’t enough (any ?) pushback or opposition to it by MPs cross parties to stop it, so it simply gets nodded through.
While I don’t object in
While I don’t object in principle, what I fear is unequal application of the law. Jurors (who are likely to be car drivers) are inclined to forgive transgressions by other motorists. However, because of the distain most drivers have for cyclists, we are likely to see them throw the book at cyclists, regardless of their culpability.
Yes. And were a judge gives a
Yes. And were a judge gives a sentence in line with that normally given to a motorist in a simiar situation, which the press would largely forget about, you can be sure that some of our papers will be falling over themselves campaigning for the sentence to be increased.
No issue with the offence and
No issue with the offence and sentencing guidance for cyclist matching the offence for other vehicle users. As that’s the base aim, there should be regular reviews of actual convictions and sentences across the different laws, to ensure consistency is happening.
CarlosFerreiro wrote:
And when do you think that will happen? Not quite the same but IIRC we’ve been waiting for a review of road law since it was announced in 2016…
chrisonabike wrote:
And when do you think that will happen? Not quite the same but IIRC we’ve been waiting for a review of road law since it was announced in 2016…— CarlosFerreiro
I thought it was originally announced in 2012?
I miss the days when eburt
I miss the days when eburt would remind us of it in most of his posts.
A lot of the comment has been
A lot of the comment has been amounting to comparing cycling to something else and pointing out this is a molehill by comparison. Which it is. But then look at it from the perspective of the family of the person killed. Why should cyclists have an exemption that cars and motorbikes don’t?
I can’t think this change will make one jot of difference to those who cycle or, for that matter to prospective cyclists.
That said, perhap it could be a gateway to insisting adult cyclists have some sort of insurance to cover them for 3rd party injury they might cause…
Why should joggers have an
Why should joggers have an exemption that cars, motorbikes, and bicycles don’t?
sigh.
sigh.
Most of us do have that insurance cover. It comes free with membership to cycling bodies (at a higher limit of liability than on your motor policy) for one thing. Perhaps a million or so of us could also just chose to ignore the requirement? And how would you enforce this? Number Plates? Registered tabards? This has been done to death and repeatedly closed down by various Governments.
Besides, it’s not like cyclists currently can’t be held liable for third party injury.
Maybe look at current sentencing for driving offences from the perspective of the families of cyclists killed or seriously injured by motorists…
What percentage of cyclists
What percentage of cyclists are members of cycling clubs or associations?
Also probably in your home
Also probably in your home insurance.
What percentage of cyclists don’t have insurance then genius?
Cyclists don’t have any
Cyclists don’t have any “exemptions”. If a cyclist, or anyone else for that matter, kills someone through actions that are grossly negligent or unlawful, there’s a law for that – manslaughter.
There is a specific offence of causing death by dangerous driving because drivers of motor vehicles were routinely getting away with a slap on the wrist for killing someone, because juries were reluctant to convict drivers of manslaughter. After all, is it really grossly negligent if an otherwise outstanding and law-abiding citizen has a couple of pints then drives home at double the speed limit without insurance or an MOT? Surely not, given most of the jurors have done so at some point too…
I been thinking about this
I been thinking about this today, read the guardian’s piece on this this morning. It’s story, and the above article, and I am not reading the telegraph, fail to point out that Charlie Allison was tried for manslaughter, and found not guilty by a jury of his peers. And I believe manslaughter can carry the life sentence.
they dont have an exemption,
they dont have an exemption, no one does in law, thats the point, there are existing laws the CPS could use to charge cyclists in these kinds of cases, and the family of the person killed will get as much justice from it as they would if theyd been killed by a driver and charged for death by dangerous driving, remember some drivers dont even get charged in cases where theyve killed people.
for some reason, likely because it doesnt suit the people shouting the loudest who just want vindictive justice, not actual justice, the debate has hinged on the point its a collection of older laws, just like most of our laws actually are quite old, and somehow not fit for the modern world as if we have to keep updating laws else we feel old fashioned using them.
its all nonsense really, if we had better prosecutors, and better law makers who actually understood the law, not what they think the law is, we wouldnt get stuck in these debates
This legislative change doesn
This legislative change doesn’t bother me in theory. What bothers me is that the powers that be think this is the best use of their time to make roads safer. It’s not.
It’ll be interesting to see
It’ll be interesting to see this legislation challenged in court. As already highlighted, there are many proven ‘get out of jail free’ cards played by motorists facing dangerous driving charges, and it will be fascinating to see if these hold the same weight when put forward by a cyclist.
I would additionally expect arguments put forward challenging a cyclists ability to judge what is dangerous activity (outside obvious stuff like hurtling down pavements), as a cyclist is not legally required to pass a test and hold a licence in order to ride a bike. Without mandatory training, and the passing of a licence is it fair and reasonable to allocate the same level of responibility onto a cyclist?
Then there is the stuff that worries me… for instance, if an act is illegal – for instance riding on the pavement – would that mean a cyclist would automatically be deemed to be riding dangerously if a collision occures no matter the speed of travel? In an extreme example, the letter of the law could mean, a cyclist travelling at 3mph on a pavement who collides with a pedestrian who somehow dies – they might have fallen into the road under a lorry – would be facing a life sentence. This doesn’t seem proportionate.
And finally, I agree with other comments, I struggle to see a jury of motorists being suitably objective / impartial when considering the actions of a cyclist.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9x8w9e4nd4o
Surely a jury of ones peers
Surely a jury of ones peers would require that any jury in a case where a cyclist is the accused, should consist only of other cyclists. That appears to have worked for drivers, from what I have seen.
Given that the politicians
Given that the politicians have already gone after immigrants, disabled and trans, it doesn’t surprise me that cyclists are just another minority in line.
As the times get tought, they need to find scapegoats and divert the public frustration away from the real issues. I think this system still runs on a German franchise.
“A government source close to
“A government source close to Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander told the BBC that changing the law “at the first opportunity” was “definitely personal” to her as she was Mr Briggs’ MP when his wife was killed.”
One might hope that all MPs would be so strongly motivated if the vehicle used had a motor…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0w8g18x9no
I. Despair.
I. Despair.
Everyone commenting here, and
Everyone commenting here, and all their friends and family, need to write to their MP demanding that this law is either withdrawn, or should include pedestrians killing cyclists.
OR… everyone needs to get a
OR… everyone needs to get a life. Its a pointless law that will affect none of us but takes away one more stick that drivists use to beat us with.
Honestly stop a smell the roses.
I think you are
I think you are underestimating the scrutiny that a case will get. This will lead to further vilification of all cyclists.
The fact that a driver commits a worse crime and fails to be adequately sentenced will be ignored.
tbh whats the point ? most
tbh whats the point ? most MPs are a waste of space just doing what their party heads tell them to do. very few of them actually understand issues like this in enough detail to form a cogent opinion.
if it makes you happier, go for it, but I dont see it changing anything.
Not a cyclist’s death but
Not a cyclist’s death but lorry driver who ploughed along hard shoulder killing a pregnant nurse gets less than 3 years.
https://archive.is/cWxyW
Whilst this lorry driver only got community service for killing a cyclist, the “bike lanes” are to be upgraded, to what I wonder…
https://archive.ph/zX2FD
Yeah, cyclists are the real dangers on the road.
Another recent one https:/
Another recent one 🙁 https://www.theguardian.com/football/2025/apr/25/mansfield-forward-lucas-akins-jailed-for-14-months-after-causing-death-of-cyclist#:~:text=The%20Mansfield%20Town%20forward%20Lucas,pulled%20out%20from%20a%20junction.
I agreed with others, the new
I agreed with others, the new law should include Pedestrians who cause death of other road users. Of the Government want to make this a even playing field the they have to include ALL who use the rioads and pavements. This would cover situations where a pedestrian steps out into the road without looking (which is extremely common now due to mobile phones and earbuds) and a cyclist or a driver swerves to avoid them, collide with another vehicle and die.
Killer driver walks free
Killer driver walks free
Thanks, useful ammunition for
Thanks, useful ammunition for my email to my MP.
Kim Briggs v Charlie Alliston
Kim Briggs v Charlie Alliston – pedestrian with mobile phone
There was a traffic CCTV camera viewing the location of the collision.
I understand it has been claimed this CCTV evidence has been
withheldsuppressed by the Police?!I have seen this video evidence. The victim was walking away from the CCTV camera, occupied by an object in her hand which I presume was a phone. She then turned right and proceeded to cross the road beside a parked large delivery van, similar to those used by UPS. She emerged from the blind side of the delivery van to the oncoming traffic.
I appreciate Matt Briggs has suffered a huge loss in his family life. But I can’t ignore the fact that if 1) she hadn’t been preoccupied by her phone and 2) chosen a safe place to cross the road (eg formal pedestrian crossing – several in Old Street), this tragedy would not have occurred.
It annoys me that the message “Cycling is literally a lawless activity” is still being repeated (re BBC News report).
The Briggs case has been
The Briggs case has been chewed over a great length for years now (road.cc, road danger reduction forum comparing to other similar collisions, the verdict, a barrister blogging on this case (the Cycling Silk) etc.).
What I do know is that Mr. Alliston a) removed a lot of reasons to claim this was an unavoidable accident (whether or not it really was) by not just deliberately reducing his potential braking ability but posting about this. And b) removed any chance of “understanding” from the court by his awful immature behaviour both immediately after and for some time following the collision.
And this seems to have left Mr. Briggs with a very dogged … concern … about all cyclists.
It is true that some motorists who have failed to maintain their vehicle have not seen serious punishment (e.g. bald tyres but “hit black ice so this did not contribute…”). Though some who have deliberately increased danger have been jailed (though less severely in this case and in this one). Perhaps it was easier to believe they didn’t know what they were doing was dangerous?
CCTV footage is referred to
CCTV footage is referred to in the sentencing remarks and was watched in court. The sentecing remarks also record that Alliston initially claimed she had been on her phone, but later retracted that.
More proof that “car-brain”
More proof that “car-brain” still rules supreme.
Well. For what it’s worth I
Well. For what it’s worth I’ve just done a quick ‘back-of-an-envelope’ calculation. It suggests that if the precentage of cyclists involved in collisions with pedestrians went to prison were the same as the percentage of drivers involved in fatal accidents with cyclists who were improsoned then we’d see about 1 cyclist going to prison every 5 years. That wouldn’t satisfy the Daily Mail.
Anyone tried a different envelope?
“Cyclists who kill could face
“Cyclists who kill could face life sentence”
The use of language is always interesting.
The BBC has today used this headline to lead on the news today.
“Cyclists who kill could face life sentence”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0w8g18x9no
The government estimates that of 1,600 deaths on UK roads last year, four were caused by cyclists.
Meanwhile, in the case of a driver ‘killing’ a cyclist the headline was:
“Footballer jailed for causing cyclist’s death”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm24r3lgjr9o
In my opinion the BBC should be using the word ‘kill’ in relation to all convictions for dangerous or careless driving.
However, they choose not to as ‘killer cyclists’ is more emotive than ‘killer drivers’, due to, in my opinion, that the BBC is wanting to encourage a hatred of cyclists.
Why do I bother paying my BBC licence fee.
That ought to be added to the
That ought to be added to the journalistic style guide, like the collision/accident/crash thing.
If they want to introduce new
If they want to introduce new offences for cyclist’s then that is ok by me if:-
a) They introduce a legal minimum passing distance of 1.5m for all vehicles when passing cyclists in either direction – do this in order to help those that are put off cycling on the road because of the traffic, encouraging them not to use the pavement when there is no suitable cycling infrastructure.
b) Recommend the use of helmets to be worn by pedestrians when walking near roads, as it seems that most pedestian deaths involving cyclists involve head injuries that are caused by relatively slow speed impacts – which would be almost entirely preventable with the the wearing of a helmet. That way it would be more of a level playing field between motorists and cyclists, as we are always criticised for not wearing a helmet when injured by motorists, and is often used as a means of trying to shift blame for injuries onto the cyclist.
c) They introduce a nationwide 20mph speed limit in all urban areas of England, as it has been proven in Wales that this is the single most effective collision reducing measure that exists, rather than trying to send cyclists to prison because they want to treat us as human powered motorists.
Otherwise its just another round of cyclist bashing by the current government, who are definately encouraging the use of cars – with their what I call “growth at any cost” policies- at the expense of everyone else. You only have to look at the derisory amounts of cash allocated to the whole of the country for active travel, compared with what they spend on relatively small road projects in one area.
To have penalties that are the same as those who have to pass a test to be on the road is wholly disproportunate, and does not address the fundamental difference between cycles and motor vehicles.
The 20mph limit on Welsh
The 20mph limit on Welsh terms will be in before long. I’d say 5-15 years,
The evidence will see to that, and even the head-up-their-own-anus Conservatives will not be able to resist. Partly because most of their party members will be in either a) SUVs or b) Mobility Scooters, and partly because politically they are circling the drain.
I was heartened to see when
I was heartened to see when given the opportunity to do my hour blast last summer, grazing the bottom of the chilterns, that there were a lot of fresh twenty roundallls in every little village and hamlet. When mentioning such a delightful thing here I was informed that Oxfordshire just did it, seemingly without huge controversy.
Not entirely without fuss –
Not entirely without fuss – there was a bit of grumbling in corners from the usual quarters – but yes – mostly people just shrugged and got on with things, and getting around town is now much more pleasant than it used to be.
I don’t know if I’m
I don’t know if I’m particularly against this.
To be convicted for death by dangerous driving, they have to been driving to the very worst degree, I try not to swear here, but like a (insert your own, choice word), with many aggregating factors, drink, drugs, speed, distraction, no licence, tax insurance, MOT, and the fact that they are in charge of a massive, heavy vehicle.
I haven’t seen any cyclist behave with the level of idiocy and dangerousness that I observe in motorists. Think it may be because that we, and I speak as the designated spokesperson of the cycling collective, and our motor driven 2 wheeled cousins are very aware that in any impact will result in pain and injury, we have no steel safety cage. I have seen some terrible cycling, of course, and especially in my youth I have been much more reckless.
I, as aforementioned official spokesperson like to keep up with cycling related news and opinion, and no other case apart from Charlie Alliston springs to mind where anyone could or would be prosecuted for this. Might be able to find a small number if I search for it, but probably needs a bit of effort. And would Charlie have been convicted, yes he had no front brake, but he was fully aware of his surroundings, no “distracted” cycling, travelling at below the posted speed limit, which didn’t even apply to him, no mention has been made about his impairment through drink and drugs, he slowed, made the pedestrian aware of his presence and steered as to avoid her. Juries are weird, but it only really takes three of them to have doubts to ensure a not guilty. They did not covict him of manslaughter.
And there seems no mention, if parity is the aim, terrible for implying it might not be, of death by careless cycling. The equivalent often being pleaded down to by motorists who kill, when they discover the overwhelming evidence, to save court time and so the CPS have don’t to do much.
the issue will be anyone
the issue will be anyone charged with it, will almost certainly be convicted by a jury, unlike in death by dangerous driving charges where anyone charged with it is almost certainly never convicted, as long as theyve got a solicitor working for them who can throw enough mud in the water.
because juries empathise with drivers, there but for the grace of god etc etc, whereas juries dont empathise with cyclists, they slow me down, my mate saw one jump a red light theyre a menance.
almost certainly someone will be convicted wrongly, and thats not justice.
the second issue is thin end of wedge issues, now that equivalence and parity between cyclists and drivers is being set up in a part of law, where might our campaigning zealots go next ? They wont sit back and go my work here is done and wander off into the sunset happy, its pretty obvious as they use it as the core in their arguments for this parity change theyll want some form of registration,mandatory insurance,VED, probably some kind of yearly bike MOT and speed limits next, all in the name of safety and parity and because “its the right thing to do”.
This law seems like a
This law seems like a solution in search of a problem. I’d have thought that anyone who kills someone through sufficient negligence to be charged with this would be guilty of manslaughter in any case.
I guess as long as this law is applied with the same leniency as drivers regularly get it’s a non-issue.
I have to wonder how the death toll from things like bar fights, let alone more politically sensitive topics like climate change, and pollution compare.
One thing is almost certain –
One thing is almost certain – the next person on a cycle who kills a pedestrian in a collision will be lynched by this law. They will get a 25 year term (and the driver of the car in the courtroom next door will get a suspended 2 years sentence for killing a pedestrian)
It’s what certain sections of
It’s what certain sections of our press and some politicians will be pushing for.
Rome73 wrote:
Or a cyclist: see above.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyqd7y8ep5o
“I was so distracted by the content of the hands free call, I carried on driving instead of pulling over.”
How will a government commited to road safety respond? Will they now ban hands free phones?
Hirsute wrote:
“Dentist Collins, 40, was given a two-year prison sentence, suspended for two years, for causing death by dangerous driving near Christleton in Cheshire.”
I’m sure cyclists will be treated the same.
How will a government
How will a government commited to road safety respond? Will they now ban hands free phones?
No, obviously. They’re more likely to ban cyclists
I’d rather call for a trade –
I’d rather call for a trade – move the burden of proof to the stronger vehicle. i.e. if a motor vehicle rammed into a cyclist or pedestrian, the motor vehicle is assumed to be guilty of dangerous driving, unless he can prove (using balance of probabilities i/o reasonable doubt) himeself innocent.
Not unlike bribery or money laundering laws.
Probably this move the bar of dangerous driving low enough.
“… move the burden of proof
“… move the burden of proof to the USER OF the stronger vehicle…”
“… if THE DRIVER OF a motor vehicle rammed into … “
“… THE DRIVER OF the motor vehicle is assumed to be guilty…”
Unless the vehicles were autonomous/self driving of course.
http://rc-rg.com
Give it a rest.
Give it a rest.
At the inlaws, so can read
At the inlaws, so can read the telegraph letters.
Cyclists should have a test, plates, insurance and a bell.
The greatest threat cyclists face is not from the car but from the backlash against reckless and illegal cycling behaviour.
I must use that last one a manta the next time I’m on the end of a left hook.
Long, but I hope it’s
Long, but I hope it’s effective. My email to my MP.
Dear Mr Bishop MP,
Cyclists who cause deaths
As a constituent of yours, I am writing to express my alarm at the reports of the new law proposed for cyclists who kill.
I understand that the Department for Transport is proposing an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill so that cyclists who kill pedestrians by riding dangerously could be sentenced to life in prison, while cyclists who cause serious injury by dangerous cycling could face a maximum five-year term in jail. I have a number of concerns about this proposal, not with the fact that cyclists could be held accountable for their reckless behaviour, but that others are not.
This proposal is a result of media hysteria, largely as a result of the Charlie Alliston case, where the husband of Kim Briggs garnered massive publicity because the media loves to attack “out groups” like cyclists. The claim was that cyclists who kill could not be prosecuted, which is clearly untrue as Charlie Alliston was prosecuted and sent to gaol. The law may need updating, but this should be done in a calm and considered manner, not in response to a confected media furore.
There is also the unfairness of singling out cyclists, when pedestrians also kill people, including cyclists, but the amendment does not seem to recognise this fact. Unless the amendment includes all road users who have the potential to kill, including pedestrians, scooter riders, mobility scooters etc, it is biased against cyclists. There are cases of cyclists being killed by reckless pedestrians, and I have been knocked off my bicycle by pedestrians recklessly running into the road three times, and have had to take avoiding action many more times. Any one of those incidents could have resulted in my death, but there is no law that I am aware of which would result in the prosecution and gaoling for life of those pedestrians. There is an average of about four pedestrians killed in collision with a cyclist annually, but the statistics do not show who was responsible for the collision, and in my experience, it is much more likely to be the pedestrian at fault.
The media hysteria ignores the fact that drivers who kill almost never receive the maximum sentence, and are sometimes not prosecuted at all. The incredible case of Mick Mason springs to mind, where the Metropolitan police did not refer the case to the Crown Prosecution Service for prosecution or advice. The case was eventually prosecuted because a private prosecution was mounted by Cycling UK. His bicycle was road legal, with lights and reflectors front and back and he was on a well lit street. The driver, Ms Purcell, said that she didn’t see him, and after colliding with him said that she thought a bag of potatoes had fallen from the sky. Ms Purcell drove on after the collision and only stopped when witnesses compelled her to do so. A detailed account of the case can be found here https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/duncandollimore/mason-verdict
Cases of drivers receiving apparently extraordinarily lenient sentences for killing cyclists and pedestrians are rife, with many receiving suspended sentences or even getting the sympathy of the court for their ordeal.
“Dentist Collins, 40, was given a two-year prison sentence, suspended for two years, for causing death by dangerous driving near Christleton in Cheshire.” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyqd7y8ep5o
“Driver spared jail despite killing man while speeding” Ealing Gazette (July 21st 2017) The driver was going at 61mph in a 40mph zone.
“A driver of a car which skidded on black ice and ploughed into a group of cyclists killing four of them, has been fined for having defective tyres.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/5241798.stm
“Daughter, five, ‘longs for her daddy’ as his careless driver killer walks free. Hyland, 50, was was convicted of causing the death of the dad-of-two by careless driving on March 28, 2019. Today, at Chester Crown Court, Hyland, of Bexton Lane, Knutsford, was handed a community order for 18 months, and ordered to carry out 150 hours of unpaid work.” https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/daughter-five-longs-daddy-careless-19588703
“Teen branded ‘liar and coward’ as he walks free despite causing crash which killed friend.” https://metro.co.uk/2020/08/17/teen-branded-liar-coward-walks-free-despite-causing-crash-which-killed-friend-13140820/
“Family’s anger as driver Peter Ross who killed motorcyclist Lloyd Donovan on Medway City Estate walks free from Maidstone Crown Court.” https://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway/news/anger-as-driver-who-killed-biker-walks-free-252273/
“The killer drivers who destroyed lives but still walked free from court.” https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/black-country/killer-drivers-who-avoided-jail-27805780
“Woman screams ‘you’re a killer’ as teen driver walks free over crash death of pal.” https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/woman-screams-youre-killer-teen-22534885
“Killer driver who crashed into his friend’s car than took Snapchat videos of the wreckage as he lay dying inside walks free from court after admitting causing death by careless driving” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11453881/Killer-driver-crashed-friends-car-took-Snapchat-videos-walks-free-court.html
“A lorry driver who admitted killing a French cyclist by careless driving has been given a community sentence.” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-68629946
These are just few of the many occasions when drivers who have killed receive astonishingly lenient sentences, and I could give you many more, but I’m sure you get the idea. Unlike the Alliston case, there was no blanket media coverage for months for any of these drivers, because they were drivers, not cyclists.
To change the law now, in the eye of the media storm, would be unwise, and such changes should only occur after long, serious consideration.
The following quote is extraordinary to the point of being incredible
“A government source close to Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander told the BBC that changing the law “at the first opportunity” was “definitely personal” to her as she was Mr Briggs’ MP when his wife was killed.” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0w8g18x9no
If this is true, the amendment should definitely not go through as the Transport Secretary is clearly biased.
We can all agree that the current law is out of date and needs to be updated, but now is not the time to do it, when there is a media furore and the Transport Secretary is demonstrably biased. Given that there is clearly a massive disparity between the sentencing of drivers who cause death and cyclists who do the same, there should be a thorough and in depth study of what the laws should be, and the guidelines to the CPS and courts in these cases.
In May 2014, Justice Secretary Chris Grayling MP announced the Government’s intention to launch “a full review of all driving offences and penalties”. That review has never taken place. Can I suggest that instead of the media-driven, knee-jerk reaction to a single tragic case, that review is undertaken? If it is not, then drivers will continue to be excused by the courts and society, whilst cyclists will disproportionately punished.
Please ask the Justice Secretary to implement their predecessor’s plan for a comprehensive review of all driving offences and penalties, to include pedestrians, cyclists, mobility scooters etc. Anything else will merely perpetuate an unjust system.
Good work Eburt! I’m going to
Good work Eburt! I’m going to plagiarise some of it in my letter to my (Labour) MP about Lancashire Constabulary’s refusal to prosecute (or do anything at all about!) many serious offences by drivers, and the refusal of the (Labour) PCC to involve himself in anything to do with police operational decisions
I was going to post on this
I was going to post on this thread, but you’ve covered the topic in such detail I couldn’t add anything of value!
Great letter – planning to
Great letter – planning to plagerise and send to my MP also. Only thing I might add is that the Causing Death by Dangerous Driving was only introduced becuse juries made up of pre-dominantly drivers were reluctant to convict other drivers of manslaughter. I hope that if any cyclist is proescuted for this propsed new legislation then they wil ensure that the jurors are also predominantly cyclists.
former local BBC radio
former local BBC radio presenter Mark Murphy offers his opinion on the change… (warning its bingo-tastic) https://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/25117133.opinion-mark-murphy-law-crackdown-dangerous-cyclists/
but I look forward to his opinion piece on the outcome of this case.
https://www.suffolk.police.uk/news/suffolk/news/news/2025/april/man-charged-following-fatal-collision-in-bentley/
It’s because Mark Murphy can
It’s because Mark Murphy can’t ride a bike.
It’s because Mark Murphy can
It’s because Mark Murphy can’t ride a bike.
It’s because Mark Murphy can
It’s because Mark Murphy can’t ride a bike.
EDIT: Not sure what happened with the multiple replies below but it’s probably worth saying again: Mark Murphy can’t ride a bike.
Yeah, I know he’s never been
Yeah, I know he’s never been a fan of cycling in general, though has been unironically promoting a local sportive charity ride recently. I guess we entitled cyclists have our uses sometimes
This bit of “Breaking News”
This bit of “Breaking News” has been covered by all the major press and news outlets. You can spend an interesting half hour reading the different accounts of the same story. It will probably just confirm your prejudices.
It’s not about road safety and justice, it’s tribalism.
I don’t mind that as long as
I don’t mind that as long as killer drivers are given life sentences too!
EXACTLY!!!!
EXACTLY!!!!
I know this isn’t the point
I know this isn’t the point here but whenever this kind of issue comes up I’d like someone to say:
“I’d much rather not be killed in the first place. And I also don’t want to be ‘scared off the roads’ for my own safety – not when there often isn’t any other realistic way to get about without buying a car or hiring a cab.”
What happens when everything goes wrong is important. And “deterrence” has some place – at least it can’t be absent.
But surely the primary focus ought to be on not getting to that point in the first place?
a driver doing 90mph in a
a driver doing 90mph in a residential area got 6 years for killing their passenger. So a cyclist doing 30mph should get a proportinate sentence of 2 years
Only in a situation where the
Only in a situation where the cyclist kills their pillion passenger, surely?
While there are a lot of
While there are a lot of lunatic cyclists on the road who don’t care about other road users, mainly the Lycra wearing clowns.
Pedestrians are also just as bad.
The amount of times I see pedestrians just walk out in front of me or look directly at me when I’m riding and still take up the whole path is ridiculous.
Most of the real dangerous
Most of the real dangerous clowns wear dark hoodies and dark tracksuit bottoms. Lycra wearing cyclists are mostly responsible and obey the rules of the road.
Wearing Lycra doesn’t make
Wearing Lycra doesn’t make someone a clown it just means they don’t want to get sweaty in their clothes and so choose to wear the most appropriate thing for the activity they’re doing.
What do you wear to go swimming or play football, a 3 piece suit?
Your bigotry is matched by
Your bigotry is matched by driver arrogance. At what point will this utterly stupid association with fabric cease? Are you are denim d1ckhead?
polainm wrote:
MAMIPS – Middle-aged Men in Polyester Slacks.
The net effect of this law
The net effect of this law will be negative: it discourages cycling, so people miss out on cyclists’ 15% reduction in mortality, and more people will drive, increasing mortality from road deaths. I’m surprised this bill is still progressing, now the previous govenrment who introduced it has been voted out.
CrankPump wrote:
Sorry replying to a different post, moved!
CrankPump wrote:
I don’t support the legislation but I doubt it will have a negative effect on cyclist numbers; the same sanctions already apply to drivers and I’ve certainly never encountered anyone saying that they won’t drive because they are scared of the sanctions that might be applied to them if they kill someone. Such is human nature that the vastly overwhelming majority of people believe themselves to be safe and competent drivers/motorcyclists/cyclists and that they will never be in a position to face sanctions, so they won’t put them off going out on the roads.
I don’t support the
I don’t support the legislation but I doubt it will have a negative effect on cyclist numbers
Agreed- what has a negative effect on cyclist numbers is the attitude of the b*****d police, which ensures that the number of these attacks is increasing here
https://upride.cc/incident/pn20mlk_arona_closepass/
https://upride.cc/incident/mb19sff_tesla3_closepass/
all following the police example with enthusiasm
https://upride.cc/incident/kn21axh_lancspolice_closepass/
(This is Infiniti Q30 BF18 VLM)
The problem with the law is
The problem with the law is the distinction between dangerous and careless, for both cyclists and motorists. My understanding is that dangerous means that somebody has made a decision or gone out of their way to travel in a dangerous manner. Therefore causing a death by driving or cycling while using a phone, or under the influence of drugs, is dangerous and should carry a heavy sentence. But clearly this isn’t the case for many convicted motorists.
I agree with the comment far below, that the next cyclist convicted of causing death by dangerous cycling will receive a stiff sentence. What many in the car lobby don’t seem to appreciate is that it will set a precedent and increase pressure for similar motoring sentences..
Cyclists who kill could get
Cyclists who kill could get life in jail under new law (Oxford Mail – paywall)
https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/25116229.cyclists-kill-get-life-jail-new-law/?ref=uber_tsb&lp=1
There’s another classic “Killer Driver Walks Free” story on Wales on-line – I’ve sent it to the Road CC team. Helen Measures level awful.
Drivers’ ability to magnify the insignificant and to downplay the massive and obvious never ceases to amaze. Drivers believe in the killer cyclist – the evidence is scant – a local news story from several years ago, a slightly more recent one in the national news seems to be all it takes.
https://www.pacts.org.uk/
Was it this one? https://www
Was it this one? https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/distracted-dentist-who-killed-north-31514159
Between 2005 and 2018 there
Between 2005 and 2018 there were 548 pedestrians killed on pavements in collisions with vehicles, just 6 in collision with bicycles. However, once this law is in place I will no longer cycle on shared paths or in the gutter cycle lane because both put me into direct conflict with inattentive pedestrians (that revenge obsessed husbands wife stepped off the pavement into the path of a cyclist in 2009). Drivers killing pedestrians on the pavement have made a conscious decision to mount the pavement, whereas cyclists are expected to ride on the pavement where it has been declared as ‘shared’ or use a gutter that has no room to avoid a pedestrian stepping into it, but you can bet that the next cyclist involved in a collision that kills a pedestrian will be made an example of in order to prove this law was needed.
You have a point – laws
You have a point – laws attract crimes usually. Unless it’s ones that are supposed to stop companies making money from people we don’t like etc.
It probably still will hardly be any, but you wouldn’t want to be in the first few, the judiciary will no doubt want to try it out for size.
From the BBC – “Careless
From the BBC – “Careless driving” (young recently-qualified driver with previous social media evidence o “showing off” and “driving too quickly”). Three of his passengers died, passengers in the car he crashed into were injured. Changed plea to guilty just before trial. Two years imprisonment, 8 year driving ban.
One might expect very few cyclists to be sentenced to more than that proportionally – but of course that’s not how it works.
Anyone know if golf buggies
Anyone know if golf buggies are / will be covered? I don’t know if there are any official stats, but you do a Google News search, it happens.
Woman hit by golf buggy at Whitstable Seasalter Golf Course airlifted to London hospital
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/whitstable/news/huge-emergency-response-at-golf-course-after-woman-in-90s-t-323564/
Next thing you know they’ll
Next thing you know they’ll be taking over the paths… (possibly promoted by The Donald – who seems keen on both motoring and things golf).
That is one hell of a big
That is one hell of a big Center Parcs!
I’ve just done a 2hr cycle
I’ve just done a 2hr cycle ride, during which I nearly got killed at least 10 times, where’s the justice there…to enjoy my sport keep me healthy out of a hospital, a burden on the tax payer, tho may I should’ve called into a MuckDonalda consumed an amount of fat, then got into a MASSIVE SUV navigated the roads like I own them on a near deathly rampage 👍