A widower has welcomed the government’s proposals to introduce legislation that would mean cyclists who kill could face life imprisonment, after campaigning for almost a decade following the death of his wife in a collision with a cyclist in Wiltshire – where a speeding motorist was recently jailed for ten months for fatally striking a cyclist from behind.
Peter Walker’s wife Diana was walking home from a shop when she was hit by a cyclist in Pewsey, Wiltshire in May 2016. She died in hospital the following day, after she was kept on life support for organ donation.
Wiltshire Police said extensive enquires were carried out in the wake of the 76-year-old’s death, but an investigation concluded the incident was not an “unlawful killing”. No action was taken against the cyclist.
However, following concerns raised by the coroner at the subsequent inquest, Wiltshire Police said crash investigators would be sent to all serious collisions involving people on bikes in the future.
In the aftermath of his wife’s death, Walker began campaigning to ensure all serious cyclist-related collisions would be fully investigated by police, criticising the force’s “horrifying” treatment of his wife’s death.
“I don’t want anybody to go through what I’ve had to go through,” he told the BBC this week, voicing his support for a proposed new ‘dangerous cycling’ law, which could lead to harsher sentences for cyclists who kill or injure.
> Cyclists who kill pedestrians could face life sentences under proposed new ‘dangerous cycling’ law
As part of a series of amendments tabled last month by the government to the Crime and Policing Bill, branded “one of the biggest legislative updates to policing for decades”, cyclists who kill pedestrians by riding dangerously could be sentenced to life in prison, while cyclists who cause serious injury by dangerous cycling could face a maximum five-year term in jail.
If the legislation is approved by parliament, cyclists convicted of causing death or serious injury by ‘careless or inconsiderate cycling’ could also face up to five and two years in prison, respectively.
The proposed laws are currently at committee stage, with the government noting they will be debated in “due course”.
Speaking to the BBC, Mr Walker welcomed the proposed amendments, but said that “having to wait nearly nine years for something to happen is an absolute disgrace”.
“It was just to make certain that the police fully investigated an accident on the highway where a cyclist killed a pedestrian,” he said.
“The way Wiltshire Police treated Diana’s death was horrifying and it’s a huge relief that police will now have to treat cycling collisions as a proper highways accident.”
The amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, tabled by the Department for Transport (DfT) and the Home Office, and led by transport secretary Heidi Alexander, would update and replace the current legislation under which cyclists who kill or injure while riding recklessly can be prosecuted under the 1861 ‘wanton or furious driving’ law, which carries with it a maximum sentence of two years in prison.
The move came after former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith spearheaded a campaign last year to introduce an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill which would lead to tougher sentences for people who kill or injure while cycling dangerously, while also ensuring bikes would be required to be “equipped and maintained” to certain legal standards.
Duncan Smith’s amendment looked almost certain to pass last summer, following a fast-tracked push through parliament, but was stopped in its tracks by Rishi Sunak’s decision to call a general election in July, meaning there was insufficient time for the legislation to pass.
While the Labour government’s recent proposals appear to have revived Duncan Smith’s campaign, a source within the Department for Transport stressed that, despite the amendments, there is still a need for “proportionality”, especially taking into the consideration the 1,600 people killed by motorists every year.
“Dangerous cycling is completely unacceptable, and the safety of our roads is a key priority for this government,” a DfT spokesperson said last month.
“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.
“These are being brought forward as part of the Crime and Policing Bill, and will be debated in due course.”
Meanwhile, a specialist injury lawyer responded to the proposed changes by pointing out that while it was “difficult to sustain” an argument against updating the legislation, it would only focus on a “tiny fraction” of pedestrian deaths, arguing that safety would be enhanced more by focusing on “conventional collisions”, such as those between “speeding” motorists and vulnerable road users.
Earlier this month, we reported that an elderly motorist who killed an experienced club cyclist after striking her from behind while speeding on a Wiltshire road was sentenced to 10 months in prison – after initially claiming that he couldn’t see the rider, who was wearing hi-vis and using bike lights at the time, due to oncoming headlights.
45 thoughts on “Widower of pedestrian killed by cyclist supports ‘dangerous cycling’ life sentences – but says “waiting so long is an absolute disgrace” after slamming “horrifying” police treatment of fatal collision”
Hmm. All smells a bit
Hmm. All smells a bit Matthew Briggs to me, with the added element that it would appear that the cyclist in question presumably had a fully functional bike or else the police would have gone full Alliston on them?
I’m all for updating the law
I’m all for updating the law to recognise cycling as a genuine and distinct form of transportation with associated responsibilities.
However the bottom line is that:
If I on a bike do something careless near a car – I get hurt.
If a driver in a car does something careless near me on a bike – I get hurt.
I’m not convinced that is covered by “proportionality”..
Fundamentally, the relative differences in power need to be taken into account by the law.
Meanwhile drivers still don’t
Meanwhile drivers still don’t face justified punishment to the lives they’ve ruined absolute farce this government is, they’ve wasted tax payer money on debating new laws while we already had them just under a different title. Instead of updating the pre existing one’s which would have saved money. Again leave it to the plods and politicians to waste public funding, whilst having the cheek to say they don’t know why they don’t have the funds.
I don’t understand what a
I don’t understand what a life sentence is supposed to achieve for killer cyclists.
Firstly, it’s not going to act as a deterrent as it’s well known that large sentences don’t really work like that as most people don’t think that they’ll get caught and certainly cyclists almost never think that there’s a chance that they’ll kill someone whilst cyclng.
Secondly, it hardly protects the public as I’m not aware of even a single case where a killer cyclist went out and caused another incident.
So, this is just about unnecessary punishment at a large cost to the tax payer – both for housing the poor cyclist that gets caught by it; the chilling effect on cycling that will push up NHS costs due to lack of exercise and also the extra aggression that this kind of law will empower the dangerous drivers with will surely end a few lives too.
I’d also add that a life
I’d also add that a life sentence isn’t a deterent nor stops one person killing another any way.
“extensive enquiries were
“extensive enquiries were carried out, including CCTV analysis, photographs of the
bike and obtaining witness statements.”
“As a result, it was concluded that this was not an unlawful killing and the case was referred to the coroner.”
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-daily-telegraph-saturday/20240511/281814288957163
Judging by the reporting around this case, it wouldn’t have gone anywhere near the new law on dangerous cycling.
“The cyclist, who was wearing
“The cyclist, who was wearing cycling shorts, shoes and a “bright green cycling top”
Apart from the top being bright green and therefore highly visible, I’m not sure of the relevance of wearing shorts and shoes.
This would appear to be another case of obsessed husband, with much less justification for their attitude. I wonder if he’d have been quite so vociferous if it was his wife riding the bike and she was killed by a pedestrian stepping into the road without looking?
eburtthebike wrote:
I can see the point you’re making Burt and I agree but I think we need to have some degree of empathy with Mr Walker; I know that I would be absolutely destroyed if my wife were killed and I could give no guarantees that I would be reacting or thinking rationally in such an event. Rather than castigate the husband I think the blame should lie with those sections of the press and of politics who encourage the grief-stricken to believe that the incident in which their loved one died wasn’t said loved one’s fault, whatever the evidence may show, and to join them in their anti-cyclist campaigns.
Not finding any specific
Not finding any specific details of the case mentioned, I checked streetview and it seems Pewsey High Street has zero pedestrian/zebra crossing. Given the Police took no action I can have a good guess at what happened.
Mr Walker has previous said to the BBC “The police didn’t do anything as a cycle hasn’t got a motor”, which is pretty obviously false.
If cyclist are to be treated in the same way as drivers when at fault in a fatal collision then most will serve no prison time, and the few that do will only get a few years.
Edit: I’ve now found some more details fomr the Dialy Mail of all places – “A subsequent inquest found that Mrs Walker had not checked in the direction the cyclist was approaching from and ruled her death an accident.”
It does seem that there is a
It does seem that there is a grain of truth in Mr Walker’s allegation in that the police did say that because no motorised vehicle was involved they had to treat it as a potential unlawful killing rather than an RTA and therefore did not send a collision investigation unit to the scene immediately. However, they did subsequently then clearly undertake a very thorough unlawful death investigation and the results of the report were sent to the coroner who agreed that it was an accidental death with no blame to the cyclist (even though she also castigated the police for not sending a collision investigation unit). I don’t know if the new careless/dangerous cycling laws would mean that a CIU would be sent out to all such incidents; what seems irrefutable is that under the new laws the cyclist who collided with Mrs Walker would not have faced any charges anyway. The way this and other incidents have been reported in the press recently with reference to the new laws is as if the new laws make it compulsory that any cyclist involved in a fatality will automatically be found guilty; it’s certainly the way the commentariats of the Mail and Telegraph seem to believe it will work.
Rendel Harris wrote:
What differences would there be between a CIU investigation and an unlawful death investigation?
I would expect CIU to be oriented towards motorised collisions and do things such as examine skid marks, road defects and possibly secondary collisions, but those would unlikely to be relevant in a cyclist/pedestrian collision. I’d expect both investigations to do things like gather relevant CCTV footage, eye witness reports and dashcam footage.
I believe the difference
I believe the difference would be that the CIU would have gone straight to the scene as soon as the incident was reported, searched for eyewitnesses at the time, interviewed the cyclist immediately, closed the road and checked for any evidence such as skidmarks that could indicate speed etc (highly unlikely with a cyclist, obviously), make sure that any CCTV footage available was secured immediately rather than risk it being taped over and so on. I must say I can see why Mr Walker is not content with the speed of the investigation, for example the cyclist apparently wasn’t interviewed until 98 days after the incident; if a motorist hit me or a loved one I’d want them interviewed pretty much on the spot rather than being given three months to think about it and get their story in order (not that I’m suggesting there was any embellishment or falsehood in this case). The problem is that Mr Walker (quite understandably, I could give no guarantees that I wouldn’t react the same way if my wife were killed) wants someone to blame and appears to have convinced himself that under the new laws the outcome of the investigation would’ve been different; there is no evidence available that I’ve found to suggest that it would have been.
Yes, though having witnessed
Yes, though having witnessed Collision Scene Investigators at work in the minutes after a fatal collision on a number of occasions, they are incredibly thorough in all that they do. Not saying that the unexplained death team here weren’t also thorough but I too would have some lingering feeling of did they miss something if it were my family member killed and they didn’t take statements for a significant period of time, didn’t secure and examine the scene in minute detail to ensure any evidence was gathered and all possible witnesses identified at the earliest opportunity. Nobody likes to think their loved one was even partially at fault for a fatal collision and understandably they will pick at any perceived failure by the authorities to investigate properly.
In a limited way, I have some
In a limited way, I have some sympathy with the husband. The collision investigation team are the specialists in this kind of thing plus investigating any potential crime gets harder if evidence is not secured immediately and statements not taken until sometime later. I have no issues with agreeing that the incident would better have been investigated by experts in a timely fashion. The lack of such an investigation hasn’t helped the husband come to terms with his understandable grief nor has it helped the cyclist involved as it gives some sections of the media and the public a grievance that they can and have used to cast doubt on the subsequent decision that no crime had been committed.
Peter Walker wrote:
The way Wiltshire Police treated Diana’s death was horrifying and it’s a huge relief that police will now have to treat cycling collisions as a proper highways accident.— Peter Walker
Um – no… It will give another charging option as a result of any investigation, but that won’t necessarily have any effect on the way the investigation is conducted.
“Dangerous cycling is
“Dangerous cycling is completely unacceptable, and the safety of our roads is a key priority for this government,” a DfT spokesperson said last month.”
Or, in the real world:
“Dangerous
cyclingdriving is completelyunacceptable, and the safety of our roads is akeylow priority for this government,” a DfT spokesperson said last month. “We’re all about making tokenistic changes to the law for cyclists which will make no difference whatsoever, but will placate an obsessed husband and the Daily Mail ranters.”In 2204 1633 people died on
In 2204 1633 people died on the roads. On average one person every year or so is killed as a result of a cycling ‘incident’ (ascertaining whether the person killed in a ped/cyclist collision was the cyclist or the pedestrian isn’t something which can easily be gleaned from the statistics). Assuming that 2024 didn’t deviate from the norm this of course means that last year 1632 people were killed in incidents involving a motor vehicle of some description. And yet the danger caused by cycling is a major problem, complete fuc&ing madness.
jaymack wrote:
Also, with regards your one death per year in a cyclist/pedestrian collision in the statistics – it isn’t often clear who is responsible or at fault, if at all. Not that stops people instantly blaming cyclists.
Indeed. I remember an
Indeed. I remember an incident a few years ago in Almondsbury, when a drunk wandered into the road and walked into a cyclist, who was killed. Didn’t make the news, of course and the drunk wasn’t even charged.
Good luck to any cyclist
Good luck to any cyclist going to court to prove their innocence under this new dangerous cycling legislation and being faced with a jury of carefully selected car brains.
My advice to all would be to keep the cameras running for every journey, so you have proof of what happened.
I already do this now for reporting close passes, but may also be useful just in case there is an incident involving a pedestrian etc that is not your fault.
Don’t leave anything to chance or potentially biased witnesses with an anti-cycling Daily Mail frame of mind.
Very good advice in my
Very good advice in my opinion. I would add giving pedestrians around 2m even if they are on the pavement. I got used to doing this over lockdown and with the new highway code advice to leave 2m when passing pedestrians on the road with no footpath I see no reason to change. Doing this has saved a few collisions for me. Drivers don’t like it but the new hierachy of road users gives us the reponsibility to protect road users above us, pedestrians and horse riders. Another reason for riding primary.
yupiteru wrote:
Unfortunately, everyone can get it wrong sometimes, and the video evidence may not be in your favour. My fear is that juries will be less accommodating of cyclists getting it wrong than the significant “there but for the grace of [deity]” leeway they seem to give drivers. I hope I’m wrong and we don’t see a conviction for many, many years.
local to me down under in Aus
local to me down under in Aus’ a few years ago now…shows the importance of a detailed police investigation…needless to say I can sympathise with those impacted by tragedies but not with the Press that exploit grief for a story and already have an angle…
“When Mr Mackenzie was hit, he fell down and hit his head on the concrete curb. He was taken to The Alfred hospital, but died that night.
Mr Mackenzie’s son, Alastair Mackenzie, called for compulsory registration of bicycles and licensing for cyclists in the wake of his father’s death.
Alastair said his father was “extremely vigilant when it comes to crossing roads”.
He said his father was teaching his pet dog to be aware of traffic and making her sit and wait for the light to go green………”
…..Mr Remick has not faced any charges in connection to the collision.
His Cervelo S5 racing bike was fitted with a Garmin GPS cycling computer…..
….If VicRoads data and the GPS data line up, the pedestrian signal would have been red for 74 seconds when Mr Mackenzie was hit, and the traffic lights would have been green for 71 seconds.”
detail here but I suspect paywalled
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/traffic-light-timing-crucial-in-death-of-pedestrian-hit-by-cyclist-20190524-p51qxo.html
antigee wrote:
Again, a lack of logic from the family of the deceased – why call for cycle licensing and registration when the cyclist was identified?
The son wants licensing, insurance and a high-viz vest with registration to be worn by cyclists so that they can demonstrate that they have learnt the rules of the road, but the coroner’s verdict was that the cause of the collision was the pedestrian crossing on red and the speed of the cyclist (between 33kph and 39kph in a 60kph zone).
I don’t and have never owned
I don’t and have never owned a dog, but have always thougth that dogs can see only certain colours, but not red and green.
whosatthewheel wrote:
That’s correct, they have dichromatic vision which means they primarily identify blue and yellow with the rest of the world appearing to them as shades of brown and grey.
they have dichromatic vision
they have dichromatic vision
Maybe, but we’re going to need a ‘guide dog expert’ to tell us whether this factor negates the testimony his father was teaching his pet dog to be aware of traffic and making her sit and wait for the light to go green…. Red and green may be different positionally, or dogs may be capable of detecting the different shade of grey accurately. Having said that, my uninformed guess is that the son is making the dog training stuff up, in the cause of vengeance.
wtjs wrote:
I guess the son may have meant that he was training the dog to sit and wait when told (on red) and cross when told (on green), as most people do with their dogs. The dog most certainly couldn’t read the lights itself as not even trained guide dogs can do that. Guide dogs are trained to wait at the lights and cross on the owner’s command, they don’t (as some people think) read the lights or react to the beeps and tell the owner when to cross, their only input into the process is that they will alert their owner to stop if they sense a danger, e.g. someone about to run the red.
(No expert by the way, just used to walk our dog in a place where a couple of other people used to walk trainee guide dogs and talk about their training)
wtjs wrote:
I don’t see the relevance of whether the father was training a dog or not. Is it to imply that he was distracted and focussing more on the dog and not so much on the traffic?
antigee wrote:
From the newspaper article…
“1,600 people killed or
“1,600 people killed or seriously injured by motorists every year.”
Is that an error? This is from gov.uk:
“In reported road collisions in Great Britain in 2023, the final estimates are: 1,624 fatalities, a decline of 5% compared to 2022. 29,711 killed or seriously injured ( KSI ) casualties, little change compared to 2022. 132,977 casualties of all severities, a decline of 2% compared to 2022.”
Grief can cloud judgment but
Grief can cloud judgment but after 10 f*****g years this looks like a irrational crusade against the specific type of road users responsible for a tiny percentage of KSI.
Also maybe I missed it but there aren’t many similar stories covered by mainstream media with the same level of enthusiasm when car drivers are perpetrators.
Any road death is appalling
Any road death is appalling but it seem a stigma if it involves a cyclist, its ok to be hit be a car but a cyclist and it becomes a hanging offence. Many years ago I had a collision with a jaywalker who gave no indication that he was about to cross the road, I came of worse but 2 days later this person came up with 2 witnesses that I came out of a side turning at speed instead of the straight road I was on
Gran’s heartbreaking final
Gran’s heartbreaking final words to childhood sweetheart as she lay dying at roadside
Her husband rushed to the scene of the crash and kissed and held her hand
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/grans-heartbreaking-final-words-childhood-31763298
If you’re killed by a driver, strangely no-one remembers what happened and it’s just one of those things, very tragic etc. File under K for Killer Driver Walks Free.
An awful, sad story, that won
An awful, sad story, that won’t make news. If she’d been killed by a cyclist, it would be in the msm 24/7, and all the terribly sad quotes would be endlessly repeated. Two tier media?
Only a two year ban.
Only a two year ban. Completely unexplained incident, but in two years everything will be alright and nothing like this could ever happen again.
ktache wrote:
Scary isn’t it? Can’t remember anything except:
“He recalls navigating a kerb through the village.”
What does that even mean? How do you navigate a kerb???!
May be it was like that
May be it was like that optical illusion one in Somerset!
ktache wrote:
Well they “didn’t mean to” – so (like all the daily distracted, awareness-free, non-defensive or plain wrong driving) they’ll probably get away without causing death and/or injury next time…
“However, following concerns
“However, following concerns raised by the coroner at the subsequent inquest, Wiltshire Police said crash investigators would be sent to all serious collisions involving people on bikes in the future.“
Really, please show me the definition of serious that was considered in preparation of that statement.
So everytime a cyclist is punted off by a myopic/distracted/incompetent driver the CIU will be dispatched?
I doubt this was the intended focus of the statement and am certain it will not be the actual outcome!
BikingBud wrote:
I’d guess that they classify it as “serious” when there’s a life-changing injury.
But why are we guessing.
But why are we guessing.
State the policy and adhere to it.
Then acountability for any non- adherence is clear.
And bearing in mind you cannot come back and take the wedding pictures, what if the collison appears not to be serious but traumatic head injury has occurred and the injured party dies a few fays later?
BikingBud wrote:
Police prefer to mark their own homework rather than being accountable to people like cyclists.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Getting in before wtjs…
You bounder!
You bounder!