The Secretary of State for Transport Grant Shapps announced in an interview yesterday that he intends to introduce harsher penalties for people on bikes who kill or injure others through “dangerous cycling” – three years after an independent report commissioned by the Department for Transport recommended the introduction of such an offence.
Cycling UK, however, has said that any attempt to introduce new cycling offences in isolation “would simply be a sticking plaster on a broken system”.
When questioned on the impending Highway Code revisions during an interview with Nick Ferrari on LBC, Shapps said: “The purpose of the changes is if you drive a lorry, you should give way to a van, which will give way to a car, which will give way to a cyclist, which will give way to a pedestrian.
“These are just common-sense changes to protect everybody.
“And there is another change I’m bringing in which you may not be aware of, which is to make sure that we’re able to prosecute cyclists who, for example, cause death by their own dangerous cycling.
“So this is quite a balanced package, and I think it’s worth noting that the injuries and deaths that take place because of cyclists are also unacceptable.”
> Cyclist who killed London pedestrian jailed for two years
At the moment, if a cyclist kills a pedestrian through riding dangerously, the Crown Prosecution Service can charge them with manslaughter and/or causing bodily harm through wanton and furious driving, a crime under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act which carries a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.
In 2017 cyclist Charlie Alliston was convicted of causing bodily harm through wanton and furious driving in connection with the death of pedestrian Kim Briggs. He was sentenced to 18 months’ detention in a young offenders institution, though the jury cleared him of the more serious charge of manslaughter.
In the wake of Alliston’s conviction, Briggs’ husband Matthew campaigned for the creation of new offences related to causing death or serious injury while cycling. He called for cyclists to be subject to similar laws to motorists, with causing death by careless driving and causing death by dangerous driving carrying maximum jail terms, respectively, of five and 14 years.
> Husband of pedestrian killed by cyclist claims ministers are scared of “cycling lobby”
“This case has clearly demonstrated that there is a gap in the law when it comes to dealing with causing death or serious injury by dangerous cycling,” he explained at the time.
“To have to rely on either manslaughter at one end, or a Victorian law that doesn’t even mention causing death at the other end tells us that there is a gap. The fact that what happened to Kim is rare is not a reason for there to be no remedy.”
Following a review of the existing legislation on dangerous and careless cycling, in 2018 the government launched a three-month consultation into reforming the law, though there has been little progress made in the three years since it was held.
A similar fate befell a private member’s bill introduced into the House of Lords in January 2020 with the aim of creating new offences for dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling. The bill failed to make it past its first reading.
> Pedestrian who died after RideLondon collision had been warned by marshal not to cross
Of the 346 pedestrians killed on Britain’s roads in 2020, only four were involved in a collision with a cyclist (regardless of who may have been at fault for the incident). Car drivers, meanwhile, were involved in three-quarters of all road fatalities that year, despite the reduction in motor traffic due to lockdown restrictions. Between 2015 and 2019, 99.3% of pedestrian fatalities involved motor vehicles, while only 0.7% involved bicycles.
Responding to Shapps’ announcement, Duncan Dollimore, Cycling UK’s head of campaigns, told road.cc: “Changes to the Highway Code are beneficial to all road users, and it is unhelpful of the Transport Secretary to try and explain or justify them on a quid pro quo basis by linking them to the potential introduction of new cycling offences. The two issues are entirely separate.
“As the Transport Secretary’s own minister Andrew Stephenson confirmed in December, the DfT is already working on the terms and remit of a call for evidence into road traffic offences. While that is long overdue, with a full review first promised over seven years ago after prolonged campaigning from Cycling UK, there’s little more than we can say on this issue, other than that we’ve never opposed cycling offences being be part of that review.
“Introducing new cycling offences in isolation however would simply be a sticking plaster on a broken system, because our current careless and dangerous driving offences aren’t fit for purpose – replicating them for cycling makes no sense at all.”
93 thoughts on “Grant Shapps calls for new ‘death by dangerous cycling’ law”
Well if that becomes a thing
Well if that becomes a thing id have a star next to it with the amemndment
“They were not looking and stepped out in front”
Ive had tons of near misses thanks to people that are paying more attention to thier phone and just step out ontop a clearly marked cycle path or onto the road
Dbloke wrote:
It’s alright. I’m awaiting schapps to announce an offence of death by dangerous walking.
Captain Badger wrote:
Indeed. Having been knocked off three times by pedestrians who ran out into the road without looking, I consider myself lucky not to have been seriously injured in any of those cases. There have been instances where cyclists have been killed by a pedestrian knocking them off, so unless Shapps is anti-cyclist, he’ll be bringing in just such a law.
Will that cover walking to
Will that cover walking to the buffet table / across the dancefloor in times of plague? Good idea but just too late.
Dbloke wrote:
Just ride primary in areas with many pedestrians, gives a good reaction time, ride in the gutter, get no warning. Ride central and it takes them some time to cover the distance to the centre of the lane. Time to stop or deviate.
Important when deciding to pass behind a pedestrian, – do not make them aware of your presence, they will almost certainly jump back into the space they have already been through and which should now be safe fo you to use.
problem could come in areas
problem could come in areas with contra flow cycle lanes, often used in towns & cities around pedestrianised areas, and pedestrians will step out on you because they fixate on the vehicles coming one way, and never the cyclists coming the other way, inevitably so close to the kerb any collision and the pedestrian risks hitting their head causing serious injury.
the only positive about this is the chances of it happening is small enough its a law that will barely be exercised, which does raise the issue of what the hell is the point of it, though I doubt youll get a fair trial with it.
Yet more populist bollocks.
Yet more populist bollocks.
Meh, it’s a waste of time
Meh, it’s a waste of time sideshow; about the only thing this government are good at.
New headline – ‘Arsehole,
New headline – ‘Arsehole, tries to keep DM reading voters happy by proposing half baked gammon law’
.. now.. ‘Carry on Government!’
peted76 wrote:
“..half baked gammon….” Best watch out for the E Coli.
In my time in the meat
In my time in the meat industry as a QA manager we never managed to successfully grow E Coli in cured pork, cooked or not (or anything else really). Admittedly since then the FSA, charged with ensuring food safety, have put pressure on the industry to reduce salt levels, and the maximum level of nitrite has been reduced, thus making it more likely pathogens will survive. Why? because nitrites increase the risk of cancer by a negligible amount, and salt is bad apparently (data showed that cured meats were not a significant source of dietary sodium compared to bread and ready meals).
Quote:
Except, it isn’t, is it? It’s about the duty of care, not about ‘giving way’. You’d think maybe the Secretary of State for Transport ought to be able to get this right…
Imagine if it was actually
Imagine if it was actually true though………..
IanMK wrote:
Like it is in woonerfs in Holland?
Thought that new-built ones
Thought that new-built ones should emphatically not be through routes for anyone so it’d be rare that either car or cyclist meet a pedestrian (although I understand they’ve retrofitted these too)?
You’re right though that they’ve got this sorted there and we certainly haven’t. There’s a “home zone” signed next to me. I checked because I never saw one before. That sign means exactly nothing. For example the street still needs miles of double yellows everywhere to limit parking. Even though there are marked parking bays we have to explicitly say “no parking” everywhere else. This of course is entirely ignored and there are always vehicles on the footway too.
The Netherlands also have the concept of streets where certain modes of traffic are allowed – as long as numbers are low – but only “as a guest”. See fietsstraat for example but that’s not the only kind.
mdavidford wrote:
Except, it isn’t, is it? It’s about the duty of care, not about ‘giving way’. You’d think maybe the Secretary of State for Transport ought to be able to get this right…
It’s just politics. He’s identified exactly the “but my rights!” g-spot of a particular target audience. He’s said it in a way that both follows the “hierachy” but frames this in terms of rights, not responsibilities. Being charitable you could say he was speaking their language. A more realistic / helpful way would have been to challenge this and return the focus to vulnerability and for a bigger picture the cost / benefits of different transport modes. But that’s not politics.
* I thought his strand of politics was “rights and responsibilities” – which I believe they copied from Star Wars? Pointless debating that though as I’d be sidetracked disagreeing with him on which trumps which for this or that point – or indeed the whole worldview.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Ew
mdavidford wrote:
Except, it isn’t, is it? It’s about the duty of care, not about ‘giving way’. You’d think maybe the Secretary of State for Transport ought to be able to get this right…
Yes, this bit of the article worried me a lot more than the ‘death by dangerous cycling bit’. That’s just a pointless distraction; but the proper explanation of the hierarchy of responsibility actually matters.
Following his logic, they’d
Following his logic, they’d better hurry and introduce ‘causing death by dangerous horsing’ too…
brooksby wrote:
I think some of their core voters might put a stop to that. Although popular with the fox community, I hear.
brooksby wrote:
you’re coming up with laws on the hoof now…
But will they whip the vote?
But will they whip the vote?
Dear Mr Shapps, what is the
Dear Mr Shapps, what is the point?
How many people are killed each year by ‘dangerous’ cycling? 1? 2?
How many people are killed by ‘dangerous’ driving? Many hundreds, and yet it is downgraded by CPS to driving without due care and attention as a conviction is easier.
In principle I’m in favour of
In principle I’m in favour of prosecuting dangerous cyclists.
But I am confused? This isn’t exactly low hanging fruit, surely there are far more effective ways of reducing the TENS OF THOUSANDS of deaths and serious injuries on the roads each year.
And why link it to the highway code? How is a new law that fixes a relatively tiny problem equivalent to and providing ‘balance’ to the changes to the HC that basically spell out dickheads what they need to do to not kill people and drive within the existing rules.
When I have a client with an appalling approach, I help them get past it. And if they don’t, i ditch them.
Imagine being a politician and instead of telling Shithead Steve from Southsea to get over themselves and become a decent human being, you debase yourself before them and offer public funds to enable hate and vitriol.
If its applied as rigorously
If its applied as rigorously as the “death by dangerous driving” law is applied to killer drivers, cyclists have nothing much to fear.
The danger is that it won’t
The danger is that it won’t be.
1. There is no lesser charge of careless cycling so the cps will not have the cop out they have when prosecuting drivers. More cyclists will therefore risk being charged with a serious charge.
2. The cases, as with drivers will be tried with juries that have perhaps 11 drivers and maybe 1 cyclist.
PRSboy wrote:
True. I’ve no problems with people riding bikes who kill others having this tested in court. Statistically this could at most come up a few times a year for the whole country. It’s also possible that none of these would even go that far – certainly for driving they often don’t. However if these ever do go to court we’ve the usual issues. First – if it’s worded like dangerous / careless driving people will be asked an inherently subjective and wooly question. Second – in this case it may be about “careful / competent cycling” which they will mostly know nothing about. Compare:
Dangerous driving: drivers most likely to be in front of a judge / juries of mostly drivers or those are familiar with driving (see lots of it! Been in a car!). Their primary understanding of transport may be “use of a car”. They’re not likely to be any / many who have understanding of cycling on the road or maybe even empathy with “cyclists”.
Dangerous cycling: cyclists most likely to be in front of a judge / juries of people who can understand walking / have all been a pedestrian. Again not likely to be many who have understanding of cycling.
Finally the current infra often puts cyclists and pedestrians into conflict – and this is deliberate (“shared space” AKA “sign makes footway cyclepath too”)! This doesn’t excuse reckless or careless riding – it’s a separate issue. However given the “designs” we have are often inherently unsafe this will surely be a concern to the government which is at least as pressing. After all, better to prevent crashes than prosecute after the fact, right? (Hmm – I suspect many would be “no! because dangerous cyclists…”).
I quite agree, especially
I quite agree, especially with the skewed assessments of courts with little what counts as ‘dangerous’ cycling. But is it worse than the existing situations in which, aside from manslaughter (which applies as a possibility for all, absent careless/dangerous driving options), we have the option of being prosecuted in archaic terms for being a cad and a bounder and not the sort of cover we want around here, if you don’t mind.
There is some value in updating it, but more so updating the definitions of what really is dangerous. I baulk at the idea that you can cause death by careless driving, and yet that’s not dangerous… it was dangerous to the victim – look: he’s dead!
Moreover, this is a waste of Parliamentary time. If Grant Shapps doesn’t have something more important to be doing, I can find something.
Okay Mr Shitts – I think I
Okay Mr Shitts – I think I spelt that right – I’m calling for an offence of Causing Death By Cow. In 2020, 22 people were https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-54268160%5Dkilled by Cows[/url" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">. This is moo-onstrous. During the same year, a shocking 5 people were [url=https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-road-user-risk/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-road-user-risk-2020-data]killed by cyclists. This obviously an unacceptable situation and cannot continue.
My logic is impeccable. I shall succeed.
Stop milking this story to
Stop milking this story to exercise your personal beefs.
mdavidford wrote:
Pull the udder one.
“Death by dangerous herding”?
“Death by dangerous herding”?
Argos74 wrote:
You’re Simon Richardson, and I claim my £5.
Don’t farmers just have some
Don’t farmers just have some insurance to cover their ox?
chrisonatrike wrote:
Only when it’s covetted.
Cows don’t appear on the
Cows don’t appear on the hierarchy of road users, perhaps you could lobby your local MP to add them to the statute books.
Garage at Large wrote:
Obviously they’re the lowest of the low.
When I was at school I was
When I was at school I was told that in India, cows are treated as Gods and have carte blanche to stroll along any road they choose.
It turns out that this isn’t a myth, it’s true! So perhaps to welcome our community from the Indian subcontinent we should adopt the same stance here, which would put them below pedestrians on the hierarchy of road users, and ergo unprosecutable.
mdavidford wrote:
Ooooh, very good, I almoost missed that …
Argos74 wrote:
And, of course the quoted five people “killed by cyclists” ignores the culpability for the collision. How many of those five deaths were caused by the cyclist involved?
What a waste of time
What a waste of time
I thought the idea was to
I thought the idea was to remove from the statute book laws which were virtually unused, not add them on.
You do realise that coming up
You do realise that coming up with new, useless laws is pretty much the raison d’etre of politicians?
Richard D wrote:
we should have a law of death by dangerous politicians, I propose exhibit A is the delayed lockdown in 2020, feel free to add your own examples and see how quickly we run out of alphabet!
Pretty obvious response to
Introducing a “Death by Dangerous Cycling” law is a pretty obvious, common sense response to introducing a hierarchy of road users, where cyclists aren’t at the bottom.
Yesterday most people here were fornicating over the prospect, today the very same people can’t seem to cope with the extra responsibility that entails.
People on here were
People on here were fornicating? I had no idea it was that type of website.
I actually don’t think anyone
I actually don’t think anyone can’t cope with the extra responsibility. I’ve no problem with cycling responsibly and giving pedestrians their place. I do have issue with motorists who get away with slapped wrists, who don’t take responsibility and fall on the services of a Mr Freeman to get them off on a technicality.
Just fuck off, Boo.
Just fuck off, Boo.
That is all. ?
Are any of the “death by”
Are any of the “death by” laws really worth having?
Sure, careless driving should be an offence. Dangerous driving should be an offence. No issue with careless/dangerous cycling being an offence, as long as well defined and the penalties reflected the level of risk of harm appropriately.
But if you kill or seriously injure someone, what’s wrong with just using manslaughter/GBH/ABH?
Why should you be entitled to a discount on the maximum or the recommended sentence purely because you used a car – or indeed a bicycle – with such recklessness that it was resulted in someone’s death?
Velo-drone wrote:
Because it is not a law aimed specifically at cyclists.
Velo-drone wrote:
Not defending the utter laziness and prejudice behind the reluctance to prosecute drivers, but my understanding that for ABH and GBH you would have to demonstrate intent to harm. This may well be appropriate in some cases, but not I believe the majority.
Involuntary manslaughter at first glance may suit some cases, but again my understanding is that it would have to be demonstrated that it results from an unlawful act, or gross negligence (link to FLACCS). Speaking as a mere badger-sett-lawyer, it seems that may complicate things for a jury’s tiny minds – I fear a prosecutor might be more keen to get them on something certain and familiar, especially in a high profile case involving a death. Don’t get me wrong, again in some cases this would be utterly appropriate, but it is not universal.
I think the “death by” laws are worth having when pursued vigorously. My view is that a catastrophic collision is vanishingly unlikely when people are driving safely (sounds tautological, but I think it is more actually self-evident). The collision with teh bus stop yesterday is a case in point. You can’t demolish a piece of street furniture and overturn your car when driving appropriately to the conditions. And yet the excuses (from people who weren’t driving) flood in. Aaa might have been a deer, might have been a branch and so on.
The problem is they are not pursued, and this requires a culture change, and that needs political leadership.
I’m all for fairness on
I’m all for fairness on Britain’s roads. However more people die from bee stings than from people on bikes, it’s so very rare that it’s not worth the time legislating for, it’s so ridiculous that it’s clearly a political anti cycling measure, nothing based on fact.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj357q4tdD1AhXzoFwKHU1yDMEQFnoECBkQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nice.org.uk%2Fguidance%2Fta246%2Fdocuments%2Fvenom-anaphylaxis-immunotherapy-pharmalgen-final-scope2&usg=AOvVaw0dQu7mrtFkLrF3-hGs3u0A
Prosper0 wrote:
Fear not; Shapps will be introducing legislation to prosecute killer bees.
eburtthebike wrote:
Only if he considers apiphobes (?) to be a group worth buying off.
eburtthebike wrote:
Is that what the buzz is in the Westminster Village?
eburtthebike wrote:
No need Ecocidal Tory vandals have got that covered
Bees will die as ministers approve toxic banned pesticide for second time, warn experts
I thought you liked a bit of
I thought you liked a bit of entomology? Or is that Entymology (the study of words that bug you)?
chrisonatrike wrote:
Entymology? Hadn’t heard of that until now, thanks. I wonder what it’s origins are….
Captain Badger wrote:
Couldn’t find it, but I did find the etymology of “etymology”
This is serious, cutting edge, high-risk, lexicographical research – due to the extreme semantic forces generated a rupture in L-space is possible, and there is a small but measurable risk of the formation of a micro blackhole, which would result in the end of this planet in a matter of hours.
If you don’t hear from me in the next half hour, assume the worst. seek out those dearest to you to be with. Gods bless you all.
Captain Badger wrote:
Ever read ‘The Raw Shark Texts’? Keep an eye out for those semantic hagfish: they’re nasty…
brooksby wrote:
Sounds like a new play on this old elision of “e” and its translations. Such linguistic louchness and textual tomfoolery will doubtless be disparaged, maybe even by so-shall workers…
Isn’t it entology – the study
Isn’t it entology – the study of forest and woodland guardians? Seems to have an obvious appeal for badgers.
mdavidford wrote:
Nah. Study of walking trees. Can’t stand the bastards myself. No sooner have you dug a nice sett some bloody overgrown privet hedge walks off with your ceiling
Captain Badger wrote:
Seems like a good reason to study them – know thine enemy and all that…
I’ve no problem with this
I’ve no problem with this proposal.
The current law used to prosecute cyclists is quite obviously archaic and a new law providing higher potential penalties for those offences not reaching the threshold for manslaughter seems perfectly sensible.
Realistically it won’t make the blindest bit of difference to 99.9% of cyclists as these incidents are so rare.
What it does do is provide a bit of cost free placation for the angry motorists/press and, hopefully, serve as a precursor to a similar review of driving offences.
Rich_cb wrote:
Clearly put. I think “provide a bit of cost free placation for the angry motorists/press” is wishful thinking though. Some motorists will be oblivious to this and the highway code changes. Likely most motorists are not bothered. Angry people will remain angry. The press will continue to seek “contention”. Governments under political pressure will seek distractions (although this one is probably only distracting a small minority of people…)
People will continue to cycle anyway. If this does get enacted and anyone has concerns about the law no doubt the national cycling organisations will offer guidance. Currently e.g. Cycling UK already provides liability insurance with membership and can also direct you to appropriate legal consel.
I do hope the review of driving etc. is improved by maturation. I’m worried it might be “corked” or even soured by the time we get to it.
Rich_cb wrote:
I kind of agree in that this law is hardly ever going to be applied and won’t actually affect us, but it’s wrong that laws should be enacted just to placate angry motorists as a type of political bargaining. If it leads to a decent review of driving offences, then I’d probably be placated too, but there are many victims and their families that fail to see justice because of poor driving and the way it is prosecuted, so surely that needs addressing first.
I agree that, in an ideal
I agree that, in an ideal world, parliamentary time should be spent on higher priority legal reforms but politics is the art of compromise and all that.
If you’d have offered me the highway code changes and ATE in exchange for a ‘death by dangerous cycling’ law I’d have taken that deal in a heartbeat.
Rich_cb wrote:
I hear you, but it just bugs me that he’s virtually condoning the driver-vs-cyclist divisive claptrap. Public safety initiatives should be enacted based on their own merit. (We’ve tightened up fire safety regulations, but to balance it out, we’ve loosened the electrical regulations).
Rich_cb wrote:
Agreed. This is a detail that will be useable in a vanishingly small number of cases. In any case, a statement of intent during an interview with a radio f-wit is not a manifesto of policy
Waste of hard working tax
.
it’s red meat for the Brexit
it’s red meat for the Brexit demographic. Just throw them a lump of raw flesh to slaver over so they miss all the real facts: air pollution, lorry parks, increased Brexit paperwork, drop in exports, BYOB . . . . Broken Brexit promises? LOOK! Over there, a cyclist!
Mmm yes this definitely has
Mmm yes this definitely has something to do with Brexit, I can smell it..
S/
How about an offence of
How about an offence of stepping into the road whilst messing with your phone
Spats Bellini wrote:
Sounds like jaywalking laws to me. None of that American nonsense – drivists have got a big enough sense of entitlement as it is.
So 3yrs after the law changes
So 3yrs after the law changes were recommended, they are trumped out by the Transport Secretary. And Camden council reluctantly announce they would revise a junction that has had more cyclist deaths in 3yrs at one junction than pedestrians have been killed by furious and wanton cyclists in the whole of the UK in the same timeframe. But its important Grant knows whats important for him to announce isnt it.
I have no real issues with
I have no real issues with the introduction of these new laws provided that they are treated on a par with causing death by dangerous driving… so that every excuse that drivers can come up with to avoid a charge under the law becomes available to cyclists…. like the good old trusty the sun was in my eyes etc
Lets get these clowns out of
Lets get these clowns out of Whitehall. What an absolute idiot that Shapps is.
In theory, I can appreciate
In theory, I can appreciate the need to have some level of parity across all road users in relation to ‘death by’ laws. This is especially pertinent now as we move closer to a presumed liability structure.
However, I have reservations, namely;
– Without any legal requirement to undertake training before cycling on the road, it seems impractical / unfair to prosecute cyclists on the assumption they have the same safety awareness as a trained (licenced) motorist. I appreciate this one is opening up a big can of worms!
– The rules of safe cycling are significantly less clearly defined than that of safe driving, so how is a jury supposed to decide if the cyclist’s actions meet / exceed the threshold for dangerous cycling?
– Without a legal requirement to have a speedometer, how can cyclists realistically be expected to comply with speed limits? Accordingly, how can the appropriateness of a cyclist’s speed at any given time be judged without defined limits in place?
As already mentioned, mindful of the above, and that any jury is likely to include minimal if any cyclist representation, I can not reasonably see any cyclist brought before a jury escaping a guilty verdict.
Which would be a very different experience to that of similarly positioned drivers.
I am sure that you are aware
I am sure that you are aware that speed limits only apply to mechanically driven vehicles. This was tested quite early by a vehicle powered by a kite to get around the red flag act.
You have hit the nail on the head, what is the test for dangerous cycling and how will any jury decide what is reasonable. That point has been mentioned by others in these comments and more importantly in the Laura Thomas report.
I don’t know how many people
I don’t know how many people are aware of this, but there is already a ‘dangerous cycling’ offence in the Road Traffic Act 1998 (amendment was added in 2012, I think). This is section 28. The penalty for this is just below the penalty for “careless, and inconsiderate, driving” – level 5 on the standard scale vs level 4.
The “Road Traffic Offences (Cycling) Bill 2021” proposes a change to section 27 (Dogs on designated roads without being held on lead). And it talks about (for example) “27A Causing death by dangerous cycling – A person who causes the death of another person by riding a cycle dangerously (as defined in section 28) on a road or other public place”. However, section 28 limits the offence of dangerous cycling to cycling on the road.
I know if is the first draft of this bill, but there are been lots of other failed bills with the same aim that Baroness Pickering has presented to the Lords. It begs the questions about:
Presently the bill is recommending the same level of punishment, when engaged in an activity that is much lower on the hierarchy of responsibilty.
Good spot.
Good spot.
I have seen why this is there
I have seen why this is there. It is a holding clause until the Dangerous and Reckless Cycling (Offences)” bill is promised. It was put there by our old friend Barroness “cycle in the middle of a country lane, it is going to be impossible for other road users to pass them safely”McIntosh of Pickering. I will continue the comment on the Highway Code comments of 29/01/2022.
jh2727 wrote:
I don’t know, I’d argue that dangerous cycling penalties should be below dangerous driving penalties because the level of danger is inherently lower.
But death is death, so I can’t see why it should be argued that the penalty be lower.
{erhaps the question to ask in relation to this law is
Will the defence of I was looking ahead but just didn’t see them, hold up for cyclists in the same way it does for drivers?
So the “Dangerous and
So the “Dangerous and Reckless Cycling (Offences)” bill comes up again.
For those not familiar with this, it first appeared (as far as I can make out) in a ten minute bill by Andrea Leadsom to the house on 22nd March 2011. That bill did not make progress.
Ms Leadsom also made the statement (and I have been unable to find the date that she said this and the exact words but this is what I recall) to the house
‘that the average sentence given to cyclists who kill is considerably less than the maximum sentence that a motorist can be given for the same offence’. *
In her 2011 speech and during the Alliston trial she referred to the old and archaic law that needs updating because “There are other offences, such as manslaughter and grievous bodily harm, that could theoretically be used against a cyclist, but these are also rarely appropriate in the case of road accidents.” (Hansard)
That old and archaic law is The Offences Against the Person Act 1861, that carries a section on “drivers of carriages injuring persons by furious driving”.
It declares:
“Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour.”
“The real problem is the fact that as yet there is no offence of causing death by dangerous cycling.” (Leadsom Hansard)
So she is right that 2 years is less than the 14 that the motorist could get. But there is still manslaughter and GBH. **
I will also point out that her impassionate speech referenced the death of Rhiannon Bennett who was killed by a cyclist who was only fined £2200 and did not serve a prison sentence.
(There were two interesting things about this case that had commentators puzzled at the time. The first is Ms Leadsom gave evidence to the house that had not been presented at the trial with regard to the position of the cyclist and his victim. The second was that the value of the cycle seemed to be important and increased in value at every press report. When Ms Leadsom spoke of it in 2011 she gave a figure of £6000. Later reports had it up to £10,000, earlier reports less. We wondered why this was mentioned as the value of cars that were used in offences are not normally reported. It seems, with hindsight, that Ms Leadsom required that value to quote to demonstrate the paultry fine. Which is why the value of the cycle is always reported in press reports to this day, I assume to create a negative impression.)
In 2018 the issue was raised again by Ms Leadsom with the support of Matthew Briggs the widower of Kim Briggs who had been killed by Alliston. Again the claim was made that the old and archaic law was inadequate and should be updated with a new modern law that specifically dealt with cyclists because…
“Alliston was cleared of manslaughter but found guilty of causing bodily harm by “wanton and furious driving” and was given 18months. (yes that old archaic law)
In a statement outside court, Briggs said: “This case has clearly and evidently demonstrated there is a gap in the law when it comes to dealing with death or serious injury by dangerous cycling.
“To have to rely on either manslaughter at one end, or a Victorian law that doesn’t even mention causing death at the other end, tells us there is a gap. The fact that what happened to Kim is rare is not a reason to have no remedy.” (The Guardian)
The bill next seemed to appear in 2019 and again in 2020 by Baroness McIntosh of Pickering. She asks lots of questions about cyclists riding on pavements and jumping red lights. That also failed to go through. This was possibly because at the time of the Alliston case there was a legal review and a report by Laura Thomas of Birketts was published in early 2018.***
Her recomendation was to take the existing legislation (Road Traffic ACt 1988) and to amend it by…
“remove the restriction of “mechanically propelled vehicles” to the offences of causing death or serious injury by dangerous or careless driving.”
This would ensure that any vehicle used on the highway would be subject to the same law and would include any future vehicles that may appear that are not yet known. So this would cover cars & cycles as well as horse and cart, mobility scooters and of course e-scooters that did not exist then and do not seem to be covered by the law now.
Based on this a consultation was put out, but we still await the results.
The impression that I got was that the report by Laura Thomas came to a sensible and pragmatic conclusion, but a conclusion that did not please her masters. They are hankering after a specific new law aimed at cyclists. OK it ticks the remit of having the same maximum penalty of 14 years in prison for causing death and 5 years for careless and inconsiderate driving, but it was not to include anyone else.
So should we be worried about this attempt at resurecting the Dangerous and Reckless Cycling bill?
Well I think we should.
First because it is aimed specifically at one group in society when Laura Thomas has identified that the existing law could just be levelled up. If we applied this principle to, for instance single out a group based on ethnic background would that be fair?
Secondly, the government has been hankering after this for 11 years, they have a weak leadership who could lose them the election and the public (Tory voters) have been set against cyclist by a long campaign and boisted to a frenzy by headlines claiming that the woke left-wing cycling mafia forced the changes to the Highway Code. Which is why the two are linked.
Have no doubt that the enraged voters feel that these lycra louts should be put back into their place and nervous Tory MP’s need a few popular vote winners and possibly quite soon.
Finally, I am also worried because we (cyclists) got a lot of concessions**** in the Highway code. I wonder at what price?
Why do I say that, well for instance, to get the Cycle Event warnings sign into the signs book, we had to accept tinkly bells on new bicycles. Pedal reflectors were a trade off for the current (and inadequate) regulations for cycle sport on the highway. There are many other such trade off’s usually unheard of and done in the background to get even the little bits of legislation in place.
So is this bill going to be our trade off? Has it already been agreed by our cycling representatives to appease the motoring lobby?
We can only wait and see.
Andy
*she also went on to say that not enough cyclists were being prosecuted.
** of course this also doesn’t reflect the real world where motorists are hardly ever proscecuted and if they are recieve negligable fines. I think of my club mates here.
*** A proper lawyer, not a puffed up wannabe. By the way I recommend reading the report. It goes a long way to explaining the current situation and why motorists are not charged with manslaughter.
**** Yes I know that there is no change to law and that the HC is just clarifying things, but to get it into the HC is a big thing. For instance the Cycle Event signs are in the sign book but are not in the HC and cycle events are also not mentioned.
Edit to correct a typo.
Wow – think this should be a
Wow, thanks. Think this should be a blog post somewhere rather than below the line. Worthy of a coffee and a Sunday morning.
Just one speculative point – on “cyclists got a lot of concessions”. True from one perspective. I’m wondering how it would be if we choose to see the highway code changes as the “green shoots” of a slightly more modern approach to transport? A genuine “we’re all just people making journeys – how do we ensure that everyone can travel safely rather than just prioritising the motorist and fitting everyone round them”. This is likely wild optimism or even naive considering our motoring-dependent reality. But a positive move – like rephrasing “accident” as “crash”? So rather than “cyclists blagged something from drivers here – but we’ll pay” maybe verbalising this differently might be interesting? As in “this is mostly about updating / being a bit more explicit in the HC wording to reflect safe and sensible practice – oh plus that ‘let pedestrians cross at side roads’ bit”?
Your welcome.
Your welcome.
I don’t often actually write on forums, especially cycling forums as I tend to get shot down quickly unless I present some traceable evidence.
On your second point, perhaps I am too cynical.
I hope that my view is wrong. But “if you ignore history you are doomed to repeat its mistakes”.
Yes the pedestrian bit puzzles me as well. Perhaps if you take that out then the hierarchy doesn’t make sense. Or this somehow is the result of a bigger lobby group with several interests.
Brightspark wrote:
What the actual fuck!?! What was the context of that remark exactly?
Of course the average sentence for cyclists should be much less than the maximum sentence for motorists. The average sentence for motorists is much less then the maximum sentence for motorists. The average sentence for motorists should be higher of course, but even then it should be less than the maximum sentence. If the average sentence for cyclists was the same as the maximum sentence for motorists it would be a sign of some shocking miscarriages justice.
Wingguy wrote:
That’s the problem, I can’t find that reference now. I was the comment afterwards that not enough cyclists were being prosecuted that surprised me.
If I recall correctly the average sentence of cyclists who kill, at that time, seven years and all of the recent events resulted in a prosecution.
Perhaps Ms Leadsom was refering the cyclist who was mearly fined and may have been thinking dangerous cycling offences. Until we can find the time and place I can’t be certain. But I do recall it.
You have picked up the point very well, that she is comparing apples with pears. If she had stated the average sentence of motorists who have caused death and compared that to convicted cyclists, then it would have been a very poor argument.
Wingguy wrote:
I can’t make any sense of this post. Could you please re-read it and edit it so that it makes some sort of sense?
Eton Rifle wrote:
I have reread it, and I have no idea why you’re confused. Leadsome is alleged to have complained that the average sentence handed down for causing death via dangerous cycling is lower than the maximum sentence possible for causing death by dangerous driving. My point if you need it stated more simply is “Duh! Obviously it is and obviously it should be.”
Eton Rifle wrote:
What the actual fuck!?! What was the context of that remark exactly?
Of course the average sentence for cyclists should be much less than the maximum sentence for motorists. The average sentence for motorists is much less then the maximum sentence for motorists. The average sentence for motorists should be higher of course, but even then it should be less than the maximum sentence. If the average sentence for cyclists was the same as the maximum sentence for motorists it would be a sign of some shocking miscarriages of justice.— Wingguy
I can’t make any sense of this post. Could you please re-read it and edit it so that it makes some sort of sense?— Brightspark
There you go.
Yeah, sure. Why not?
Yeah, sure. Why not?
Also a mandatory black box in every car in the UK + higher penalties for every driver (or cyclist) — like 1 year’s salary or the price of the involved car x2.
Also speed limits in a city: strictly below 30, mostly 20. Absolutely everywhere, checked by cameras and pedantly forced.