Proposals to ensure that cyclists found guilty of causing death or serious injury through “dangerous, careless, or inconsiderate cycling” will face harsher prison sentences have been introduced in the House of Commons by senior Conservative MP Iain Duncan Smith, eight months after the government said it was still considering legislation to tackle “dangerous cycling”.
The former Tory party leader has tabled a series of amendments to Home Secretary James Cleverly’s Criminal Justice Bill, which would lead to tougher penalties for those who kill or injure while riding bikes, e-bikes, electric scooters, unicycles, and “personal transporters”.
The proposed update to the legislation concerning dangerous cycling, which can currently see a cyclist who kills while riding recklessly jailed for a maximum of two years under the 1861 ‘wanton or furious driving’ law, would see the creation of an “offence of causing death or serious injury by dangerous, careless, or inconsiderate cycling”, along with an offence of killing through “inconsiderate” cycling.
According to Duncan Smith’s amendments, bikes would also be legally required to be “equipped and maintained” to standards set out in the Act.
The MP’s amendments, the success of which is reliant up on the Speaker selecting them for debate in the House of Commons, comes days after no charges were brought against a cyclist who crashed into a pensioner, causing fatal injuries, while riding laps of London’s Regent’s Park.
The cyclist, Brian Fitzgerald, was riding in a group at a speed of between 25mph and 29mph at the time of the fatal crash. 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 have been welcomed by Matthew Briggs, 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 seven years of campaigning alongside other families who have lost loved ones, I’m delighted and very grateful to Sir Iain Duncan Smith for his support,” Briggs, a longstanding campaigner for a dangerous cycling law, told the Telegraph.
“It finally seems we are making some progress. This amendment could bring a degree of comfort for families in knowing that they may not have to face the same legal trauma that my family – and others – have had to face after cyclists have caused fatal injuries.
“It would also act as a much-needed deterrent to ensure cyclists obey the rules of the road in the same way motorists are required to do.”
> Conservative minister says government still considering new “dangerous cycling” law
The prospect of a new dangerous cycling law has lingered around parliament over the past few years, since former Transport Secretary Grant Shapps 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 is 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.”
“The safety of our roads is a key objective for the government. Protecting all road users is a priority,” Argar replied in the House of Commons. “Like all road users, cyclists have a duty to behave in a safe and responsible manner. While laws are in place for cyclists, the current laws are old and it can be difficult to successfully prosecute offences.
“That’s why DfT colleagues are considering bringing forward legislation to introduce new offences concerning dangerous cycling to tackle those rare instances where victims have been killed or seriously injured by irresponsible cycling behaviour.”
58 thoughts on “Iain Duncan Smith calls for creation of “causing death by dangerous, careless, or inconsiderate cycling” law”
As I’ve mentioned before, I
As I’ve mentioned before, I can’t see any law being workable without introducing legislation requiring cyclists to hold a licence and bicycles to be MOT’d.
Without this, no ‘dangerous’ charge has a realistic chance of conviction.
Licencing and MOT legislation will effectively end cycling as a means of travel – I don’t see this one coming off.
As for Mr Briggs, Alliston was tried and cleared of manslaughter. Why does he think a specific law have had returned a different verdict?
I’m not looking forward to
I’m not looking forward to getting MOTs for my current stable of 48
The big worry for a cycle MOT
The big worry for a cycle MOT is that it’s very likely to be supported (and lobbied for) by the the likes of the cycling industry, Halfords and your LBS to get people through the doors to sell stuff to.
“Can’t pass that mate – you need a new set of brake blocks.”
Who uses them these days?
Who uses them these days?
Yes, those spoon brakes and
Yes, those spoon brakes and cotter pins would have been much more relevant instead of that new fangled stuff.
Mr Hoopdriver wrote:
Shurely “Can’t pass that mate – you’ve got your forks on back to front” ?
chrisonabike wrote:
and those stem bolts are far too tight, you should be able to turn them by hand!
Of the very few people are
Of the very few people are killed by bicycles, what fraction of those are killed by bicycles that are demonstrably defective ? I suspect it is a number very close to zero. Hopefully the speaker will see sense and this will get a similar fraction of parliamentary time.
Depends what you class as
Depends what you class as defective. As a track bike, Charlie Alliston’s bike was not defective – it had all the required features for a track bike.
Is the bike defective because it doesn’t have a bell ? pedal reflectors ? wheel reflectors ? doesn’t exactly meet the construction and use regulations ? has after market bits fitted ?
Defective :-
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
We’ll just carry on riding without licence or MOT, they haven’t got room in the prisons to lock us up!
It doesn’t seem to be
It doesn’t seem to be deterring drivers…
If in doubt just relocate to Lancs; we know they don’t fuss with pointless paperwork there.
But how many drivers are they
But how many drivers are they actually locking up, they can barely be bothered to fine them!
I used to live in Lancs before Greater Manchester became a thing, those were the good old days!
Of all the ills faced by
Of all the ills faced by society today (in no small part brought about by 14 years of these imbeciles) it’s this that’s important.
or could it be a desperate appeal to the culture warrior vote?
It’s definitely just a
It’s definitely just a culture war gesture; without government support a random back-bench amendment like this has zero chance of making it into law.
Needs a commensurate law
Needs a commensurate law called “dangerous pedestrianising”, for the instances when the cylist is injured or dies in the collision, but where the pedestrian is to blame.
Fun fact – you are 15 times more likely to be killed as a pedestrian by a person on a mobility scooter than on a bike. According to DfT stats
the little onion wrote:
don’t want to introduce legislation against the only people still voting for them though.
wycombewheeler wrote:
I think the over 70s are the only group still voting for them
I think the over 70s are the
I think the over 70s are the only group still voting for them
I deny it!
wtjs wrote:
Not all of them, then
Do you have a link?
Do you have a link?
When I went looking for that one people killed in mobility scooter collisions seemed mainly to be people on mobility scooters killed by drivers of motor vehicles.
Quote:
So he presumably wants to introduce a “bicycle MOT” type test? With associated paperwork and fees? Which means you’d need to have a bike registered to an owner (shall we call it ‘a keeper’?). With all of the associated paperwork and administration for that, too.
I thought that the Tories wanted to reduce paperwork and regulation, or was that only for when a wealthy person wants to avoid paying their tax?
(edited) – Dammit! I must remember to read the comments before commenting – Jimmy Ray Will made the same point 20 minutes ago…
With the cost of living at a
With the cost of living at a record high (work no longer pays for the vast amount of people and brings a home and financial security) – our health and social care, the NHS underfunded to the point it’s not fit for purpose – our children’s education also underfunded so it no longer equips for the modern world that our future workers with the skills needed to be the best they can in the future, and we get this waste of time and air from our goverment. Time for a GE and a change of plan, fast!!!
60kg lean keen climbing
Wait – is this true? I need to stop posting and call the boss about this!
Are you referring to the difficulty of reducing your benefits, if you’re in receipt of benefits? I’d agree that reducing benefits but still earning enough to get by can be pretty difficult. Unless you’re Rishi Sunak.
work no longer pays for the
work no longer pays for the vast amount of people
Perhaps I should have wrote
Working full time in many key public and private jobs no longer pays enough
I am not in receipt of any benefits, I for example work for the NHS and have done long before 2008. I have wage slips going back many years. If I input My take home pay for 2009 into the BE inflation calc, I see a gap of over %25 in take home pay over 15 years. Yet My work department could be, according to many higher in the food chain, four times its size but only touch the surface as needed. This, when it is rare that we work now fully staffed or I get a day off without a ping from a manager offering overtime shifts.
Glad to hear they’re finally
Glad to hear they’re finally tackling the unicycle menace. One nearly killed me*.
Also – “personal transporters” – weren’t they in some dystopian sci-fi? I can’t remember what they were exactly but they sound worrying and ordinary people can’t afford another setback at a time like this.
* I fell off when trying to learn. I was fine, but it *could* have been the end!
chrisonabike wrote:
Whats funny is that if they
Whats funny is that if they managed to push this through, you can bet your ass that a cyclist that kills someone doing something stupid will get a far harsher sentence than someone doing similar in a car. As everyone knows, cyclists are all maniacs who want to cause problems and drivers are just sweet innocent upstanding members of society who are probably just a little tired from their days work trying to provide for their family and they had a single, momentary lapse of concentration when they drove at 45 in a 30 when drunk.
According to this https://www
According to this https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/oct/28/mortality-statistics-causes-death-england-wales-2010 (ok a bit old) it is more likely to die by wasps and bees, or dogs, or your pillow, or almost lightnings yet somehow people are eager to focus on death by bicycle.
Was it 10 years ago that
Was it 10 years ago that Chris Grayling promised to review road laws. Cycling could have easily been included as part of a proper review. 10 years of opportunity lost by the ineptitude of Tory government. General Election now!
IanMK wrote:
Yep. And 7 years since he doored a cyclist.
he then also stated publicly
he then also stated publicly that “cyclists don’t count as road users” IIRC
Got to love that war on motorists!
quiff wrote:
Yep. And 7 years since he doored a cyclist.— IanMK
dooring unlikely to be included in any review
Iain Duncan Smith and Matthew
Iain Duncan Smith and Matthew Briggs make much that the charge of ” causing bodily harm by wanton or furious driving” dates from the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, but so do 37 section which are still in force in England and Wales today.
Is Mr Duncan-Smith standing
Is Mr Duncan-Smith standing for re-election by any chance? If he is he’d be better advised to concentrate his meagre talents on tackling child poverty, the breakdown of the climate or wage stagnation.
I’d love to know if
I’d love to know if “inconsiderate” appears in any other analogous legislation, and if so how it has been defined through case law.
It’s one thing to introduce a new law, but quite another to invent a new legal concept.
AidanR wrote:
Not a new concept – there is already inconsiderate driving and I assume that’s the perceived injustice IDS wants to right – that there is no direct equivalent “inconsiderate cycling”. CPS has examples of what may be inconsiderate.
EDIT – for accuracy, there *is* already inconsiderate cycling – s.29 RTA 1988. What there isn’t is death by inconsiderate cycling, whereas there is a death by inconsiderate driving.
Huh, interesting, thanks. I’d
Huh, interesting, thanks. I’d never heard of that!
Utterly pointless outside of
Utterly pointless outside of the 10 year old review of road traffic offences.
They love to go after any group to out them.
Equipped and maintained to what standard?
And how will you measure it – tyres to be 100 psi?
Yeah but my tyre only goes up to 60 and anyway I can’t physically pump it that high.
More bullshit. General Election Now.
Anything the Government
Anything the Government annouces from now on is just posturing before the election. Trumpian politics – find someone to blame, Mexicans, Immegrants, cyclists…….
If you actualy want to read
If you actualy want to read the full detail of Iain Duncan Smiths amendment it is here: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3511/stages/18470/amendments/10014573
What caught my eye was “what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist includes that their cycle is equipped and maintained in accordance with regulations made under section 81 of this Act.”
Where section 81 doesn’t seem to have any detail that are relevent (it seems to be concerned with responses to complaints about anti-social behaviour).
I also noted the sponsors of the amendment are exactly who you would expect to be supporting more regulation on cyclists.
Thanks. You’re looking at s
Thanks. You’re looking at s.81 of the Bill, whereas the reference is to regulations made under s.81 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Don’t know what regulations have been made under that provision, but e.g. the earlier Pedal Cycles (Construction and Use) Regs 1983 are not exactly demanding – it amounts to having a working brake. There will be others re: e.g. reflectors though – honoured in the breach by many cyclists (me included).
I support the intent. I cycle
I support the intent. I cycle most days, sometimes to commute, sometimes for sport and exercise. I see far too many cyclists who believe there are no ‘rules of the road’ that apply to them. The law needs updating beyond ‘furious cycling’, which must be done before someone starts questioning the sense of speed-unlimited ‘chain gang’ cycling on open roads. It should also be looked at in conjunction with greater enforcement of existing motoring rules and by highlighting a pedestrian’s responsibility in the greater scheme of shared spaces and a straightforward act of crossing the road!
Well… I haven’t yet read
Well…
I haven’t yet read the detail(Edit – thanks to thereverent it’s here). And presumably there’s always a drive to seek opportunities to attach stuff which doesn’t normally get a look-in to bigger bills. (Or … a rush of “get some personal deckchairs rearranged before the ship goes down” for the Conservatives here?)I don’t object to their being some unification of penalties e.g. for driving and cycling. As you allude to – while pedestrians are at the top of the hierarchy of vulnerable road users I’d also suggest that cyclists are on about the same level – with both a long distance from motor vehicles of all kinds.
You’ll look for that in vain though.
This really isn’t what’s needed. The sane (not knee-jerk) way to do this would be to leap into action 10 years after the starting gun fired and actually do a review of road law. That would make sense – but is not what’s on offer.
You mention “greater enforcement of existing rules” – which is also not on the cards here. Indeed what do they think this will actually do apart from provide a soundbite, given we can barely police the “trained, licenced, insured” drivers with “taxed and tested cars, with unique number plates”?
While IDS’s amendments seem to mention non-type-approved currently-over-powered e-things in passing AFAIKS they don’t address properly regulating the sale and use*. Also sorting out the very grey world of the food delivery app industries with their “definitely not employees” to dodge tax and work / social responsibilities would also be a great “bigger picture” item. Sadly that horse seems to have bolted.
* IMHO we should decide that – except for the lower powered scooters maybe – they’re more of a liability than an asset. Then discourage sale / provide for confiscation and other penalties where ridden illegally and dangerously – which is “almost everywhere – especially for the higher powered things”.
Are they cyclists on bicycles
Are they cyclists on bicycles/ legal ebikes or are you referring to unlicensed mopeds that masquerade as bikes with throttles?
All these people doing 20+mph with assistance or using throttles are not cyclists, they’re people on the road / pavement without license or insurance.
Yes it does, but it needs to
Yes it does, but it needs to be done by a process of thought, not one narrowminded, ignorant bigot trying to save his backside .. er .. seat.
Yesterday in response to the
Yesterday in response to the Regents Park incident in which a Cyclist escaped prosecution after collision with a 90yr old pedestrian I said
“The Register and Bang Up brigade is usually made up of people who have lost loved ones to cyclist collisions such as Mathew Briggs (which is understandable), cyclist haters and rabid right, wing politicians looking for a bandwaggon to jump onto.”
I don’t ‘arf feel smug
What, this Iain Duncan Smith?
What, this Iain Duncan Smith? What a surprise!
says Duncan Smith
Perhaps because he realises that his choices affect the safety of other people.
Almost all instances of
Almost all instances of “cyclists” breaking the law are technically illegal ebikes also known as mopeds. I’m not sure we need any new laws but we do need the media and politicians to stop referring to unlicensed mopeds as bicycles.
I for one am glad to see that
I for one am glad to see that our government are finally getting away from tackling the trivia in society, you know, the cost of living crisis, a disfunctional NHS, and the totally inconsequential matter of climate change, and starting to focus on important priorities such as the carnage caused on our roads every year by cyclists. The election can’t come soon enough!
Hmm, climate change is orders
Hmm, climate change is orders of magnitude more impactful than all the others, so by your logic that’s all the government should focus on. That’s not how it works. There may be good reasons not to tighten the law on cyclists – climate change and the NHS are not amongst them.
Whoosh.
Whoosh.
Well done, you’ve just
Well done, you’ve just provided a textbook example of a straw man! I didn’t reduce politics to a single policy, you did that all by yourself. Note my careful choice of the word “priorities”, plural. I merely said IDS should re-assess his priorities. (eg picking up on your own highlighted issue, after describing net zero as “a new religion” and “an arbitrary date plucked out of nowhere and lobbed on the agenda”, maybe some time reading some science books should be higher up his agenda than worrying about bicycles.
)
The sound of one man
The sound of one man furiously kneejerking himself off.
IDS is overwhelmingly likely
IDS is overwhelmingly likely to get his marching orders at the Election, so he’s trying to create a monument to put on his political grave.
Chingford and Woodford Green is in the top 10 Labour targets.
mattw wrote:
At least we will know where to go when we want to have a piss.
A thoroughly unpleasant, un-decent individual not fit for public office.
If this was ever brought in
If this was ever brought in it woul dbe simple to avoid jail time, just plead guilty to causing death by careless riding and you get a fine. Except of course yur bike would need four wheels and to weigh at least a tonne and a half for that to work. It would, however, show the howling bias in british juries
Will this get prosecuted do
Will this get prosecuted do the same degree of dangerous driving, pleas of extreme hardship accepted and pro rata to the actual unfortunate events etc. If so that’ll be 1 cyclist sent to jail every 100 years and that’s definitely worth spending millions on :-/
“After seven years of
“After seven years of campaigning alongside other families who have lost loved ones”
If all the families of people killed by cyclists since 2016 were brought together in one place, they might just fill a school hall.
If all the families of people killed by drivers since 2016 were brought together in one place, they would struggle to fit in Wembley Arena.
There’s none so blind as those who will not see.