Changes in law which could see cyclists face life imprisonment for killing pedestrians while riding a bike are “unlikely to improve road safety”, according to an expert who also claimed that introducing this legislation under the ‘dangerous cycling’ law focuses on a “tiny fraction” of causes of pedestrian deaths, while “speeding motorists” continually remain a factor in fatal collisions with vulnerable road users.
The amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, proposed by the Department for Transport (DfT) and the Home Office two weeks ago, are aimed at modernising the existing laws and introducing harsher penalties for dangerous riders.
Under the proposals, cyclists who cause death by dangerous cycling could face life in prison, while cyclists causing serious injury could be jailed for up to five years. Those convicted of causing death by careless or inconsiderate cycling could face five years, and those causing serious injury two years.
The changes, led by Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander, are intended to replace the current use of the 1861 ‘wanton or furious driving’ law, which carries a maximum two-year sentence. At present, a cyclist riding recklessly and causing death would typically be charged under this Victorian-era offence, allegedly intended for horse-drawn carriages.
> Cyclists who kill pedestrians could face life sentences under proposed new ‘dangerous cycling’ law
Josh Hughes, Partner in the Complex Injury Team at specialist law firm Bolt Burdon Kemp, told GB News that while it was “difficult to sustain” an argument against updating the legislation, safety for pedestrians could be vastly improved by focusing on more “conventional collisions”, that is between speeding motorists and vulnerable road users.
He said: “Where reckless cycling occurs, leading to death or serious injury, that person should not be treated unduly favourably by virtue of outdated laws.”
“We are, however, talking about a tiny fraction of road traffic offences in comparison to conventional collisions between motorised vehicles and pedestrians, where greater focus ought to lie.
“It remains the case that the overwhelming risk to vulnerable road users, as demonstrated by the UK’s road safety statistics, are speeding motorised vehicles.”
Hughes said that the impact of the proposals should not be overstated, since victims deserve to receive justice, even if it only applies in a small number of cases.
However, he added that harsher penalties for cyclists are “unlikely to improve road safety in a meaningful way” unless they are paired with other measures, such as better cycling infrastructure, more pedestrian crossings and greater public awareness.
The proposals revive efforts made by Conservative MP Sir Iain Duncan Smith last year, who campaigned for tougher laws following the death of Hilda Griffiths, an 81-year-old pedestrian fatally struck by a cyclist in Regent’s Park in 2022.
Duncan Smith criticised the reliance on mid-19th-century legislation and argued that new laws were needed to ensure that cyclists faced “the same penalties as drivers and motorcyclists” when responsible for deaths or serious injuries.
“The main point I was making was we have had deaths on the street where cyclists cannot be prosecuted for having killed someone,” he said, arguing that current legislation “hardly ever commits anybody and convicts them either”.
The move has been welcomed by campaigners such as Matthew Briggs, whose wife Kim was killed by a cyclist riding without a front brake in London in 2016.
Speaking after the latest amendments were announced two weeks ago, Briggs said: “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.”
He added: “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.”
Briggs also appealed to the cycling community to support the changes: “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.”
Meanwhile, according to the BBC, a government source close to Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said that changing the law “at the first opportunity” was “definitely personal” to her as she was Mr Briggs’ MP when his wife was killed.
Mr Briggs said Alexander had shown “enormous personal kindness” over the years, and “courage and commitment” in going up against a “strong” cycling lobby to push for the change.
Critics, however, have raised concerns about the focus on dangerous cycling when deaths caused by cyclists remain extremely rare.
Road safety charity Brake described the emphasis as “disproportionate”, while Active Travel Commissioner Chris Boardman pointed out last year that “more people are killed by lightning, or cows” than by cyclists.
“Absolutely, everybody should obey the laws of the road,” Boardman said, “but is this really the best use of our time to be talking about this now?”
Responding to the proposed changes last month, Duncan Dollimore, head of campaigns at Cycling UK said while the charity supports “a proportionate and evidence-based approach” to updating the law, “it’s crucial that any legislative changes do not discourage people from cycling, particularly at a time when promoting active and sustainable travel is vital for our health, environment, and economy”.
Labour had pledged during its election campaign to support laws to “protect people from dangerous cycling”, and the government now appears set to push the amendments through, with debates on the Crime and Policing Bill due to follow in the coming weeks.
A DfT spokesperson said: “Dangerous cycling is completely unacceptable, and the safety of our roads is a key priority for this government.
“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.”
39 thoughts on “Life imprisonment for riders who kill pedestrians under ‘dangerous cycling’ law “unlikely to improve road safety”, claims expert”
I’m confused. Ok, so I’m from
I’m confused. Ok, so I’m from the colonies and don’t know what is happening in UK, but I follow it because of the websites and magazines are the best in English I have found (deeply miss CycleSport and WCP, the latter maybe not British but Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwin play in me head on hard rides.)
The plan is to give life to a cyclist who kills a pedestrian but a car driver only gets months for a cyclist? What is the rule for a car hitting a pedestrian?? The close passes and verbal abuse I’m seeing just blow my mind. Granted, we can get some weird stuff in Canada for sure, but generally the issues are from innocent cluelessness, not vindictiveness. The lack of police assistance seems unconscionable. Here, I got coal rolled, and had video. The guy claimed innocence but at least he found himself eyeball to eyeball with a local police officer.
Frankly, I’m concered, as what happens in the UK does, oddly, sometimes predict where we are going here. Sometimes.
It’s to give the sentence for
It’s to give the sentence for causing death by <type of user/vehicle> the same maximum ie a life sentence. Currently it is 2 years for a cycle offence unless a charge of manslaughter can be brought.
We see drivers get light sentences all the time for killing cyclists.
Jorin wrote:
It’s the same, maximum life imprisonment: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/causing-death-by-dangerous-driving/
In reality, it’s hard enough to get a conviction let alone that length of sentence, and it will be no different for cyclists. It’s pointless, performative nonsense.
If it had been a lorry coming
If it had been a lorry coming down that west country hill, blasting their horn, but not emergency braking till too late, the street drinking teenager deliberately standing in the road would have got the blame and the cps would not have prosecuted the driver and not murmur would have been heard in the House of Commons.
Are there many folks cycling
Are there many folks cycling in Canada? I’ve read that Montréal has quite a visible cycling contingent. Although it seems the “car culture wars” are in full swing e.g. in Ontario e.g. vs. bike lanes in Toronto!
In the UK it’s probably like most places: dependence on driving is deeply embedded in our culture, our infrastructure and our planning. We didn’t go nearly as far as the US – but some places in the UK tried (e.g. Glasgow). The result is that outside of a few (significantly better) places cycling is at the 1% of trips (or less) level. Even for the majority of currently driven trips, which are rather short-distance.
So in practice most people (that includes the police) don’t actually think about cyclists and cycling at all – for better and worse. So mostly cyclists are … sort of invisible. Generally too insignificant to worry about fixing things for – so bike theft and assaults by drivers may get little help from the police and courts. The flip side is that most politicians / police can’t be bothered to actively harrass cyclists either.
That’s also because when you look at all the casulties due to driving vs. those due cycling, the latter are invisible again.
So why the new law? There are a few folks (including some prominent media organisations) who really don’t like “cyclists” and are quite noisy about this. There are quite a lot more who are extremely keen that their “rights” as drivers / pedestrians / people with disabilities ** aren’t “threatened” by “cyclists” (I’d put some of the “concerned politicians” here).
Since cyclists cause so few problems when a non-cyclist is e.g. killed in a crash it is extremely salient. And as per usual in unequal relationships between a (more powerful) majority and a minority there is a lot of talk about “fairness” (those cyclists have responsibilities also!). I think – I hope – this is what we’re seeing.
* Just pedestrian casualties shown in the link – I don’t think any drivers have been hurt by cyclists for a long time…
** I have quite a bit of sympathy for the last group – they don’t get a good deal and often get a worse one whenever things change. As it happens if you really fix things for safe and convenient “mass cycling” it will make it better for many of these folks also. Not least because those who really need motor transport should find fewer drivers – who didn’t actually need to drive that trip – in their way!
chrisonabike wrote:
I’m on the prairies, and was in BC several years before moving here. BC has more riding, but it is a small group here on the prairies. I think our winter cycle is against us. In BC, I could safely be on the road 8-9m/year. Saskatoon is closer to 6m, depending on the year. Zwift helps, but our racing scene is on life support (I think segments of UK are the same, from what I’ve read).
There are some tensions with drivers at times, and I’ve had some close (unfair; not sure if there is an actual, enforced passing requirement making it illegal) passes, but only 1 driver yell at me in the last 5 years. Follow the rules of the road, and things usually go smoothly. I do run Cycliq cameras on some rides just in case…
I think there was a case (in London?) where a cyclist killed a pedestrian which got some attention a few years ago. It was unusual, however, as the rider was using a fixie and had taken the brakes off the bike. Not sure the outcome.
Appreciate the info from the group here. Does make this issue a bit more nuanced, and not just “let’s get cyclists off the roads.”
Glad you’re still riding on!
Glad you’re still riding on!
Other folks here would be able to speak to the racing part. Winter cycling (for general getting about) is an interesting point.
It definitely reduces cycling (and might effectively stop it outside of urban areas) but apparently even a population of “casual cyclists” will keep going … apparently if cycling is well-supported in summer conditions (e.g. there’s decent infra)! With that, it then becomes possibly (with will…) to e.g. de-ice where the winters are less severe or keep snow groomed where that is more a feature. (See e.g. Oulu or Joensuu in Finland).
Relatively short snow and ice season here in Edinburgh (although with temperatures hovering around freezing it can be wet and miserable) and there is some gritting / occasional snow clearance, so I can mostly keep cycling. We have some traffic free shared paths and those are gritted, though I shifted to the roads for a couple of days this year as yet again I had failed to buy spiked winter tyres…
The rate of “interaction” tends to be far higher in urban areas I think. Still for me mostly things are fine. But it’s the horrifying moments or aggressive drivers which you remember, not the tens of people who managed to just not drive terribly!
There have actually been notable cases of serious pedestrian/cyclist collisions in the UK at a rate of perhaps one or two per year. Not all coming to court and in fact one where a pedestrian contribute to the death of a cyclist. They are notable for precisely the reason that this is an extremely rare event compared to the daily death and injury which we accept as normal “because driving”.
The one you refer to stands out particularly because what might otherwise have passed as another “tragic accident” had a notably antagonistic protagonist who had also modified his bike in a way that reduced the effectiveness of braking (in most circumstances) and I believe boasted about this. Despite some press commentary there were not in fact any issues with bringing charges which would allow prison sentences. The court felt this offence did not reach the standard for manslaughter but were nonetheless able to pass a sentence of imprisonment which certainly seems commensurate (though hard to compare fairly) with those for the average driver who kills someone (a number of which don’t reach court because e.g. the police decline to act).
This measure was never about
This measure was never about road safety it is and always has been about populist vote winning.
To echo the Safety’s post, we
To echo the Safety’s post, we have officially become just another minority to discriminate against and things won’t be getting better any time soon. The times of economic hardship and uncertainty are a breeding ground for bigotry, as the history teaches us.
bloodycyclistandbusdrivist
I really don’t see that. I think the legislation is unnecessary, petty, populist and won’t change a thing, and it undoubtedly stems from anti-cyclist sentiment, but I don’t think that we can claim that facing the same maximum penalty as drivers for the same offence is discriminatory. If they’d brought in a higher sentence for cyclists, or a lower standard of proof, for the same offence it certainly would be, but equal treatment doesn’t equal discrimination, does it?
Rendel Harris wrote:
That is logical … but I think we’ll just have to see how that plays out in actual practice.
Honestly can’t guess which way this one will run – apart from it’ll probably be a few years before we find out.
Current history suggests “common sense – almost never anything to see here”. But given the current trend in our legislators and perhaps society will it be “… someone on a bike colliding with a pedestrian * and killing them happens extremely rarely, so when it does we’ll ‘make an example of the bogey’ “?
* I mean, it’s never going to be someone inside a car, is it? Unless perhaps they count as such because they’d just got out of their vehicle to “remonstrate forcefully” with a cyclist they’d “interacted with” earlier?
chrisonabike wrote:
That is logical … but I think we’ll just have to see how that plays out in actual practice.
Honestly can’t guess which way this one will run – apart from it’ll probably be a few years before we find out.
Current history suggests “common sense – almost never anything to see here”. But given the current trend in our legislators and perhaps society will it be “… someone on a bike colliding with a pedestrian * and killing them happens extremely rarely, so when it does we’ll ‘make an example of the bogey’ “?
* I mean, it’s never going to be someone inside a car, is it? Unless perhaps they count as such because they’d just got out of their vehicle to “remonstrate forcefully” with a cyclist they’d “interacted with” earlier?— Rendel Harris
The fact that we might see any action (benefit is still arguable) for at least a few years indicates what a scandalous misappropriation of resources this has been. When there are significantly more pressing matters for parliament to deal with it is a case of the noisy few driving thier own agenda and misleading the public. How about resolving the natinal debt, how about addressing the 1600 people per year killed by car drivers?
Needless waste of time and resource.
That’s more to do with the
That’s more to do with the time it takes for court cases to be brought to conclusion rather than number of potential cases. There are generally a couple of people killed in collision with cyclists each year – I don’t have a good list though.
I don’t think it’s been the best use of parliamentary time but OTOH that’s a tricky metric…
BikingBud wrote:
It’s a very short amendment to a very long bill (the new Crime and Policing Bill) and given its virtually unanimous cross-party support it’s not going to take up much, if any, debating time. It won’t have taken much drafting, it’s pretty much literally taking the death by dangerous driving law and inserting “cyclist” rather than “driver”. Not supporting it necessarily but the time and resources used on this are minimal.
chrisonabike wrote:
Yes, obviously if the first cyclist to be caught under the amendment (if passed) gets a life term for the sort of offence that regularly gets drivers eighteen months or even a suspended sentence then any idea of equivalency goes out the window.
If a cyclist is tried by a
If a cyclist is tried by a jury for such an offence, will they be able to insist on a jury of cyclists, with non-cycling motorists being recused? Surely that would only be bringing such a trial into line with juries consisting of motorists for motoring offences, with their possible mindset of: “There but for the grace of {pick your deity} go I.” In that case we would quite possibly see sentences for cyclists on the same scale of leniency as those for motoring offences at present. That would, therefore, be the same jeapordy for the same offence, in front of one’s own peers – no foul there.
Spangly Shiny wrote:
Are you going also then to recuse all non-motoring cyclists from juries trying motoring offences? I don’t believe that juries are actually really a problem in general when offences against cyclists are on trial, it’s pretty rare for a person to be found not guilty when they clearly are. The problem is far more often with weak sentencing from judges/magistrates – and bias from magistrates when they are the sole arbiters of guilt.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Equal treatment for equal people doesn’t count as discrimination but cyclists are not equal to drivers, they have no requirement for training before taking to the road wheras drivers are trained and tested on that training before being allowed on the road unsupervised.
The problem with making that
The problem with making that argument is that the next step is mandatory training and licensing for all cyclists, even though they’re not piloting 2 tons of high speed metal
I know that but it doesn’t
I know that but it doesn’t make the argument wrong it just makes it a risky one to make, if they do go for mandatory licencing it will kill off cycling because there will not be anywhere to take the test (see problems with getting driving tests at the moment).
AidanR wrote:
Well, yes – in that I guess this is all about “fairness” on the surface as e.g. “what does it matter to the deceased or the relatives whether someone was killed with a truck, car, bike …”
… but also presumably because we all have odd views of fairness (when we’re in the majority / relatively priveledged) e.g. “I passed a test and obviously take care in my car ergo…”
… but in fact if only we would fix it so it did feel safe for kids to cycle (or their parents felt it was safe) then we probably should get a bit more serious about better national formal road safety training from a young age, rather than leaving it to e.g. charitable organisations. Like this, or perhaps like this but now with an app? (IIRC I passed my RoSPA cycling test as a child).
I think there is a
I think there is a justification, deaths of third parties are the entirely foreseeable consequence of driving dangerously, where as they are considerably much less foreseeable consequence of cycling “dangerously’. If we consider the antics of Liverpool “scallies’ on their bicycles, they could indeed be considered to be cycling dangerously, but they are very unlikely to cause a third party fatality, though in unusual and unfortunate circumstances one might result. By contrast if street or supermarket carpark car racing in motor vehicles a fatality is very easy to imagine and needs much less an assemblage of unfortunate circumstance.
What is the maximum sentence
What is the maximum sentence for a pedestrian killing a cyclist? Or a motobility scooter rider killing a pedestrian? Or a scooter rider?
If it isn’t life imprisonment, then this proposal is deliberately biased against cyclists.
Does the amendment include those categories? If not, it’s biased against cyclists.
eburtthebike wrote:
Well, presuming by killing you mean not in a deliberate murder incident, theoretically the maximum would be life imprisonment for manslaughter, wouldn’t it?
I would add accidentally
I would add accidentally droping an Acme labs piano on a passer by, because a cyclist killing someobody else are approximate the same chances.
To me, it is boomers annoyed by guys traveling in not manly enough cars, that cause such legislation suggestions.
Why does it have to be about
Why does it have to be about when you were born? What is it about boomers that jerks your chain so much? Speaking as a boomer, naturally.
cyclisto wrote:
“Boomers” are now aged sixty minimum (I’m not one by a few years). I see a lot more of that generation driving fairly sensible saloons in comparison to their younger counterparts and research backs up my impression: SUVs are most popular amongst the 25-44-year-old age group (who apparently are most likely to say that SUVs “project the image they want” and “make them feel powerful”) whilst the top four cars in the UK for the 55-64-year-old age group are, in descending order, the Ford Focus, the Vauxhall Astra, the Ford Fiesta and the Vauxhall Corsa. I know it’s popular (and usually lazily inaccurate) to blame “boomers” for everything from high house prices to low pensions to Jaffa cakes not tasting as nice as they used to but certainly in your example it’s neither fair nor true.
The internet reckons the
The internet reckons the following for the ‘named generations’:
(I’m sort of middle Gen X).
Hmm – appears that I’m, erm,
Hmm – appears that I’m, erm, Late-X.
Dear Boomers,
Dear Boomers,
The boomers stats come from my personal observations, not any official stats, so yes, they may be inaccurate.
To be fair, I have bad feelings for all generations. I may be jealous of boomers for their dreamy lives they lived in their workplaces regarding job safety and wages to houses and food price ratios, but I also despise younger generations that have forgoten how to save money and do kids but are experts on hobbies and traveling.
Potentially a life sentence,
Potentially a life sentence, because manslaughter would be the appropriate charge.
The only way this ruling
The only way this ruling could make roads safer than basically anything car related is if it started bringing people back from the dead. There are so few cycling related pedestrian deaths a year that anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together would know this was never about safety.
Our next-door neighbour’s
Our next-door neighbour’s daughter, as a keen and gifted horsewoman, has been featured twice in Horse and Hound. The second feature was her obituary. As well as her horse riding, Alice was also a keen cyclist, and just over a year ago was ridng her bike to the stables where her horse was kept. It was along a twisty road, and coming the other way was a youth travelling at a ridiculous speed. He lost control on a bend, skidded across the road, and Alice was in the rong place at the wrong time. She was killed instantly. She was an only child, the affect on her parents has been awful to see. These are the kind of road users the law needs to concentrate on, not the miniscule minority of cyclists.
It’s so difficult to get a
It’s so difficult to get a dangerous (or careless) driving conviction because jurors (who are mostly motorists) are inclined to go soft on fellow drivers. The police/cps know this and will instead downgrade the offence or send them on a driver awareness course. Judging by the hostilities faced by cyclists, the opposite will be true when they are in the dock.
A DfT spokesperson said:
A DfT spokesperson said: “Dangerous cycling is completely unacceptable, and the safety of our roads is a key priority for this government
However, dangerous driving is just one of those things that cyclists must learn to live with, or they should find another mode of transport
https://upride.cc/incident/dp14fym_insignia_closepassdwlcross/
If you are so reckless on a
If you are so reckless on a bike as to warrant a life sentence for killing someone, then the CPS should be fully able justify a manslaughter charge. I wish our politicians had sufficient integrity to forcibly point that out.
I am not arguing for the
I am not arguing for the introduction of the new cycling offence. However, as the law stands, the courts recognise that manslaughter is a more serious offence than death br dangerous driving. R v Clayton Williams [2017] EWCA Crim 305: “It is clear that killing another person on the road can be the result of conduct which, in terms of culpability, lies above that contained within the definition of causing death by dangerous driving but short of establishing the intention required for murder. It is in that space that is found the crime of manslaughter.”
A decision that predates the
A decision that predates the increase of the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving from 14 years to life, a recognizance that the potential culpability is fully equivalent. The difference with cycling is that it takes a considerable misfortune for an instance of dangerous cycling to result in the death of a third party, and hence the degree of culpability must lie lower than with a motorist. A drunk cyclist is very unlikely to kill another road user, where as a drunk motorist is much much more likely to do so and has little or no excuse for not foreseeing that possibility. For a cyclist to be sufficiently culpable to warrant a very long sentence or even a life sentence for causing death, their behaviour has to be well into that manslaughter space if not even the space allotted to murder.
Robert Hardy wrote:
That’s a fair point which I should have spotted, having pointed out the 2022 sentence change myself elsewhere.
As has been very recently debated elsewhere, murder requires intent to KSI – you don’t need to be in that territory to warrant a life sentence.