The government has agreed to introduce tougher legislation to prosecute cyclists who kill or injure through dangerous or careless cycling, after ministers backed a series of amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill tabled by Sir Iain Duncan Smith which aim to ensure people on bikes “face the same penalties as drivers and motorcyclists” responsible for the death of pedestrians.
Transport Secretary Mark Harper said the proposed legislation would ensure the “tiny minority” of reckless cyclists would face the “full weight of the law”, while protecting “law-abiding cyclists”.
On Wednesday, ministers supported former Conservative leader Duncan Smith’s proposal to introduce the specific offence of “causing death by dangerous, careless, or inconsiderate cycling, and causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate cycling”, which would lead to tougher penalties for those who kill or injure while riding bikes, e-bikes, electric scooters, unicycles, and “personal transporters”.
As we reported last week, the amendments would replace the current legislation with 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.
According to Duncan Smith’s proposals, bikes would also be legally required to be “equipped and maintained” to standards set out in the Act.
The government will now bring forward an updated amendment to Home Secretary James Cleverly’s Criminal Justice Bill before it is put up for debate in the House of Lords.
The topic of dangerous cycling has attracted widespread national print and broadcast media coverage in recent weeks in the aftermath of a coroner’s inquest being told that no charges would be brought against a cyclist who was riding laps of London’s Regent’s Park when he crashed into a pensioner, causing her fatal injuries.
The cyclist, Brian Fitzgerald, was riding in a group at a speed of between 25mph and 29mph at the time of the fatal crash, which led to the death of 81-year-old Hilda Griffiths. The speed limit in the park is 20mph, but the Metropolitan Police confirmed that it does not apply to people riding bicycles (as is the case throughout the country), and that the case had been closed because there was “insufficient evidence for a real prospect of conviction”.
Duncan Smith’s amendments were 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”.
Announcing the government’s backing of Duncan Smith’s amendments on Wednesday, Transport Secretary Mark Harper said: “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.
“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.
“I would like to thank Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP for bringing forward this amendment, and to all the campaigners who have tirelessly highlighted this issue – this is in recognition of their efforts in particular.”
The government’s backing of Duncan Smith’s amendments brings an apparent end to years of debate around tougher dangerous cycling laws, in and out of parliament.
Former Transport Secretary Grant Shapps first raised the issue in January 2022, before declaring his intention to introduce the law again later that year during his infamous summer of backpedalling and U-turns that saw him suggest – and almost immediately retract – that cyclists should have licences, number plates, be insured, and subject to speed limits.
In June 2023, however, it was reported that the Department for Transport had admitted to campaigners that there is a lack of parliamentary time to implement such a law before the next general election, with attention then being turned to a private member’s bill as the primary hope of securing legislative success for the initiative.
But in September, Justice Minister Edward Argar confirmed to parliament that the government was still considering legislation to tackle “dangerous cycling”, after former Leader of the House Andrea Leadsom asked what work was being done to “make sure that the sentencing for those convicted of dangerous cycling is equalised with the sentencing guidelines for those convicted of dangerous driving.”
And last week, in a clear indicator of the direction the government was intent on taking, Harper revealed that he was planning to review Duncan Smith’s amendments with “an open mind”.
In an interview with the Telegraph, the Transport Secretary also claimed his government remains committed to promoting active travel schemes, a claim many will question given the ongoing funding controversies and lack of mention of cycling policies during his party conference speech last autumn that was slammed by Cycling UK as an “ill-fated attempt to win” votes with pro-motoring policies, while “undermining” active travel success.

























113 thoughts on “Government agrees to introduce tougher laws for “dangerous cyclists” who kill or injure, as Transport Secretary says “it’s only right tiny minority who recklessly disregard others face full weight of the law””
Statistically speaking, based
Statistically speaking, based on DfT stats on who is more likely to be harmed in pedestrian-cyclist crashes, they are better off creating a ‘dangerous pedestrianing’ offence.
Also, given that mobility scooter-pedestrian crashes kill about 10 times as many people as cyclist-pedestrian crashes, why not cover mobility scooters under driving offences?
(IMPORTANT NOTE – whilst these assertions are based on DfT data, the key fact is that the numbers are so low as to be meaningless, so it is actually difficult to draw any serious conclusions abour risk, harm etc, other than it is rare and therefore probably not worth bothering with. Unlike the 1,700 road deaths annually from incidents involving motor vehicles)
Is it me, or do the current
Is it me, or do the current lot in power seem generally keen to ensure that tiny minorities “face the full weight of the law”?
The usual rightwing fascist
The usual rightwing fascist tactics, othering, scapegoating, discriminating.
Cruelty is the point.
Cruelty is the point.
I think we’re seeing a
I think we’re seeing a government pushing culture war issues because they need something other than their record to go on. Also, in the news today was the teaching of sex to under nines which already doesn’t happen, but conspiracy websites would tell you that they’re trying to get people to dress up as cross-gender (gender is a congested idea). Like the kitty litter boxes in classrooms. No truth in the UK.
As little onion has already said on this thread. The numbers don’t support the actions, pedestrians much more likely to be killed by car on a footpath than by a cyclist.
Looking around at various
Looking around at various stats since 2021 on average around 35 pedestrians per year.
And every driver who kills a
And every driver who kills a pedestrian on the footpath is sentenced to life.
No, sorry, got that the wrong way around: no driver who kills a pedestrian on the footpath gets life, and most of them only get a slap on the wrist.
Briggs goes on about how
Briggs goes on about how Alliston was charged under an antiquated law, but he went to jail for eighteen months so it clearly still works.
I mean – assault is still charged under the 18xx offences against the person act, yet I don’t hear the govt saying that they desperately need to introduce a new law for that…
Lets face it- they’re never going to do a comprehensive review of road safety law, are they? It might find that they have to be tougher on motorists, and they can’t have that.
brooksby wrote:
Its as though they think that laws wear out like tyres do!
With all due respect to the
With all due respect to the loss he suffered, Mr Briggs needs to find a healthier way to deal with his grief than to villify an entire mode of transport.
Mr Alliston was a grade-A prick whose harshness of sentence was more reflective of his entitlement and lack of remorse than his culpability of the incident.
My thought is that had any such laws been introduced prior to this media hype, say under the review of the RTA that was promised at the start of of Toryranny, the burden of proof for equivalent death by cycling charges would be comparable to the driving counterparts, and significantly higher than the burden of proof for the Wanton and Furious Alliston was slapped with.
In this knee-jerk climate, being on a bicycle and making contact would be enough for the noose if the Conservatives thought it might get them a few extra votes. I never thought I’d say this, but I’m crossing my fingers that the HoL throws this out with so many comments and amendments it’s tied up in bureaucracy before the year is out
I think Duncan Dollimore was
I think Duncan Dollimore was good on this – didn’t diminish anyone’s loss, avoided whataboutery but still noted that the law had managed to impose similar penalties on cyclists as other road users who have killed and (IIRC) expressed a hope that the government would hasten to address the bigger picture of road safety (realistically – the next government, probably in the never never).
If I’m seriously injured by a
If I’m seriously injured by a pedestrian jumping out in front of me, leaving me no time to avoid a collision, will they be prosecuted for causing serious injury by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate pedestrianing?
No, because the cyclist is
No, because the cyclist is always the cause of the accident: two pedestrians walked out onto the road without first looking carefully to see if anything was coming, they hit a cyclist and they were all knocked to the ground. At the trial, the judge decided that the accident was caused by the cyclist because he did not swerve or brake, the two pedestrians tried to sue the cyclist for compensation but could not because he was not insured – they demanded that all cyclists should be insured.
A more likely event than the
A more likely event than the cyclist being at fault. I’m sure that nice Mr Harper, my MP, will make certain that pedestrians will also be subject to the same laws and penalties for knocking off cyclists.*
*No he won’t: he’s effing useless at anything except having his picture taken at a ritual pothole filling in ceremony.
eburtthebike wrote:
Can you arrange for him to be standing in the next pothole the fill?
Ooh, there’s an idea for
Ooh, there’s an idea for traffic calming – “sleeping politicians”!
To pinch from Ambrose Bierce – “here lies Boris Johnson, as usual”. (Pity it was Boris who happened to like a bike…)
I think the other bit of the
I think the other bit of the wording I would be concerned about if it is implemented is the bike would have to legally equipped and maintained etc. Legally equipped with what ?
Pedal reflectors, visible
Pedal reflectors, visible from the rear? I’m clearly going to shortly “feel the full force of the law” when riding my recumbent. Even if my pedals had reflectors, and even if my ankles and feet were designed differently so the “back” of them faced more horizontally than vertically, my body is in the way… (Some have suggested carrying an extra set of pedals, attached and visible on the back of the seat.)
Daily Mail aficionados are
Daily Mail aficionados are obsessed with bicycle bells so keep an eye out for that.
Benthic wrote:
It is my understanding that the law says “audible warning device” so if this law passes my default of saying “ding ding” on approach to someone who clearly isn’t aware of my presence will change to a shout of “Out of my fucking way”. Purely for compliance with the new law of course!
None of this is about
None of this is about improving the law or society. It’s about signalling that something is being done, especially this close to a general election.
There’s a general failure to realise that laws only change behaviour if they are enforced. Some MPs care little about real outcomes, but an awful lot about posturing.
Exactly. Whatever you feel
Exactly. Whatever you feel about this, the headline is not “tens of thousands of additional police on the roads, new reporting portals to be set up”. Not even “courts to be directed to limit excuses / bring in new expert witnesses (perhaps driving / cycling test examiners?)”. (AFAIK – perhaps the main bill has all that?)
Instead the heading on the Gov’t anouncement is:
“Measures will help protect law-abiding cyclists, pedestrians and other road users while ensuring justice is done.”
Does it actually protect anyone? (And which “other road users”? Motorists? Bus passengers?) It’s a bit pedantic I know, obviously most laws cut in after some bad thing has happened, we hope that “prison will change them” – but is this likely to deter the dangerous or careless cyclist?
Things that the Government
Things that the Government could do (and have said they would do), but haven’t, instead prioritising the creation of dangerous cycling laws:
– New laws for hit and run offenders, campaigned for by
@RoadPeace
– Publishing of England road safety strategy
– Undertake full review of motoring offences and penalties, first promised in 2014
– Transport’s Roads policing review: call for evidence began in 13 July 2020 with recommendations due in Spring 2021; to date, no update has been published
– Pavement parking consultation review – closed November 2020. No update has been published
– Allowing death by careless driving sentences to be appealed by families under the unduly lenient sentences scheme
– Establishing the Road Crash Investigation Bureau: promised, then quietly shelved
https://twitter.com/adamtranter/status/1790824877718475062
So will the Right Honourable
So will the Right Honourable Mark Harper be ensuring that motorists who recklessly disregard others will also feel the full weight of the law? We’ve seen how many motorists appear to be treated with leniency by juries and judges/magistrates over the years and no recollection has become an acceptable defence. While I’ve no issue with a new offence being created. I do question the legitimacy of such an offence due to the numbers of fatalities and the rarity of such an offence being charged. I’m nearly sure I read somewhere that 50% of fatalities between a cyclist and pedestrian it was the later who was at fault.
I really can’t remember individuals and the press being as vocal over drivers being locked up or laws changed as they are with cyclists.
Yawn.
Yawn.
They’ll be deporting us to Rwanda for inconveniencing hard working drivists and not having RoaD TAx next.
Given that their record on delivery of manifesto promises & such like, plus they’ll not survive beyond January at the latest, I’m not going to lose any sleep over it
Dog whistle politics of no
Dog whistle politics of no merit.
Where is their record of effective and efficient enforcement of existing road traffic law..
No, didn’t think so.
Will drivers who kill
Will drivers who kill cyclists by dooring feel the full force of the law? No, they’ll get a £1000 fine.
Would they even get a fine?
Would they even get a fine?
Nah. They’ll just get a
Nah. They’ll just get a tongue lashing and told to be more careful in the future. Meanwhile the cyclist’s estate will be sued for damages to the door and the mental well being of the motorist.
Never mind about food banks,
Never mind about food banks, homeless people, NHS falling apart, MP scandals, look over there! Cyclists!! And rainbow coloured lanyards! With 99% of the media supporting them.
‘According to Duncan Smith’s
‘According to Duncan Smith’s proposals, bikes would also be legally required to be “equipped and maintained” to standards set out in the Act’.
how would this be managed and enforced? Could there be an MOT for cycles? That would be great news for bike shops.
That’ll be interesting – I’m
That’ll be interesting – I’m pretty sure no Tory politican or culture warrior could even explain how a bicycle works, let alone set “appropriate” standards for maintenance & safe operation. Just sounds like them pandering to the “TheY SHouLD HaVE RegIsTrATiOn PlAtES”
crowdsmall but loud gathering.Halfords can’t even build
Halfords can’t even build bikes properly how the hell can they be trusted to do a bike MOT competently ?
Tory War on Cycling.
Tory War on Cycling.
No one is safer for this. It’s just virtue signaling to those that want to get cyclists off the road permanently.
Apparently the maximum
Apparently the maximum sentence for death by dangerous cycling will be life in prison, in line with the proposed increase of the maximum sentence for death by dangerous driving.
One effect of this new law is to equate the danger posed by cyclists to the danger posed by drivers. This is laughable. Drivers are capable of speeds well in excess of 100mph, in 2+ tons of metal, insulated from major personal injury in the event of a crash. Cyclists might reach 30mph, and for all intents and purposes are otherwise just as vulnerable as a pedestrian.
It’s not hard to conceive of a scenario in which a driver could receive a life sentence, but I cannot think of a scenario in which giving a cyclist a life sentence could be justified.
Well … being fair, if your
Well … being fair, if your dangerous cycling *has* killed someone then it would appear to be as dangerous as killing someone with a car?
There *may* be a secondary effect of “see – cycling is a dangerous as driving” which in ways *apart* from the new law causes a change in public perception.
I think the public perception of cycling is pretty polarised, with a chunk of it strongly negative.
Being charitable you could say them bashing cycling to play to a baying core vote is “not proven”. The government have just allowed some minor details to be tacked on the end of a bigger bill – perhaps “we’re probably gone soon, why not let in a few things which *some* people might like and ideologically we don’t care about”.
… Except as Hirsute reminds us* they’ve a long history of failing to take opportunities to *actually* address road safety and legal inequalities on our roads. So in practice they’ve done almost nothing – and have avoided what seems to be “open goals” … Except of course that would be upsetting the motor trade, the motorist and maybe some “concerned pedestrians”.
* Thanks Hirsute, had forgotten some of those. I can only think of one “positive” (in theory) – increasing maximum sentence for death by dangerous driving. Which I doubt has any effect on safety, but “being seen to be tough”. And perhaps you could count them knocking back a couple of weird ideas like cycle numberplates and compulsory helmets if being completely fair. Any others?
I’ll break this into two
I’ll break this into two strands:
1) Assuming no intent to harm, the fact that harm is in fact caused is to some degree down to luck. The majority of collisions between cyclists and pedestrians that result in death involved either an elderly person, or someone who has struck their head on a kerb or similar. A driver speeding and driving recklessly has much greater potential to kill. They are therefore more dangerous.
2) If harm is intended, a vehicle is a convenient and safe (for the driver) weapon. A bicycle is not – the cyclist is roughly as likely to be seriously injured as their target.
I would agree – with a car
I would agree – with a car you’ve the possibility not just to kill but to dismantle, and kill the person behind also. But … driving is not only legal, its seen as a pretty unexceptional thing to do (almost “waking down the street”). Perhaps I should have emphasised the “appear” part in my comment – just wanted to acknowledge the “but it’s the same, dangerous behaviour on the road leading to someone being killed” concern.
Yes we do have precedent for variable penalties for killing people – I think this will just look “the same” if it was your child / partner etc.
In practice – and as noted this is likely to be newsworthy as perhaps once our twice per year – I suspect people are likely to apply the distorted standards we have with driver-caused deaths but in reverse.
So (1) in the driving case we tend to assume no intent (“it was an accident”), because that’s how we and everyone we know drives. Plus we *have to drive*. Whereas cycling is clearly a deliberate choice (you could have driven, walked, got the bus…)!
(2) For similar reasons to above people tend to minimise the decisions of those in motor vehicles (“suddenly saw red … only intended to push them out of the way…”). So just a normal human whose actions were unfortunately magnified because they were wearing a powerful exoskeleton. I suspect that the same result on a bicycle will be seen as worse – because it is so “extreme” and *personal*. You’re likely to physically hit anyone you choose to ride into…
Oh, and (Presumably what the
Oh, and (Presumably what the amendment mentioned about “equipped”) “but cars have MOTs and drivers are trained and licensed”. Some people are going to consider a bike aggravates things, as if you’d fitted road wheels to a sofa and gone out “for a play” on the roads…
It will be interesting to see
It will be interesting to see how the charging and sentencing compares between the driving and cycling offences.
There is likely to be a bias against cyclists, despite their “vehicles” being inherently being less dangerous than cars, due to being the out group and the normalisation of (bad) driving.
Of course, it will take some time for there to be enough convictions to make a comparison, because there are so few deaths caused by cyclists.
chrisonabike wrote:
Getting a bus is also a deliberate decision so if a bus driver kills someone with his bus, all the passengers share liability with him because without them making the decision to get a bus he wouldn’t have been there!
Maybe this is in place to
Maybe this is in place to massively reduce the threshold for dangerous driving convictions. “If a cyclist is convicted for killing someone while going 25 in a 20 and having a pedestrian step out in front of them then a drunk driver looking at their phone and blowing through a crossing and killing someone can’t possibly be considered merely ‘careless’.”
Patrick9-32 wrote:
You wish!
Backladder wrote:
It doesn’t seem very likely does it…
Patrick9-32 wrote:
I really, really doubt it! That would be that “comprehensive review of road traffic offenses” from just … 10 years back. Along with lots of other things which the government declined to support, dropped, gave the nod to but then kicked into the long grass or otherwise did not follow through with in practice. (This is when they’ve had a stonking majority for some time also, don’t forget).
Along with the usual announcing “support for active travel” then either not delivering on the money or indeed cutting this back (practiced by all the main political groups, barring e.g. the Greens – oh and a point for Welsh Labour for renumbering the (existing, arbitrary) default 30mph to 20mph of course!)
Road Peace released a list
Road Peace released a list this morning of the things the government has said it will do to improve the roads but hasn’t had time/inclination for whilst having the time for this measure:
And what it did find time for
And what it did find time for:
Cutting funding for active travel (in 2023) (more on that from Sustrans)
Declaring they’re “on the side of the motorist”.
Ordering a review of LTNs.
Apparently – the Conservative party this is, not government – running a network of attack groups touting ULEZ and LTN nonsense (and worse) to have a crack at Sadiq.
Brought in legislation on “Automated vehicles” – by itself this could be seen as necessary and just dealing with reality, but they blocked things like sorting out the definition of “careful and competent drivers” at the same time or creating some advisory council. So it seems as much “how can we help the industry get these sold?”
Ran a consultation on upping the power on EAPCs / throttle-only ones. Who was calling for this again?
Consultation on restricting the generation of “surplus funds” by local authorities policing traffic.
This current one they have made space for, as an amendment it seems to be a case of “tacked on at the last minute”. I’m not sure how much “deliberately choosing to have a go at cycling” this has? Someone more knowledgeable about parliamentary proceedings could tell us perhaps.
This is clearly part of the
This is clearly part of the anti-cycling culture war. To be honest, it’s real world effect is likely to minimal, so I’m not overly concerned. I do worry about the definition of “inconsiderate” cycling – is there a law on “inconsiderate driving”? But the real test will be if and when the law is tested – and in particular the sentencing. Will the sentencing for a cyclist who causes death by careless cycling be in any way comparable for that for a motorist who causes death by careless driving? I think we all know the likely answer to that.
I think you’re
I think you’re underestimating the likelihood that PCSOs will be deployed to stop cyclists and inexpertly check that their cycles “comply with the regulations” in “cycling safety” crackdowns whenever the Mail etc whip up anti-cycling hysteria and fines issued for lack of reflectors (front, rear or pedal) etc.
Steve K wrote:
Yes. They’re both in the Road Traffic Act 1988. All that’s new is adding a separate level of “death by” for the cycling offences.
Is this going to replace the
Is this going to replace the “wanton and furious cycling” legislation? We are being told, afterall, that it is an archaic and inappropriate law*, so surely it will be rescinded?
(* despite seemingly able to result in a custodial sentance far longer than most dangerous drivers have received).
For the purposes of this
For the purposes of this proposed law, will “cycling” include any micromobility device? (eg. 30mph illegal e-scooters, electric motorbikes, e-unicycles, and – based on the stats quoted by little onion – mobility scooters)
As has been pointed out – how
As has been pointed out – how would they propose to define “careless/inconsiderate/etc” in a cycling context? You can’t go with the “below the level of a reasonable cyclist” because any fule kno that no cyclists behaviour is reasonable. You can’t point at whether they’d fail a driving (cycling) test if they’d done “that” because there is no cycling test or licence.
Or will it go with some Kafka style test where if you are arrested and charged then you MUST be guilty because if you were innocent then you wouldn’t have been arrested in the first place…?
brooksby wrote:
Road Traffic Act 1988 defines dangerous cycling:
and careless cycling:
But that’s my point – the man
But that’s my point – the man on the Clapham Omnibus thinks every cyclist rides at below the standard of being competent and careful…
Indeed. There is a view that
Indeed. There is a view that if you are driving you are competent and that’s self-evident. Tested and licenced, isn’t it? You’re “official”. Plus you’re a citizen in good standing – you’re solvent enough to operate a car, you’re careful about maintaining things to some extent (you clean the windscreen, MOT it), responsible enough and sufficiently pro-social to pay “road tax”, fuel tax etc.
On a bike? You clearly can’t be responsible – after all we let kids ride them. There aren’t even speed limits! There’s no test, “don’t pay road tax”, no numberplates etc. Plus “I wouldn’t cycle there with all those cars” – you’ve called your own judgement/responsibility into question.
You’ve already opted into the awkward squad – and that’s the more charitable view! Failures in life – overgrown manchildren, wannabe TDF racers, eco-zealots, “bloody students”, dodgy immigrant delivery riders, young thugs and thieves who aren’t even successful enough to get a car … those with disdain for the mainstream, no responsibility or accountability…
Looking at it with my cycling helmet on* it seems bizarre that riding a bike is seen as being less responsible / pro-social and driving a car the opposite, but that is definitely a view.
Albeit I suspect that (outside rare surges of media interest) most people don’t actively think about cycling at all, and alternatives to driving rather infrequently.
* which may be a cap, now it’s summer…
What about car drivers who
What about car drivers who kill cyclists getting the full weight of leniency i have been hit once driver was given driving awareness
The next 2 deliberate intimidations TVP just said don’t be naughty to the driver even though I had video
Not sure what everyone’s
Not sure what everyone’s worried about.
In the unfortunate event that one of us was on the receiving end of this charge, we’ve accumulated every excuse under the (blinding) sun courtesy of the stories from this site, to get off scott free.
Ah, didn’t you realise? Those
Ah, didn’t you realise? Those excuses only apply to motorists, not car-dodging people on bikes.
Iain Duncan Smith is an
Iain Duncan Smith is an expert in the best use of parliamentary time. After all, when Boris Johnson was rushing his Brexit withdrawal agreement through, he said that “if there is anything about this arrangement that we have not now debated, thrashed to death, I would love to know what it is.” He found out, half a year later, when he declared his hatred for the agreement, and that there was “£160 billion liability for the UK buried in the fine print” (although that figure he got from The Sun, showing his other major talent, that for getting his facts from reliable and dispassionate sources.)
A far more worthwhile law would be “causing death by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate politicking”, which Mr. Duncan Smith would be banged to rights for, given that he led the introduction of Universal Credit which has blighted, and undoubtedly contributed to the ending of, countless lives.
He is a dangerous man;
He is a dangerous man; ineptitude wrapped in a facade of unassuming banality.
His cockups are constantly overshadowed by the scandals of others, which is easy for someone whose demeanor made John Major look like a wild-child, whilst being amongst such out of touch characters as dePfeffel, Sunak, Mogg, Truss, Currie, et.al.
It’s a pointless law that’ll
It’s a pointless law that’ll probably be used only in extremely rare casis. But it’s met a need to satisfy the frothing rage of Tory MPs thinking it’ll win them some votes.
And I look forward to the
And I look forward to the rounds of opposition MPs who will stand up to oppose it, starting with the all party parliamentary group for cycling and walking.
But suspect I might be waiting as long as any of them to decry it, as its taken the current lot to carry out their comprehensive review of road safety and laws
This just came up
This just came up
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqvnvpxejv8o
I can just imagine the headlines and witch hunt if it were a cyclist. As it is the sentence “Police Scotland said the 40-year-old man driving the car was not injured.” sums up the absurb car culture we have.
As earlier, why not spend parliamentary time on
New laws for hit and run offenders
Allowing death by careless driving sentences to be appealed by families under the unduly lenient sentences scheme
That is Polis Scotland in a
That is Polis Scotland in a nutshell, only care about drivers.
I have said this before
I have said this before
This has nothing to do with Road Safety or Justice – it is the Government Posturing before an Election.
We have a divisive Government which uses hatred to divert attention from the real issues. Any minority group becomes a target, Illegal Immigrants, Anyone on Benefits, Public Servants, Climate activists, Cyclists……… Remember our Prime Minister is on the side of the motorist.
Cyclists and cycling has become an election casualty.
Although it would be rarely
Although it would be rarely used, I fear that anyone tried would receive an unfair press and unfair sentence.
This local story has a lot of anti-cyclist comments which I fear would be found in any jury.
https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/24314923.colchester-cyclist-left-broken-foot-roundabout-crash/
Hit and run, no insurance
Comments section
Ban Cycling
Simple set of instructions for cyclists: 1. Upon arrival at roundabout: stop 2. Get off cycle. 3. Use pedestrian crossing rules and cross roads wheeling cycle. 4. Mount cycle after crossing junction and carry on.
Remove the hazard, ban Cycling
Maybe this also proves the
Maybe this also proves the point, but how has this case not been front and centre on the news this week
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/birmingham-teenager-rammed-killed-showboating-29166502
Hirsute wrote:
“Work to rule” comes to mind. I think that if somehow every UK cyclist did that one day, this commenter’s response would be “no, not like that!” Drivers do have to stop for pedestrians crossing, right?
More malicious compliance:
More malicious compliance: perhaps one day per year could be nominated as “here’s what you get when you discourage active travel” day. All those who replaced driven journeys with cycled ones (and walked ones?) at some point during the previous year could hire a Luton truck each (IIRC basic licence covers that) and drive about, showing how much things would be improved if we didn’t have to allocate all that space* for pedestrians and cyclists not to use.
* Half a metre here, 1.5 metres there…
This all just makes me a bit
This all just makes me a bit sad. As others have far more eloquently put.. there are just so many other useful/meaningful things that the .gov should have put time and energy into before spending time on this law. It’s not right and I cannot wait to see the back of this government (not that I think the next set of ankles will be any better).
Although I do also have obvious sympathy for Mr Briggs and the case of his wife being run over.. it still grates that she simply stepped out into the road without looking and happened to get crashed into by a moving vehicle which just so happened to be ridden by, as it turns out, an arsehole. A series of unusual circumstance was the cause of that death.. aaaand he had the full force of the law thrown at him. BUT a cyclist victim getting mowed down from behind at 60mph or more on a straight road by a distracted driver gets treated like it was unavoidable and the driver argues it was sun in their eyes, or the cyclist was wearing black and no one in government blinks an eyelid. Where’s the morality in our justice system for that?
No cyclist involved, but this
No cyclist involved, but this was in the local press recently. Driver hits pedestrian leaving them for dead, claims he thought he’d hit a fox. (FFS!).
Four months inside & a 6 month ban. To be fair, the rozzers seem to have done quite lot to get a conviction for failing to stop on this one (doesn’t seem to happen often) but given that to me at least, that offence is probably just as bad, if not worse than the standard of driving – it doesn’t exactly smack of the “full weight of the law” getting thrown at the driver.
Cyclists should “face the same penalties as drivers and motorcyclists” huh?
“Yes m’lud, the sun was in my eyes, thought I’d hit a fox, little Martin’s cello lesson to get to, stress at work, exceptional hardship etc. Besides, can you prove the manner of my cycling?”
https://www.surrey.police.uk/news/surrey/news/2024/05/man-jailed-for-failing-to-stop-at-the-scene-of-a-collision/
I am interested to knwo the
I am interested to know the exact wording of all this. Currently not up to date
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3511
Today, @pacts and partners
Today, @pacts and partners published a ground-breaking Road Safety Manifesto.
https://www.pacts.org.uk/manifesto-for-road-safety-2024/
Also today, @MPIaianDS and his backbench Bill to include cyclists in death by dangerous (cycling) driving laws, moved forward with government support. 15 people were killed in cyclist crashes.
Last week, @kimleadbeater and her backbench Bill to introduce a #GDL to support young drivers, stalled without government support. 319 people were killed in young driver crashes.
In 2021, @BorisJohnson and the national strategy to reduce all deaths and serious injuries on Britain’s roads was pulled, and it remains unpublished today
@RishiSunak. 1766 people were killed in all road crashes. All road deaths have the potential to be avoided and there should be equivalence for all road users.
But: @Mark_J_Harper @GuyOpperman @transportgovuk prioritised the prevention of 15 deaths in cyclist crashes over 1766 road deaths, (including 319 in young driver crashes), and @Keir_Starmer @LouHaigh @Bill_Esterson
remain silent. #stoproaddeath #VisionZero
https://twitter.com/ian_m_greenwood/status/1791061993325040012
Dangerous cyclists
Dangerous cyclists
Outside the Co-Op in Stoke Newington Road. Photos by Amy Nicholson
Thank you, brother or sister
Thank you, brother or sister (and your Sheffield stand allies). You were not lost in vain.
(Just noticing the nice juxtaposition of shops in the background – everyone’s covered!)
https://www
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/horror-cyclist-killed-after-being-29187507#source=breaking-news
Well okay. One death eight years ago determines the legislative agenda, but a death every four day (on average from the 2022 numbers) is just acceptably normal. FMJ.
“Just like car drivers who
“Just like car drivers who flout the law, we are backing this legislation introducing new offences around dangerous cycling.”
Crikey. Is it really so difficult to speak coherent English?
john_smith wrote:
sounds right to me; car drivers (who flout the law) are backing legislation on dangerous cycling, and so are the telegraph.
“it’s only right tiny
“it’s only right tiny minority who recklessly disregard others face full weight of the law”
Of course. But not the reckless majority.
eburtthebike wrote:
Except it’s such a pathetic little law that it has almost no footprint to be applied. It’s a classic narrow minded kneejerk by a sad politician wanting a tiny monument for the political grave he is about to be buried in.
If IDS had actually wanted to help victims rather than have a pointless go at cyclists, he would have used his imagination and done something like bring in presumed civil liability. That would help deliver compensation to almost all pedestrians hurt in such collisions from the Third Party Liability insurance carried by a vast majority of cyclists.
But that’s not what he’s trying to do, so he didn’t do it.
And on today’s Telegraph (as
And on today’s Telegraph (as shown on the BBC’s papers page) :-
I took one for the team – DO
I took one for the team – DO NOT read the Telegraph’s online article if you value your sanity.
Yeah, I only skimmed it, for
Yeah, I only skimmed it, for that very reason.
There should be a label warning the public affixed to these NSOs (newspaper shaped objects).
I’ve just filled in a
I’ve just filled in a complaint via ipso.co.uk.
Nothing will happen but it’s better to try and fail ….
Absolutely, filled one in
Absolutely, filled one in myself, it’s like how you’d imagine a satirical comedy sketch to cover cycling & strava, “undercover athletes” is just one of their many sensationalistic memes they use, yet its in some supposedly level headed paper with professional journalists.
Thats one very big down hill
Thats one very big down hill and a strong, courageous cyclist. I’ve never topped out at over 50mph myself. I doubt there’s many places in the UK where it could even be achieved :-/
HLaB wrote:
only needs a 10% hill, with good sight lines and a straight run off.
Think someone (Rendel?) has
Think someone (Rendel?) has had a look on another thread – IIRC highly unlikely wattage to achieve that posted?
EDIT – this one:
https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-live-blog-16-may-2024-308403
Yep, I was looking at another
Yep, I was looking at another section of Chelsea Embankment but same figures hold good: a 70kg rider on the flat (which CE is) with no wind either way will need 3,300W on the tops or 2,600W on the drops to touch 52mph.
“Lycra lout cyclists are
“Lycra lout cyclists are creating death traps all over Britain”
Killing millions of people every year/month/week/day, unlike those lovely, friendly, law-abiding misunderstood drivers, who don’t even scratch anybody, ever: it’s all a lie put about by the notorious cycling lobby.
Despite everyone complaining
Despite everyone complaining about this law – I think it’ll make us cyclists think twice before we go out to murder people with our careless/dangerous cycling. We’d better get all the killing in now before this law hits the books.
Someone did suggest a
Someone did suggest a possible reaction to the laws
Refusal to use shared paths
Riders will always take primary to keep away from the kerb and peds
Ride in the main road to avoid floating bus stops.
Don’t forget to be scrupulous
Don’t forget to be scrupulous about stopping anytime you see someone who might want to cross the road also. While in primary. If it saves one life…
I probably nearly killed
I probably nearly killed dozens of people while cycling this lunchtime…
(I mean – I cycled past them on shared paths. Anything could have happened. Though I have to say the simmering rage and terror between “cyclist” and “pedestrian” was subtly concealed).
chrisonabike wrote:
Nearly isn’t good enough, I want to see some more commitment from you
hawkinspeter wrote:
I’m going out tonight to kill twenty, well at least double figures, while I still can. No point in having a quota if you don’t fulfill it.
I’m going to ask my MP about
I’m going to ask my MP about extending the legislation to Zwift users as they post some dangerously fast speeds and their casualty rate is only a little bit less than for other cyclists.
Perhaps they can bring back
Perhaps they can bring back the emergency legislation and special police from the Great Pokemon Go Menace era? Oh… wait, where did those policemen go? Seems they’re not going to catch any of them.
If I did that to my MP he’d
If I did that to my MP he’d probably believe me. He was instrumental in ripping out all of the soft segregated lanes installed during Covid in my town, because some drivers complained they didn’t like them as it confused them.
Never mind the killer
Never mind the killer cyclists – what about the Post Office management? They’ve killed more people in the last 10 years or so than cyclists have and yet not a single one has faced any consequences for their lying and bullying.
Unfortunately they’re
Unfortunately they’re classified as vulnerable due to being under the care of a government minister. Remember the publicity about the hierarchy of vulnerability? At the top (those who deserve the greatest protection) it’s “P” – Parliamentarians.
There are also the
There are also the administrators and medics behind the bright idea to use those contaminated US blood products. While the motivation is understandable and the goals perhaps slightly more lofty than the Post Office this ended up not just “amounting” to “improper practice judged by today’s standards”. It seems to have involved actual, completely unethical human experimentation on *healthy* children without consent, apparently admitted by at least one doctor (in a BBC interview).
Anyways, that’s a reminder that at public level *everything* is something to be balanced on the same scales – cost, reputation and public confidence, what the media says, private profit AND people’s lives, health and livelihoods.
I thought I would read that
I thought I would read that DT article before commenting. It wasn’t as rabid as expected and apart from the obvious inaccuracies on KOM speeds (52mph on flat? right), it does have a point about groups of fast cyclists in a shared public space in the centre of our largest city. We have the right to time trial, do chainies etc in the park but it might not be a good idea.
The law change is dumb, dog whistle politics, though. The old lady stepped into the path of a cyclists who was not at fault. Is the direction of travel here that 29mph will henceforth be considered to be a dangerous speed and therefore prosecutable under a new law, even though bikes aren’t subject to a speed limit? I don’t see it changes anything, just the penalty for a rare event.
The more I think about this,
The more I think about this, the more I worry about its scope and ramifications.
I think Duncan-Smith is either knowingly lying when he says ‘this is not an anti-cycling measure’ or he is incredibly stupid and hasn’t thought it through. These conditions are not mutually exclusive.
I am worried that this is pernicious legislation aimed at every cyclist, even the careful and considerate ones who currently ride on pavements because they feel that being amongst motorised drivers is too dangerous.
75 year old Mrs Smith steps out of her front door onto the pavement without looking and into the path of 16 year old Liam on his new mountain bike. Following the collision, Liam sustains a broken arm, Mrs Smith a broken hip and dies in hospital a few days later following complications.
Will Liam face a possible life sentence ?
What if, instead, Mrs Smith steps off the pavement into the road without looking and they collide with the same results. Will Liam face a possible life sentence if somebody deems that he was riding dangerously because he was looking down while he was putting his water bottle back into the holder ?
Does anybody think that Liam will get a fair hearing in front of a jury of twelve car drivers ?
Can anybody define dangerous cycling ? I think cycling by it’s very nature of mixing with motorised traffic is classed as ‘dangerous’ by anybody who doesn’t cycle.
‘Careful and Competent’ gets thrown around a lot but with cycling it’s not easy to define careful and competent when the reason most people give for not cycling is that it’s too dangerous. Anybody careful and competent surely shouldn’t be undertaking a dangerous activity like cycling.
There’s also the problem of expert opinion. I’m pretty certain that an expert can be found that can define dangerous cycling in any way the CPS requires and how do screen for conflicts of interest ? I have read quite a few articles on the trial of Mr Alliston and it doesn’t give me confidence in the quality of the experts that were called and I remember eyebrows were raised about the stopping distances that were used.
Another issue is the ‘properly maintained’ clause. Why throw that in ? Is it dangerous because you don’t have pedal reflectors, will it be used against you in a court hearing because your front brake wasn’t adjusted correctly ?
Dangerous and pernicious and I’m concerned.
Well put – I agree with you
Well put – I agree with you wholeheartedly.
But it’s okay because the likely next govt has rushed out to condemn this proposed amendment as the anti cycling bilge it is, and pointed out that it will do sod all for road safety.
Oh, waitaminute…
This popped up on Twitter
This popped up on Twitter
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10404620
“I was dealing with a spider” – wasp/fly/bee in my helmet/glasses.
She took her eyes off the
She took her eyes off the road for two seconds ? Didn’t even know she’d hit anything till she looked in the rear mirror?
If only there were some kind of death by dangerous or careless driving laws to protect us from these deadly drivers
I’m sure training, licencing,
I’m sure training, licencing, registration, tax and insurance will help…
There needs to be new
There needs to be new legislation involving the banning of spiders and other critters in vehicles whilst being driven by morons.
Does anybody else feel like
Does anybody else feel like crying sometimes
Sitting at a restaurant in
Sitting at a restaurant in Mumbles in cycling kit yesterday. Group of elderly people at next table. We exchange a few friendly words. First thing a Gammon says to me, unprompted is “you know there’s now a law about death by cycling?” Told him that it would be nice if the existing laws were actually applied to dangerous drivers. Thick cunt had no idea what I was talking about. Seriously, how do these people get to be like this?
Unless this is rushed through
Unless this is rushed through by Friday, it won’t be law.