Iain Duncan Smith, the politician who spearheaded the campaign to pass new dangerous cycling laws such as causing death by dangerous cycling, has again appealed for new legislation — the Conservative MP suggesting he has spoken with Labour’s front bench since the election and “they’re thinking about what they can do with this”.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4 this morning, Duncan Smith repeated his desire for an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill, arguing for legislation so “cyclists understand that they’re not above the law” and that “a small minority” are made to “recognise that there are responsibilities” that they can be prosecuted for.
An amendment introducing such changes had looked almost certain to pass earlier in the summer, however the general election being called suddenly by Rishi Sunak meant there was not sufficient time for the legislation to pass. During the campaign, Labour said it would support new laws “to protect people from dangerous cycling”, although little has been heard on the matter since the party formed a government.
> House of Lords to debate cycling “safety issues”
Now, Duncan Smith has repeated his calls for the amendments to be revisited, although his comments on Radio 4 appeared to lack a complete understanding of the Highway Code and relevant legislation.
“We put forward an amendment which had cross-party support before the last election but sadly, of course, we had an early election and the amendment fell,” he said. “The idea is to try and bring cyclists, both electric cycles and also pedal cycles into the Highway Code so that the laws and the responsibilities that exist in the Highway Code exist to cyclists, which at the moment don’t really, and we’ve had a number of deaths.”
Cyclists are already part of the Highway Code and advised to adhere to it, although the Code in itself is not the law. Of course, many of its points are backed up by relevant laws, which is more the wording it appears Duncan Smith was attempting to use.
“We had, I think, between 2018 and 2020 [2018-2022, not 2020], something like just under 2,000 pedestrian casualties of which nine were fatal and nearly 700 actually were serious injuries. In fact, there was one when I was bringing it in, a woman in Regent’s Park who got knocked down by a cyclist that was over the speed limit and that was a pedal cycle, that wasn’t even an electric cycle and we’ve seen many of these electric cycles going past us at incredible speeds.”
The case Duncan Smith referred to was the much-publicised death of Hilda Griffiths back in 2022. Despite little media or political coverage at the time, a coroner’s inquest in May of this year hearing that the cyclist involved would not be prosecuted sparked headlines across the written and broadcast press.
Brian Fitzgerald was riding in a group at a speed of between 25mph and 29mph at the time of the fatal crash. The speed limit in the park is 20mph, but the Metropolitan Police confirmed that it does not apply to people riding bicycles (as is the case throughout the country), and that the case had been closed because there was “insufficient evidence for a real prospect of conviction”.
While incidents such as that one attract much political and media interest, the Department for Transport statistics still show that pedestrians are far more likely to be killed in a collision involving the driver of a car than involving someone riding a bike. Between 2018 and 2022, nine pedestrian fatalities and 657 cases of pedestrians suffering serious injuries were reported in road collisions involving a pedal cycle.
By contrast, in that same time period, 1,165 pedestrians were killed in collisions involving the driver of a car, while there were 20,557 reported serious injuries.
That added context to the pedestrian casualty figures cited by Duncan Smith was not mentioned during the Radio 4 segment, the former Conservative leader continuing: “I’m a motorcyclist. I had to pass huge tests and restrictions, all sorts of things to understand what speed was and to understand also how dangerous it is to exceed the speed limit and none of these cyclists who are now on pretty powerful bikes (referring to e-bike riders) have to do any of that, pass any tests or carry any protective equipment, so it’s getting them within the Highway Code so that dangerous cycling or cycling that causes death or injury are prosecutable offences and for cyclists to understand that they’re not above the law.”
At this point the presenter put the point to Duncan Smith that there are fears such legislation could have an effect of deterring people from cycling, something that would see missed positive gains in health and reducing motor traffic.
“Well, there are a group of people that constantly say that ‘if you do this, people won’t cycle’ but my answer to that is — I don’t think most people that cycle cycle with the view that they don’t care about the law or care about other people’s ability to go about their daily lives, particularly pedestrians,” Duncan Smith replied. “I am yet to meet a cyclist who says to me ‘I don’t really care about anybody else, I’m just going to knock them down, doesn’t really bother me’.
“So that isn’t the case, I don’t think you put people off cycling because they want to go out and cause mayhem, I think what you do is you allow that small minority, and it is at the end of the day, to recognise that there are responsibilities and the way to do that is to allow the police to be able to do what they have to do and to suspend people’s ability to cycle and to prosecute them if they commit these offences.
“There are cases of this, I’ve just given you some figures on it, Matt Briggs who’s the one that got me involved in this, his wife was killed by a cyclist riding an illegal bicycle, they couldn’t prosecute. In the end they had to come up with some 1861 law on dangerous coach driving [Charlie Alliston was sentenced to 18 months for causing bodily harm through wanton and furious driving] which they managed to tweak to get the prosecution done, but of course it had a very limited amount of punishment available to someone who killed somebody.”
52 thoughts on “Iain Duncan Smith wants cyclists to know “they’re not above the law”, makes latest call for new laws to punish dangerous cycling”
Are there any figures
Are there any figures available, to provide the nuance and context that is clearly not Mr Duncan Smith’s strong point, showing what proportion of those KSIs involving pedestrians and cyclists ended up with the cyclist being convicted and in how many cases the pedestrian was at fault?
And also, whether the cyclist
And also, whether the cyclist or a pedestrian came off worse from the incident.
…and what about lightning
…and what about lightning and cows? BAN THEM, I say! https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/cyclists-crackdown-death-lightning-cows-chris-boardman-b1158133.html
A right-winger picking on a
A right-winger picking on a minority group. True to form.
that’s their Mo, first
that’s their Mo, first identify your out group, second whip up hysteria, third impose unrealistic controls, finally ban
as a pedestrian, you are
as a pedestrian, you are roughly ten times more likely to be killed in an incident involving a mobility scooter than a bicycle. But mobility scooter drivers aren’t subject to dangerous driving legislation.
just sayin’
This is a man who advocated
This is a man who advocated vandalism against LTNs. Presumably those vandals were ” above the law” as long as they shared his views. The man is an obnoxious, insufferable prick.
Is this the Duncan-Smith who
Is this the Duncan-Smith who lied on his CV about going to university?
Could this be the same Ian
Could this be the same Ian Duncan-Smith whose DWP admitted to making up quotes and case studies (ie lying) in publications about benefit sanctions?
Not condoning this nor a fan,
Not condoning this nor a fan, but looks like a case of “sexing up” things that he did do e.g. more of a “I went to Oxford! (Brooks)”.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2002/12_december/19/newsnight_ids_cv.shtml
Definitely making stuff up on benefits however:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/15/conservative-claims-about-benefits-not-spin
Just read an interesting
Just read an interesting article about him from the Independent, one of his claims from school (where his nickname was, interestingly “Wally Duncan Smith”; in the army it was “Ian Drunken Smith”) was that he was a good enough rugby player to keep Clive Woodward, future England international and World Cup-winning coach, out of the school side. For some reason he forgets to mention that Woodward was two years below him so it’s hardly surprising that he wasn’t allowed to play in the same side – certainly in my school days boys from a lower year were never allowed to play out of their age group for legal and safety reasons. Older readers may remember him as one of the most incompetent leaders of the Tory party (and let’s face it, there is stiff competition for that) when his slogan was “The quiet man is back and he’s turning up the volume” – for some reason he forgot to add “of bullshit”.
Obviously what people say in
Obviously what people say in an interview people doesn’t necessarily sit together as a piece of logic in the way that e.g. they could muster in a speech or a law. But there seem all kinds of issues with IDS’s musings here.
As road.cc point out he’s twice said cyclists need to be “within the Highway code” – there’s all kinds of levels of misunderstanding here (or rhetoric … or just trying to hit notes “common people will understand”?).
Plus all kinds of partial truths and some odd takes. Apparently this is “we’ve had a number of deaths”.
Now I’m all for tackling all road death and injury *. Perhaps if there were more funding for road policing in general and better direction here that might help (whether tackling drivers or anyone else)? I certainly think at looking at the e-whatevers is long overdue. Especially since the authorities pretty much done nothing about regulating the use and sale of illegal electric motorbikes, motor scooters etc. (indeed essentially setting up trials which I suspect are to pave the way for “well, here we are”…)
… but apparently no, more resources for policing or getting existing laws actually enforced is not his concern. (They are certainly enough to see cyclists prosecuted).
I was struggling for exactly what he was flailing about until:
Ah.
* Can we start saying “a safe system approach” or even better pointing to “Sustainable Safety” rather than “Vision Zero” – the latter seems to be more of a slogan but the former are philosophies backed by a detailed programme (literally road-tested for over a decade in the NL case).
chrisonabike wrote:
“we’ve had a number of deaths” = “we’ve had a number of newspaper headlines”
That is already the expressed
That is already the expressed theory under UK road design.
So we can also argue from the need to implement the aleady expressed principles. That’s sometimes easier -but ultimately it has to be driven with the authority of the centre.
Huge motorcycle test ? hardly
Huge motorcycle test ? hardly !! if it was along time ago it was ride round the block and ride around a car park without falling over,usual mis information from yesterdays men
Today’s motorcycle test is
Today’s motorcycle test is—correctly, in my opinion—not easy to pass, involving several hurdles to clear. It’s a world away from the old motorcycle test, thankfully.
Undoubtedly, today’s motorcycle test is far, far harder than the current car test, too.
Ladywriter wrote:
Your post too is a perfect example of misinformation. Of course everyone knows someone who rode around the block without falling off and was gifted a licence but, strangely enough, nobody has any dates, times or addresses. Funny that.
And, as Mamil says below, the current test is a five-part ordeal that examines several aspects of road behaviour that the car test ignores.
Dream on sir …..
It was pretty much upto 1990
It was pretty much upto 1990 wasnt it ? when CBT came in.
And I could give you names dates and addresses of those who passed a ride around the block style motorcycle test, but Id be breaking data protection rules and their right to privacy, so i wont.
But it was a thing, believe me on that.
mike the bike wrote:
Perhaps a read of https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/history-of-road-safety-and-the-driving-test/history-of-road-safety-the-highway-code-and-the-driving-test would have been prudent before posting that…
Agreed badly written post by
Agreed badly written post by me
Thats fair enough it was a
Thats fair enough it was a badly written post
mike the bike wrote:
I can’t give you dates, times and addresses but in my brief and inglorious spell as a motorcycle courier when between jobs in 2001 many of the veteran riders had highly believable stories of the test in the mid-1970s being conducted by an examiner on foot who would stand by a tree and watch you ride a number of times round the block, step out at some point to instigate an emergency stop and then ask a few basic Highway Code questions. Do you have dates, times and addresses of people in the 1970s who had to take a more rigorous test than that?
Ladywriter wrote:
It wasn’t. Appears to be a late-life crisis kind of thing.
Thank you
Thank you
Ladywriter wrote:
According to this rather strange article IDS took his motorcycle test in 2021.
Personally, I think we need
Personally, I think we need an amendment to the CJB to remind Members of Parliament that they are not above the law…
There’s a CJB?
There’s a CJB?
Do you have a link?
Well, IDS referred to a CJB
Well, IDS referred to a CJB so I presumed that it existed…
It would be interesting to
It would be interesting to see what offences he actually wants introducing. Would this simply be an offence of dangerous cycling or would there also be an offence of careless cycling? Would there bre an option to reject jury members if they couldn’t ptove that they were regular cyclists , obvious where I’m going with that one. What sanctions could be imposed, if the judge decides not to impse a custodial sentence that would only leave a fine, no option for a ban as cycling isn’t done under a licence, and what safeguards would there be to stop judges imposing custodial sentences on cyclists in circmstances in which a driver would get a fine and a ban? Who would be responsible for saying what is careless or dangerous, goiung by the usual suspect media websites all cycists are a menace to society, the checks woud need to be very robust and not open to manipulation to suit the prejudice of “the silent majority”
spen wrote:
“I’m a regular cyclist”
“I see, and how often have you ridden a bike in the last twelve months?”
“I rode it on holiday in Center Parcs.”
“I see, and how many times in the last twelve months have you ridden a bicycle amid traffic, on a road?”
“Err – never, it’s far too dangerous!”
“M’lud, we would like to exclude this juror from this case.”
he wanted both afaik
He wanted both afaik.
Everything else you say is taken care of between the way the legislation is written and the sentencing guidelines.
They would likely be subjective tests backed up by “should & must” rules in the HC just like the similar motoring offences.
Whilst what you say about the media is a concern – the process should be reasonably robust against media influence.
IDS wrote:
Dear IDS – those “electric cycles going past us at incredible speeds” ARE already illegal, in many cases.
Maybe he should let drivers
Maybe he should let drivers know they’re not above the law.
Yesterday I pulled up at a red light in my car. It had turned amber when I was about 10m away and was fully red by the time I got there. I was stopped at the light and another car passed me on my right on the wrong side of the road, on a normal road with one lane in each direction, went through the red light and turned right. I see crap like this every single day. Where’s the enforcement? Where’s the law?
On top of that we’ve got illegal motorcycles using the cycle lanes, legal motorcycles using the advanced stop box, and almost every single car out there seemingly driven by somebody who is in tremendous hurry and no regard for any of the rules. It’s a joke.
No problem, just prosecute
No problem, just prosecute the cyclist: it has to be their fault.
It’s inherently a
It’s inherently a contradiction to call for new laws in order to show people they’re not above the law.
If people are obeying the law as it currently stands, then that’s not “above the law”.
And if someone does act as if they are above the law, then new laws wouldn’t change that – they would just continue to ignore them.
If it wasn’t for Labour
If it wasn’t for Labour infighting, Iain Duncan Smith would’ve lost his seat back in July, when their two candidates (one pro-Palestine selected by the local Labour party, the other pro-Israel chosen by the national organisation) each got a little over 25%, to his 36%. So thanks for that, Labour, now we’ve got to put up with his crap for another 5 years. Even he would’ve been better off, as he could’ve done the lucrative US far-right media circuit, like Liz Truss, making up bullshit about “no go zones” in London, and dropping dark hints about “deep state” conspiracies. Instead the poor sod is stuck here, utterly powerless, pushing the only issue he can get onto the BBC to talk about, which is cyclist bashing.
To be fair, even if IDS had
To be fair, even if IDS had been booted out of Parliament, he’d likely still be making these comments and calling for changes in legislation, probably in the form of a regular opinion piece for the Daily Mail or Telegraph, not to mention appearances on Question Time, Radio 4, GB News, etc.
I listened to the interview
I listened to the interview with IDS on R4 this morning, as well as the interview before his with the police officer and both were guilty of describing illegal electric motorbikes/mopeds as ebikes.
What hope is there for the general public to understand what a legal ebike is, and how that Deliveroo (other food delivery companies are available) rider speeding along at 30mph in the cycle lane without pedalling are definitely not riding one when those in authority don’t know.
And, to my eternal annoyance, the BBC journalists also make no attempt to address it.
I wrote to the today program
I wrote to the today program with exactly that point this morning. They’re not an illegal bicycle, They’re illegal electric mopeds.
Allowing them to be referred to as cycles is stoking hatred towards cyclists when we’re just as at much danger from the bloody things as pedestrians are
In their article here the
In their article here the Beeb have made an effort to note distinctions:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8vggkgzr2o
(Also noting usual feeble and “blame the
employeesdefinitely not employees parners” from a food delivery company).Thanks for providing context
Thanks for providing context with all the stats involving other forms of transport.
Given that IDS is singularly failing to do his job and wasting everyone’s time, should he be required to walk/cycle everywhere to understand the difference in the level of danger presented by motorist v cyclists?
As opposed to being transported everywhere in what is almost certainly a small tank?
Or maybe all the stats should be presented in the form of GBP£ figures as the associated costs from KSIs via the different modes of transport would be eye-opening for those who don’t have a clue?
After all, most politicians seem to worship money above all else.
Even if the new laws that he
Even if the new laws that he’s touting were sensible and justifiable, their introduction would be pretty pointless (and therefore economically a waste of money) as long as we remain at the very low levels of law enforcement that seems to prevail.
Now, if only we could identify the reason for such poor enforcement levels … Any ideas, IDS?
I’m curious why IDS isn’t
I’m curious why IDS isn’t quite so vocal on cracking down on his Tory chums who broke laws on partying during Covid but weren’t charged for all the events they attended? In Westminster, the joke is that IDS stands for ‘is definitely stupid’.
The favourable PPE contracts
The favourable PPE contracts are more outrageous.
Rome73 wrote:
That’s true and it’s a shame these haven’t been investigated properly so far. Matt Hancock awarded a contract to his sister’s firm and another to his pub landlord, who didn’t even have experience of supplying PPE. Oh and didn’t Matt Hancock have a financial stake in his sister’s firm too? Michelle Mone was by far not the only one filling her pockets by looting the antion at our expense.
Cyclists want Iain and Duncan
Cyclists want Iain and Duncan Smith to know that they’re not above a kick in the bollocks. Iain and Duncan Smith’s bollocks, that is.
My (maybe forlorn) hope is
My (maybe forlorn) hope is that the gouts of BS from shit-stirring fuckwits of the IDS stripe is that we are due a last burst of culture war then we will have reached a turning point.
Time will tell, but at least the voters shat the last Conservative Government down the toilet of history, and IDS and his fellow knuckle-draggers are mere opposition backbench shouters.
Think it’s forlorn; there is
Think it’s forlorn; there is always “culture war” in some shape or form – perhaps the overt “meta” version is somewhat a novelty?
As far as general attitudes to changes to cycling (hmm) and changing our streets and roads my best hope is we’ve actually started (very patchily) a period of stustainable positive change. I certainly don’t think we’re at “the end of the beginning”.
Note that folks were (literally) fighting in NL after they started turning the ship around for a few decades – riots in the streets, traders tearing up cycle paths in The Hague etc. And that was when they still had “mass cycling” and plenty of “cycle infra”!
Just another typical BBC hate
Just another typical BBC hate piece about cycling. Completely biased and unbalanced with inaccurate information and nobody from a cycling organisation interviewed to refute the nonsense.
I’d complain, but the sole purpose of the BBC’s complaints process is to exonerate itself.
I’ve been riding my bike for
I’ve been riding my bike for 66 years and over that period I’ve not seen or heard one anti-motorist article or radio /TV program complaining about how dangerous they are.
“we’ve seen many of these
“we’ve seen many of these electric cycles going past us at incredible speeds.”
99% of those are not “cycles”, they’re illegal electrically powered mopeds or motorbikes. Man’s an eejit.
I heard that interview this
I heard that interview this morning. “Let me give you some statistics” said IDS, and then went on to recount an 8 year old anecdote about how it wasn’t possible to prosecute Charlie Alliston (remember him? He went to prison even though he couldn’t be prosecuted) and no statistics.