The Labour government is set to introduce new ‘dangerous cycling’ laws which would bring punishments for cyclists who kill or injure by dangerous or careless riding in line with those for drivers.
Home Office officials say the changes will “make our streets safer for pedestrians” and “tackle those rare instances where victims have been killed or seriously injured by irresponsible cyclist behaviour”.
The introduction of such new laws is no surprise of course and has been expected for some time, the Home Office recently publishing an official document outlining the proposed changes and confirming this to road.cc this morning, although no timescale for potential legislation has been given.
They have also confirmed that there are no plans to extend speed limit legislation to cyclists.

The previous Conservative government had been set to introduce ‘dangerous cycling’ legislation last year, but it was put on hold by the snap election. Labour pledged to follow through with the proposals when elected and, now almost 15 months on from the party’s landslide victory at the polls, the ‘dangerous cycling’ laws are edging closer.
It appears unlikely the changes would receive much opposition in Parliament, given it was the Conservatives, the party with the second most seats, who first proposed similar legislation last year — the campaign for updated ‘dangerous cycling’ laws spearheaded by former leader Iain Duncan Smith who made the case following a May 2024 inquest into the death of Hilda Griffiths, an 81-year-old woman who died in hospital two months after a collision with a cyclist riding laps of Regent’s Park in London as part of a group ride travelling at speeds between 25-29mph at the time of the crash.
The cyclist involved, Brian Fitzgerald, had no charges brought against him as the Metropolitan Police said there was “insufficient evidence for a real prospect of conviction”. The inquest received widespread media attention and Duncan Smith urged his government to introduce stricter laws for cyclists, legislation which looked set to be passed when the snap election was called.
Now, in a policy paper published earlier in the summer, and titled ‘Crime and Policing Bill: dangerous cycling offences factsheet’, the Home Office has outlined exactly what it is proposing. A spokesperson from the Home Office confirmed to us this morning this is the latest on the matter, although no timescale for legislation has been provided.
“We are making our streets safer for pedestrians, by introducing new cycling offences to tackle those rare instances where victims have been killed or seriously injured by irresponsible cyclist behaviour,” the Home Office says.
“What we are doing will not criminalise new behaviours. Instead, they will ensure that people who cause serious harm because of their bad cycling behaviour, which is already a criminal offence, are subject to penalties which are equivalent to those already in place if the same level of harm is caused by drivers of other vehicles.”
The bill would add “appropriate offences” to the Road Traffic Act 1988, with the corresponding maximum penalties being set out in the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. It would apply to England, Wales and Scotland.
The four offences and their maximum penalties that are being introduced are:
- Causing death by dangerous cycling: On conviction on indictment, up to life imprisonment.
- Causing serious injury by dangerous cycling: On conviction on indictment, five years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both. On summary conviction, the general limit in a magistrates’ court (currently 12 months) (in England and Wales), or 12 months (in Scotland); or the statutory maximum fine, or both.
- Causing death by careless or inconsiderate cycling: On conviction on indictment, five years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both. On summary conviction, the general limit in a magistrates’ court (currently 12 months) (in England and Wales), or the maximum term of imprisonment on summary conviction (currently 12 months) (in Scotland); or the statutory maximum fine, or both.
- Causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate cycling: On conviction on indictment, two years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both. On summary conviction, the general limit in a magistrates’ court (currently 12 months) (in England and Wales), or the maximum term of imprisonment on summary conviction (currently 12 months) (in Scotland); or the statutory maximum fine or both.
Of course, while these are maximum sentences listed, in reality the sentences currently handed out to motorists for offences that these are to be brought in line with are often far shorter.

For example, last week we reported that a delivery driver — who was reading paperwork and failing to concentrate on the road when he struck and killed a father of two cycling to work — was jailed for six years for causing death by dangerous driving.
Likewise, last November a dangerous driver who killed a cyclist in Cheshire was jailed for four years. Seena Chacko had no licence or insurance and continued to drive with the victim’s bike underneath their vehicle until they were stopped by another motorist.
The Home Office says that in 2023 “there were four fatalities and 185 serious injuries where a pedestrian was hit by a cyclist”. The department points out that cyclists can currently be prosecuted under the offences of dangerous, and careless or inconsiderate, cycling (maximum penalty £2,500 fine for dangerous cycling, £1,000 for careless), wanton and furious driving (maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment), and riding a cycle while unfit due to drink or drugs (maximum penalty £1,000 fine).

However, the Home office says these maximum penalties “are not adequate for those incidents that result in serious or fatal injury”. The department’s own statistics highlight that over the last 10 years, an average of three pedestrians have been killed per year by cyclists. In the same time period, an average of 283 pedestrians were killed per year in collisions involving drivers of cars.
44 cyclists were prosecuted or convicted for careless cycling in 2023, compared to the previous year’s total of 47. Five cyclists were prosecuted or convicted for reckless or dangerous cycling in 2023 (the same number as 2022).
“No pedestrian should feed unsafe. Protecting pedestrians and all road users is a priority for this government,” the Home Office continued.
“It is important to ensure there is an appropriate framework of offences to punish dangerous and careless behaviour that results in serious harm to other road users. These new offences introduce penalties which are equivalent to those already in place if the same level of harm is caused by drivers of other vehicles.

“In rare, tragic cases that have occurred in recent years, the drawbacks of relying on the current offences, notably the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 have been clear. The bill will rectify this, bringing these offences into line with motoring offences. It will ensure the penalties are equivalent to those already in place, if the same of level of harm is caused by drivers of other vehicles.”
The Home Office has confirmed that there are no plans to extend speed limit regulations to cyclists, arguing that cyclists “can still be charged with careless or dangerous cycling offences depending on the circumstances”.
“But people who cycle have a duty, like all road users, to behave in a safe and responsible manner,” the paper continued. “For those who do not adopt a responsible attitude, or if their use of the highway creates an unsafe environment or causes nuisance, laws such as the current offences of dangerous or careless cycling can make them liable for prosecution. The police are responsible for enforcement of road traffic law.”






-1024x680.jpg)
















33 thoughts on “New ‘dangerous cycling’ laws are on the way, but government confirms “no plans” to make speed limits apply to cyclists”
“No pedestrian should feed
“No pedestrian should feed unsafe. Protecting pedestrians and all road users is a priority for this government,” the Home Office continued.
Exactly – don’t drink & drive. Or eat & walk apparently.
Meanwhile, Mr Loophole & his ilk will no doubt be making a fortune getting cyclists off with pleas of exceptional hardship, the sun being in their eyes, momentary lapses of judgement, sorry not sorry remorse, pedestrians not wearing body armour / not having reflective or hi-viz faces & appearing out of nowehere.
Your list of excuses is
Your list of excuses is longer than than the list of pedestrians killed in collisions with cycles in a typical year, and it’s not even close. Mr Loophole will naturally take these cases, but he will still find dangerous drivers a far more lucrative source of clients.
5:15 in
5:15 in
https://youtu.be/kuzuIzvSBS8?si=vs845sRubCwqvqAq
“did I do anything wrong?”
A few weeks back the road
A few weeks back the road into Oundle from the South was shut and getting dug up, except for a 1m gap on the right carriageway which they left open for peds (there’s no footway) and cyclists with a cira 45deg verge immediately to the right. Before we got to it a car went through the gap at speed (two wheels in the gap and 2 wheels on the said 45deg verge). The workmen (quite a few of them immediately left of the gap) were understandably going mad!
worth pointing out that with
worth pointing out that with the four pedestrian fatalities and 23 injured pedestrians, there is no indication of what direction blame might lie, if any. Of course, there are routes by which cyclists who negligently kill or injure pedestrians can be prosecuted, but as far as I am aware, there were no prosecutions for those deaths.
How many cyclists are killed
How many cyclists are killed or injured by pedestrians? I had another one step out in front of me without looking today, Screeching disk brakes have their uses!
Backladder wrote:
I’ve been put in an ambulance as a result of a collision with a pedestrian who ran into the road without looking.
Their dogs should keep them
Their dogs should keep them on leads else they shouldn’t be allowed to keep them…
Me too, yesterday. The
Me too, yesterday. The pedestrian was on the phone and stepped out into the road looking at the phone. I kind of anticipated it so stopped safely. The pedestrian glanced up at me, sneered and continued to look at their phone – as if I had done something wrong.
the little onion wrote:
It seems hard to believe that one would have missed any stories, given the enormous prominence given to any “cyclist kills” case in the national press, but if there have been 30 deaths in cyclist/pedestrian incidents since 2015 I can only recall three successful prosecutions. Anyone remember any more?
At the time of the Charlie
At the time of the Charlie Alliston trial, each BBC article on him would refer back to 2 other cases where pedestrians had been killed due to a collision involving a cyclist.
I’m not sure if the cyclists were at fault or convicted.
Those two cases were from 2009 and 2013, if I recall correctly.
So the BBC could only refer to 2 potentially similar cases in 6-ish years prior to CA’s incident…?
“No pedestrian should feel
“No pedestrian should feel unsafe” is going to be a keeper.
With nothing new on more
With nothing new on more policing, cycling education campaigns, something to be done about illegal use of electric motorbikes and e-whatevers (never mind a hard look at the new food delivery business)…
… and zip on anything around the huge funding needed to really provide alternatives to driving…
…I think the one thing which *is* certain is that when:
… they are at best talking rubbish.
“No pedestrian should feel
“
My understanding of the Hilda
My understanding of the Hilda Griffiths case is that she stepped in front of the cyclist without looking, when he was a few metres away and had no time to stop. Clearly the cyclist was not cycling dangerously.
Had she done the same with a car, it would have immediately been recognised that she was at fault and IDS and the rightwing press would have shown no interest.
Harsher punishments may be eyecatching to certain members of the public, but they will inevitably be disappointed with a lack of prosecutions and convictions of cyclists.
I think pedestrians’ behaviour will come under more scrutiny should death by dangerous cycling cases get to court.
The green cross code! No
The green cross code! No accounting for people’s stupidity. Faces buried in mobile phones, plus the added hazards associated with silent killers such as electric vehicles and…bicycles!
Mr Blackbird wrote:
Whilst that would be taken into account, it shouldn’t be totally dismissed. The owner of a potentially lethal 2.5 tons of metal has to take some responsibility! A cyclist has to take some responsibility too, but going by stats it won’t be a significant number, suggesting that most folk do already!
I take a lot of
I take a lot of responsibility as if I hit somebody its 50/50 who comes off worse. Well, actually its more likely to be me losing.
Indeed, the stats reflect
Indeed, the stats reflect that 🙂
I think you should be
I think you should be comparing apples with apples.
Two issues here, we have cyclists ruled at fault buit no mention of fault by drivers. Secondly, in terms of fatalaties caused we should probably be talking about pedestrians + cyclists killed in collisions involving drivers.
The language should also be:
The language should also be:
“…an average of three pedestrians have been killed per year by cyclists…
an average of 283 pedestrians were killed per year by drivers…”
ITYM
ITYM
I’m a keen cyclist and I’m
I’m a keen cyclist and I’m all for these new laws, as long as the punishment handed down is the same as when a vehicle driver injures a cyclist or pedestrian, that is, nothing.
Plonker
Plonker
I have no fundamental
I have no fundamental objection to updated laws, as long as cyclists involved in such incidents are dealt with in the same way as drivers involved in incidents where cyclists and pedestrians are killed.
However, I fail to see how it will “make roads safer” for pedestrians.
And, given that they are not proposing any alterations in the rules around evidence and prosecution thresholds, presumably the cyclist in the Regents Park case would also not have been charged under the new law, for exactly the same reason … “insufficient evidence for a real prospect of conviction”.
The Home Office says that in
The Home Office says that in 2023 “there were four fatalities and 185 serious injuries where a pedestrian was hit by a cyclist”.
As others have pointed out, it is not clear who was responsible for the collision, and having been knocked off three times by pedestrians running/stepping into the road without looking, in my experience it’s much more likely to be the pedestrian.
I wrote to my MP five months ago, and finally had a response two weeks ago: it was complete BS, and didn’t answer any of the points I raised: it’s here https://road.cc/content/news/cyclists-who-kill-pedestrians-could-face-life-sentences-313697 I immediately asked my MP to ask them some direct questions, but they are allowed so much time to reply that I won’t be able to complain about their failure to do so until the 29th, and it’s perfectly clear that they’ve already made up their minds and no discussion is allowed.
Does anyone know if the
Does anyone know if the figure for cyclists includes people riding electric mopeds or modified e-bikes?
The only analysis I have
The only analysis I have found on cyclists and peds is
Note 30
For completeness, not all of these fatalities were attributed to cyclist error:“15/20 fatalities were assigned at least one contributory factor, with 6/20 assigning a factor to the pedestrian only, 5/20 assigning a factor to both the pedestrian and the cyclist, and 4/20 assigning a factor to the cyclist only.”
p26
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/685600/cycle-safety-review-report.PDF
Of course the actual issue
Of course the actual issue here is we shouldn’t need new laws.
Change the relevant laws for cars from motor vehicle to vehicle and update sentencing guidelines to include culpability/severity bands for cycling.
What? This would mean they have to consider every sentence given to drivers when sentencing cyclists resulting in judges struggling to fine riders 50p while maintaining current sentences for drivers; and could be done by a parliamentary committee before they finish the first mug of tea so had no grift opportunity…
Oh…
Ok so speed restrictions won
Ok so speed restrictions won’t happen….well someone might want to re-educate the pigs in blue on how gravity itself is a downhill engine…. Worst thing about this is A; we had laws that already covered this just shows politicians don’t live in the same reality and B; how much money did they waste doing this?!
Born_peddling?
Born_peddling?
Peak capitalism.
Cycling dangerously. When im
When im riding my 12kg bike at 20mph on the road, regularly being close passed by drivers at over 40mph in a 30mph zone, I would never consider my riding to be dangerous to pedestrians because even if they stepped out in front of me the chances of me killing them is very low. Every driver that overtakes me would kill that same pedestrian due to 2tons of metal. So if that pedestrian did step out, and we did collide, and the pedestrian did get seriously injured (as would I)..then no doubt the Daily Mail would campaign to have me jailed for life. It is fucking ridiculous, driving a vehicle vs riding a bike are not comparable dangers to pedestrians. Cows and dogs kill more people each year than cyclists, are we going to have laws so that their owners face life inprisonment?
There is such anti-cycling
There is such anti-cycling bias out there to make these proposed laws quite worrying.