- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Cyclists at traffic lights, London © Simon MacMichaelCyclists to face education course or fine for 10 new offences — including "dangerous" riding, cycling "without due care and attention" and riding without lights at night
The government is set to add a number of new cycling offences to the Road Traffic Offender Act — including "cycling on a road dangerously" and "cycling on a road without due care and attention", as well as mandatory light use at night and offences relating to cycling behaviour in London's Royal Parks — with punishments of education courses or fixed penalty notices to be available to the police.
The significant announcement was made public by the Home Office, with secondary legislation to update the Road Traffic Offender Act (RTOA 1988) to follow "in January 2025". While the announcement states "the Order will not produce an undue focus on cycling offences", almost all the new offences apply specifically to cyclists.
Of an initial 13 proposed, that were put forward and heard consultation responses from police bodies, councils, road safety organisations and cycling groups such as Cycling UK, London Cycling Campaign and The Bikeability Trust, ten offences will be put forward.
"Cycling on a road dangerously", as well as "cycling on a road without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road" are perhaps the most significant. While these are existing offences, their proposed addition means they can be punishable with an education course or fine.
The final list of road traffic offences which will be added to schedule 3 Road Traffic Offenders Act also includes "using a pedal cycle without lights between sunset and sunrise" and offences relating to cycling behaviour in London's Royal Parks, such as Richmond Park and Regent's Park, where there has been a lengthy discussion around cyclist safety in recent times, with calls for stricter legislation being pushed by the charity that runs the parks themselves.
In full the offences to be added are:
- Failure to stop at a school crossing patrol.
- Cyclist holding on to a vehicle while in motion on a road for the purpose of being drawn along.
- Cycling on a road dangerously.
- Cycling on a road without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road.
Offences under Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989:
- Using a pedal cycle without lights between sunset and sunrise.
- Using lamps so as to cause undue dazzle or discomfort to other persons using the road.
- Using a non-motor vehicle with any lamp so as to cause undue dazzle or discomfort.
Offences under Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997:
- Failure to comply with any direction given by a constable or by a notice exhibited by order of the Secretary of State regarding the use of a pedal cycle in a Royal Park or other specified land.
- Using a pedal cycle in manner that endangers or is likely to endanger any person in a Royal Park or other specified land.
- Using a vehicle or pedal cycle between sunset and sunrise, or in seriously reduced visibility between sunrise and sunset, with no lights in a Royal Park or other specified land.
Despite the government's assertion that the update does not amount to "an undue focus on cycling", it is impossible to miss the emphasis being placed on cyclist behaviour. Concluding the announcement, the government once again committed to a new Road Safety Strategy, for which next steps will be set out "in due course", but for now it is these new cycling offences that are to be added to the RTOA 1998.
It is proposed that National Driver Offender Retraining Scheme (NDORS) regulations would be laid following the secondary legislation, meaning those who commit the new offences may be offered a place on an education course as an alternative to a fixed penalty notice.
However, the government stressed that due to the "circumstances of each case" and the need for an "appropriate penalty", the police will decide on punishment and "although an NDORS referral will be available it won't be the only option which the police officer could choose for a penalty".
"There will numerous motor vehicle road traffic offences listed in the NDORS regulations schedule of offences, so we can confirm that the Order will not produce an undue focus on cycling offences," the government stated. "Following careful consideration, we have decided to go ahead with the proposal to add nine offences to schedule 3 of the RTOA."
A total of 14 responses to the consultation paper were received, approximately half coming from road safety organisations or cycling charities, the remainder from the National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC), Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)/Transport for London (TFL), UKROED, Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS), 2 x County Councils and a Police and Crime Commissioner's Office.
road.cc has contacted Cycling UK for insight on its responses to the consultation, however the cycling charity (along with The Bikeability Trust and London Cycling Campaign) were not mentioned as having "supported the proposals".
According to the government, the joint TFL/MPS submission and Action Vision Zero both raised concerns about the inclusion of dangerous cycling as an offence which could be punished by means of just a fixed penalty notice, implying they believe it should be dealt with by means of a more harsh punishment. Three respondents questioned whether any road user behaviour sanctioned as "dangerous" should be dealt with out of court.
Of the other consultation responses, none are attributed to specific bodies but the government accepts that the following points were raised: "That this proposal does not appear to address real priorities within roads safety or roads policing."
The need for "a potential new NDORS training product for drivers who commit motoring offences involving cyclists" was raised, as was "a query about the increase in price for the cycling related NDORS courses", and a party highlighting "the proposal’s potential impact on children under the age of 18".
While the specifics are not mentioned further by the Home Office announcement, that second consultation response suggests there is a suggestion an education course for cyclists would be more expensive than the current course fee of approximately £100 for motorists. However, given this was still at the consultation stage, it remains to be seen if this will be an issue when formalised.
A later point also suggests "the Safe and Considerate Cycling (SCC) course is only a 30-minute e-learning course".
The announcement marks the latest update in the ongoing story around cycling laws in the United Kingdom, the past eight months having been regularly punctuated by calls from politicians and figures in the media for such legislation.
The topic of dangerous cycling attracted widespread national print and broadcast media coverage in May, during the aftermath of a coroner's inquest being told that no charges would be brought against a cyclist who was riding laps of London's Regent's Park when he crashed into a pensioner, causing her fatal injuries.
The cyclist, Brian Fitzgerald, was riding in a group at a speed of between 25mph and 29mph at the time of the fatal crash, which led to the death of 81-year-old Hilda Griffiths. 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".
In the weeks after the coroner's inquest, former Conservative leader Duncan Smith proposed the introduction of a specific offence of "causing death by dangerous, careless, or inconsiderate cycling, and causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate cycling", to ensure people on bikes "face the same penalties as drivers and motorcyclists" responsible for the death of pedestrians.
Transport Secretary Mark Harper backed the legislation and it looked as thought it would be passed, Labour offering no opposition to the proposal. However, when Rishi Sunak called a general election and Parliament was dissolved, it meant there was not sufficient time for the amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill to be passed.
During the subsequent campaign a Labour spokesperson confirmed such legislation would be resumed post-election: "Labour will change the law to protect people from dangerous cycling, and we commend the families for their relentless campaigning. The Criminal Justice Bill was meant to be a flagship bill for his government, but Rishi Sunak walked away from his promises to these families the moment it suited him. It's understandable that the families of victims will feel let down."
Today's announcement does not go as far as the proposed legislation of the previous government, however it does also highlight offences related to cyclist behaviour in London's Royal Parks, two of which, Richmond Park and Regent's Park, are popular destinations for the city's cyclists.
The Royal Parks has campaigned for laws to prosecute "speeding" cyclists, the charity having reviewed its cycling policies last summer amid claims of dangerous cycling in its parks.
The organisation has also cancelled early-morning time trial events, upsetting local cycling clubs, and pulled the plug on the London Duathlon in Richmond Park.
A Royal Parks spokesperson suggested its cycling policies had been reviewed due to "several cycling-related incidents linked to a minority of people cycling at excessive speeds" and the charity had "implemented physical changes in the parks, including larger or wider pedestrian paths, additional crossing points to improve pedestrian safety and additional signage".
Richmond Park, which the Royal Parks proudly calls an "extraordinary landscape" that is also London's largest Site of Special Scientific Interest and a National Nature Reserve, remains open to through-traffic.
Dan is the road.cc news editor and joined in 2020 having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Dan has been at road.cc for four years and mainly writes news and tech articles as well as the occasional feature. He has hopefully kept you entertained on the live blog too.
Never fast enough to take things on the bike too seriously, when he's not working you'll find him exploring the south of England by two wheels at a leisurely weekend pace, or enjoying his favourite Scottish roads when visiting family. Sometimes he'll even load up the bags and ride up the whole way, he's a bit strange like that.
Latest Comments
- PpPete 5 min 27 sec ago
If you can be bothered to engage with the Discovery+ "Help Centre" chatbot for long enough they will eventually offer a reduction to 15.99/month...
- Hirsute 8 min 12 sec ago
I still can't understand why anyone would even contemplate that, let alone actually do it.
- andystow 8 min 46 sec ago
The thread police are here! We'll let you off with a warning, this time.
- Secret_squirrel 14 min 17 sec ago
Pointless. Nobody - not even the Pro's - needs this level of accuracy and certainly not for 50% than most existing PM's.
- andystow 17 min 57 sec ago
If you haven't already, consider searching for powder coaters, too. I just got mine done (in the USA, sorry) and am very happy. They can do gloss...
- Rendel Harris 39 min 41 sec ago
Personally I do move Lime and other hire bikes when they are blocking the pavement, often having to move three or more on the 500 metre walk to the...
- rjfrussell 2 hours 5 min ago
were you getting blue triangle, or freezing on the boot up screen that says "epix pro"...
- Sadhbh 4 hours 46 min ago
Is anyone else here from Ireland? I (in the ROI) have had the Discovery+ subscription since July last, and haven't received any notice about the...
Add new comment
121 comments
Yes. Maybe for ordering Chinese made carbon wheels.
Re-education is futile. You will be machine-translated.
To be more in keeping with the times (I think we're down on mandarins now - a smaller state is in) I would suggest a course in Common Sense, Cultural Warfighting or Traditional Values. Put all those together for fun and profit! (Well, profit, maybe, although not for you, the internet-user).
Not clever. It can be a matter of life and death - yours or someone else. The speed awareness driver courses are brilliant. Known a few otherwise very diligent drivers who took speed from vehicle in front to go faster than limit. They went on such a course, extremely grateful for the input and drove better. Ideally, all drivers and cyclists would get such coaching every few years.
If it works. But do we measure that...?
Yes to repeated training (testing?) though! Problem is, it probably costs similar amounts to do this for drivers as for cyclists, and motor vehicles are to a first approximation "who kills and injures others on the roads" (also another visual comparison here). Cyclists are at least subject to a natural check on their dangerous behaviours because they are vulnerable themselves - even in collision with pedestrians. Drivers? Not so - and the rate of detection and legal sanctions are clearly not enough to deter people from ignoring them in cases, some featured here.
Ultimately I think the solution is a bit like with motor vehicles now - different modes need different spaces*. With motor vehicles it's by fiat - because people outside of a car have learned the hard way to "keep out of the road". Of course, that doesn't guarantee the safety of pedestrians from motor vehicles either...
* Separate (cars and cyclists) where necessary, mix where possible. In general pedestrians and cyclists should always have their own spaces, except where people on foot predominate (e.g. a "shopping street" - which should not be a normal through route for cycling though). Or where there are few of either e.g. between small places in the countryside.
It would be rich to give speed awareness training for cyclists ie the limited number in Richmond Park ignoring the 20mph limits - when so few motorists are held to account. The laser focus on cyclists seems nonsensical given our cash strapped public services: Just today the Police are insinuating that they can't/won't (be bothered to) enforce the dangerous dogs act because of lack of funding.
I agree with you on the speed awareness courses. I attended one about 10 years ago and it made a difference my driving - especially in built up areas. However, from mine and many other cyclists point of view, we do not require any awareness training. But why not have motorist cycle awareness training? Most weeks I am close-passed, or have to slow to avoid a head on collision with on overtaking car. I have been shunted from behind at a roundabout. And I have nearly been hit by an oncoming overtaking car, while waiting to turn right at a junction. Whole some cyclists would benefit from training, the focus is in the wrong area in my view. And I have always enjoyed the works of Jane Austen and the likes of Keats etc.
motorist cycle awareness training?
Waste of time without deterrent punishment - all the most dangerous drivers think they're wonderfully skilful and can steer with one hand and the elbow resting against the offside window. If they hit a cyclist while close passing, they and their friends think it's the cyclist's fault - just like the police do
I think such training would change some drivers' behaviour. Admittedly not all.
After all, I changed my driving behaviour after my speed awareness course. The course had a strong message of how excessive speed can affect others.
At one point, we were shown a slide of two policemen standing by the side of the road and asked what we thought was going on.
"Speed trap" most of us said.
The course tutor then explained that it wasn't a speed trap, but an investigation into the death of a young girl after being hit by a speeding car. He finished by saying "Aren't you lot glad that you encountered a policeman with a speed gun, rather than a child?"
I will never forget that.
A cycle awareness course could highlight similar results of vehicles hitting them.
BMW, Audi, GTI etc. drivers are immune to sob stories about dead cyclists and children.
Are you my doppelgänger? I've had all these things happen to me too. There is definitely a case to be made for 5 or 10 yearly retests, with cycling awareness as a specified component. Most drivers have an overinflated opinion of their own abilities.
I would also hope it included some Thomas Hardy whose fine poetry was influenced by the Romantic poets.
And also well versed in cycling. In fact, you've got the makings of a very nice looking course here:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jul/01/wheel-life-and-fiction-bic...
I prefer his prose - such as The Mayor of Chainstay-Bridge, or Far From The Madone Crowd.
EDIT meant for Pub Bike...
Trek of the d'Urbervilles...
Oh have you not read his poems such as:
"The Darkling Thrust (bearing)"
"Convergence of the Chain"
"At Tea (stop)"
etc.
I like his novel about the carriage driver acquitted in court after colliding with a cyclist : 'View Was Obscured'.
I didn't know that (the Romantic Poet influence). But I have enjoyed several of his novels albeit they all had an almost perversely, tragic storyline.
So the police will be able to give cyclists on the spot fixed penalty fines for what they decide alone to be inconsiderate or dangerous cycling, but they will have to prepare a case for CPS for drivers doing the same which they will more likely state won't be worth the effort because there wasn't independant witnesses and the cyclist the driver killed had lights that caused that driver discomfort?
I think, instead of a cycle to work day, all cyclists should leave their bikes at home for a drive to work day. Perhaps only then they will see why cycling benefits society.
Isn't a fixed penalty in place of a prosecution? So if you're certain that you have done nothing wrong you can refuse it and go to court, although doing so risks a higher fine.
in england & wales, 2025/09/02 would probably be a good date for that.
Meanwhile the pavement parking consultation goes nowhere (over 4 years old).
Then this on bluesky
As a blind person & a guide dog handler whenever I share examples of problematic driving or dangerous behaviour by drivers people will tell me to report it. So this is what happens when I report it.
This morning a car drove onto the pavement at speed. My guide dog Ava acted quickly by pulling me away. If I’d been using my white cane I could’ve been hit by the car “parking” on the pavement. I’ve reported it to the police & managed to take several photos. I won’t tolerate dangerous driving.
This morning two officers visited my home to follow up the report, I repeated the details & they said they would go & check CCTV in the area. I've just received a call stating that the Metropolitan Police have reviewed the CCTV & decided that no offence has been committed. It was just 'bad timing'.
So there are no consequences for the driver. Not even a stern talking to about being aware of disabled pedestrians. I wonder what level of 'bad timing' will it take next time? What if this driver hits a blind person, or a wheelchair user, or an older person or a child?
https://bsky.app/profile/blondehistorian.bsky.social/post/3lgscainnss23
* note the tyre tracks and position of Dr Amy Kavanagh after she was moved by her dog.
"I'm sorry that you were struck by a driver. It was just bad timing that you were both trying to be in the same spot (on the pavement) at the same time."
"It's unfortunate that the pavement chose that particular time to leap in front of the car.'
Saw a massive SUV bypass a junction of traffic lights by mounting pavement and driving through the pedestrian crossings on Saturday about 1:15pm just after we left Bagshot Railway Station.
It was an emergency: had to pick up the new au pair so that she could pick up Tamsin from school so I could get to my fine wine appreciation course in time.
That's just bull droppings! Either an offence of driving on the footway was committed or it was not. It's not "bad timing".
Now, it may well be that they find a lack of evidence; or that, in the circumstances, they do not think it is sufficiently expedient and in the public interest to take further action. Those are feasible and justifiable outcomes, provided that the evidence (or lack of it) justifies that position. In which case, that should be the response.
"Bad timing" is just dismissive and ill-educated.
If it is a decision not to prosecute, I should think a review of that decision, taking into account the equality impact involved for a blind person as the victim, is in order.
So, at the same time it's 'cyclists don't use lights and cyclists use lights that are dazzling' - that goes well with 'cyclists cause accidents by riding dangerously slow on the road and dangerously fast' at the same time and speed.
A lot of motorists seem to think that bike lights are only there to make the bike more visible to them. I don't think it occurs to them that the front light needs to be strong enough to able to illuminate potholes, fallen branches at a reasonable stopping distance.
Unfortunately, many cyclists ride recklessly with no lights on roads and pavements while (a few) other cyclists have dazzling lights on roads and on pavements. That's the reality of SE London. Maybe things are different where you are
Unfortunately many motorists drive recklessly with (and I see these so often it's not funny) one working headlight / just the sidelights on. Others have the full beam set on auto that reacts very slowly to others / just full beam all the time. That's the reality in SW London & Surrey.
Are there cyclists with badly angled lights? - sure. Are some of them bright - sure, but no contest with massive SUVs with lights positioned increasingly higher & significantly brighter than they've been previously.
Funny story, just the other night I was riding home using unlit (and quiet) roads. I run front lights on the handlebar (800-1000 lumens allegedly) and on my helmet (not so many lumens but very effective) giving me adequate visibility down the road to see the inevitable potholes & damages road surface coming. Lights directed downward and ahead & not on the max setting, plus me making an effort to direct the head mounted light away from oncoming traffic. Was passed in both directions by a number of vehicles without bother. Then, one gent in a Landrover starts flashing his lights at me (having belatedly dipped his lights having spotted me coming in the other direction) & shouting as he came past. I just shrugged it off & carried on. Said Landie driver then doubled back & pulled alongside me (very unnerving after getting pushed off the road a couple of weeks ago) to give me the benefit of his opinion - ie my lights were too bright, inconsiderate yobbo. something something think you own the road. Nonplussed, I turned the helmet light off so as not to blind the poor fool, pointed at my front light (it's quite a small thing) & asked if he thought it was producing more lumens than the things on his vehicle & enquired if he'd like to do a beam comparison now that we'd stopped & were good mates. For some reason he declined & carried on with his journey (u-turning again) chuntering about bloody cyclists. You can't win with some people.
Pages