The introduction of a 'death by dangerous cycling' law, proposed by then-Transport Secretary Grant Shapps last year, is unlikely to be passed before the next general election due to a lack of parliamentary time.
According to The Sunday Telegraph, the Department for Transport has told campaigners, many of whom are bereaved relatives, that the proposed update to the law — 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 — will struggle to be passed before the next election, expected to be held in January 2025.
It has been suggested that ministers may instead turn to a private member's bill — proposed by individual MPs or Lords, rather than the government — a DfT source telling the newspaper "handout private member's bills are a normal way for the government to deliver uncontentious new statute".
> "Where is the effort being put into dangerous driving which kills, maims and destroys lives?": All the reaction to government plan to introduce death by dangerous cycling law
However, only a few bills of this type are enacted, raising fears among campaigners that the introduction of such a law, that would see cyclists guilty of the offence facing the same punishment as drivers convicted of causing death by dangerous driving, is being delayed and may never come about.
Matthew Briggs — whose wife Kim was killed by London fixed wheel cyclist Charlie Alliston, the 20-year-old sentenced to 18 months in a young offenders institution back in 2017 — said he was "deeply disappointed" to meet Roads Minister Richard Holden a few weeks ago and be told of the delay.
Mr Briggs launched his campaign after Alliston's sentencing and suggested the DfT has "become cowed by the militant fringes of the cycling lobby".
> Husband of pedestrian killed by cyclist claims ministers are scared of "cycling lobby"
"Or were Mr Shapps' announcements last year simply an act of political opportunism?" he asked. "At the heart of this are grieving families calling for a very straightforward legal change which the government's own advisers recommended nearly seven years ago."
A source close to Shapps, who was moved to Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero four weeks after proposing the change, insisted he had believed the change possible at the time.
"Grant knows nothing can repair the pain caused by losing a loved one, but he also believed changes to the law could be made," they told the Telegraph. "However, he left his role at the Department for Transport just four weeks after proposing the change."
A DfT spokesperson added: "We are clear that dangerous cycling is completely unacceptable. There are laws in place to prosecute those who cycle irresponsibly and we are considering legislation to further address this issue."
Diana Walker was 77 when she was hit and killed in a 2016 collision involving a cyclist in Pewsey, Wiltshire, her husband Peter saying ministers' hands are being tied by "a left-wing cycling fraternity" of DfT civil servants.
"I'm absolutely fed up with them," he said. "All we are asking is that if a cyclist causes a pedestrian's death it should be treated in the same way as any other road accident with commensurate legislation."
Another bereaved relative, Christine Berridge, said she feels "terribly let down".
"These ministers have been promising to change the laws and nothing has happened. More people will have to die until something actually happens."
Add new comment
39 comments
But according to the recently gonged Rees mogg, at some right wing nutter gathering, that attempt at gerrymandering backfired.
Eegits...
It's not really gerrymandering, but more suppression of democracy
Bizarrely his use of the word!
OK: same argument holds for the originally stated reason for the new requirement to show photo ID to enable you to vote...
Personally, I can't see why they would even consider bringing in new laws like this until they've carried out that comprehensive review of road safety we were promised more than a few years ago...
Any chance of a "dangerous pedestrian" law? From bitter experience, when you are injured because a pedestrian ran out in front of you when you are competently cycling along, the police have no recourse to action.
I'm not talking about acts of aggression like killer Auriol Grey, but negligence of people who run out onto the road without looking. Which, as previous cases have shown, can be fatal for cyclists.
So that would be a slap on the wrist, apologetic and understanding comments from the trial judge, and maybe a bit of a fine...?
Almost. Under this suggestion these should largely be seen as "tragic accidents". Perhaps the police might helpfully suggest the pedestrian swerved into the path of the cyclist, or just fell over by themselves?
Cases reaching court should be dismissed after the defendant's brief notes that it was dark / overcast and the pedestrian wasn't wearing something bright / reflective (as the Highway code recommends, don'tchaknow) or because it was sunny and the cyclist could have been dazzled.
Momentary loss of concentration..
Pages