- 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
- Rendel Harris 2 sec ago
Indeed, and of course a wheelchair or mobility scooter user has no chance of getting them out of the way.
- Steve K 7 min 8 sec ago
I feel I set you up for that.
- Steve K 16 min 28 sec ago
A rise in Halfords bike sales suggests to me more people getting into cycling, because anyone who already cycles would be buying a bike from...
- PpPete 24 min 8 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 26 min 53 sec ago
I still can't understand why anyone would even contemplate that, let alone actually do it.
- Secret_squirrel 32 min 58 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 36 min 38 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...
- rjfrussell 2 hours 23 min ago
were you getting blue triangle, or freezing on the boot up screen that says "epix pro"...
Add new comment
121 comments
First time I'd seen Feathers McGraw there.
No they don't. Please stop making stuff up.
Don't forget the ones cycling on the pavement through red lights well above the speed limit forcing wheelchair users to have to bunny-hop into the bushes...
I think there are definitely some reasonable concerns. We all know that because - even in the few parts of London where there is a lot of cycling visible - it is still not "mainstream transport". Perhaps a small part is that there isn't a "mainstream" cycling culture (there are certainly cycling cultures)?
And cyclists are "not the same as everyone else" and they are still seen an out group and don't have the same provision, or respect / understanding as everyone else. (Plus the (food) delivery companies using public space as a free resource and outsourcing what should be their risks onto the public).
FWIW I bet there is as much or more "antisocial behaviour" by people on bikes in NL as by drivers! Because people; and also where people are relaxed they'll cut corners or "just do stuff". But because they're on cycles and space has been made for this * that will have far less effect.
* Unlike our say our "share the road" or "shared space" concepts - where e.g. some drivers become aggressive because cyclists are cheating - taking "their" space...)
So e.g. there the issues are e.g. bikes left about thoughtlessly (a problem, but much less so than vehicle parking). There isn't conflict at bus stops because the cycle path goes round them. There will be people cycling without lights, or with overly bright lights, or even drunk... but of course they're cycling in *their* space, not on a footway (well, mostly!). Because in NL they have made it so convenient to "do the right thing" that there's no incentive to do something antisocial which is also more of a nuisance to yourself.
What a f-ing surprise…
Oh good.
So the angry drivists & right whingers will presumably now calm the f*ck down & show a tad more patience & a tad less entitlement on the road in their w4nkpanzers then?
No, thought not.
Nope, I predict a flurry of efforts to fit otherwise sensible cycling into one of the mentioned categories - particularly...
"without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road."
I.e. "expecting me to slow and wait for a safe place to overtake"
While it's hard to argue against the position that cyclists should be held to account for their actions, it is easy to argue that this is a knee-jerk reaction to petrolheads pointing the finger at cyclists to distract from their own, much more dangerous failures. And it's so much easier than having a full examination of road laws, promised so long ago.
I'm hoping that this is some kind of quid pro quo for the fantastic cycling facilities we're going to get.
The article mentions IDS, so there is definitely a jerk involved...
Expect a sharp increase in cyclists required to attend awareness courses as the money from these go to the Police directly as opposed to fines which go to the Treasury.
I hope the law will also be applied to drivers, no enforcement of speed limits, action against dazzling lights etc where I live.
I expect cyclists to be disproportionately affected.
Home Office Proposal
I'm not sure the article made it clear enough that these are not new cycling offences, it's about providing more options for dealing with existing offences.
You could always refuse to do the course and take the fine instead. Currently you don't have the choice for these offences.
I doubt that such a course would be 'in person' - far more likely that it would be online.
The Safe and Considerate Cycling Course already exists, The AA (!?!) run it. It's 30 minutes online, cost is £38.40.
The Safe and Considerate Cycling Course(link is external) already exists, The AA (!?!) run it
Great! Run by the AA cycling and road traffic law experts
https://upride.cc/incident/yf70xwu_aadrivingschool_uwlcross/
PS No response from the AA when I sent them the video
Do you get a badge ? Then I could show it to an irate driver!
I did wonder in what way was mandatory light use at night not covered by the current law.
This is all too common, at the moment - "never mind that we don't have the resources to enforce existing laws, let's waste more time and resources introducing new laws/procedures that could be covered by existing stuff - if only we had the resources"
I've decided to call it "Heath Robinson politics" - for those of you old enough to remember him (except that his contraptions actually worked)
This is him, isn't it?
That would suggest Road.CC is using this article for clickbait....surely not!
Can anybody give an example of what riding dangerously or without consideration might look like?
Some people might see a cyclist not giving way to a car joining from a side road as being inconsiderate, especially seeing as many drivers will just stop randomly to do so.
In principle and in the abstract, this is difficult to object to. An educational course to improve road safety is a good thing. The problems are multiple, including the obvious ones around proportionality.
One that I'm particularly concerned with, based on recent experience, is the quality of policing. It is abundantly clear that very few road traffic officers have any practical experience of cycling, and surprisingly little knowledge of best practice, and the occaisional absolute howler of ignorance around cycling and the law (such as a belief that cyclists must use the cycle lane). So we can expect policing and enforcement based on ignorance and prejudice rather than best practice and the actual existing law.
If this goes ahead, I'd like to think that there will be a requirement for any police officer enforcing these regulations to have adequate training, which must include a certain amount of time spent cycling around their area, and they should have to repeat that experience at regular intervals.
I'll accept that you don't need cycling experience to know when someone is cycling without a light after dark, but any judgement of what is or is not considerate will surely be vulnerable to challenge if the person cannot demonstrate that they know what is reasonable in the first place, or why cyclists will choose to do something for their own safety.
Completely agree - having taken a moment I though "nothing to see here" (not new offenses) BUT because we have a new focus, I'm expecting an increase in the possibility of police officers ignorant of the law (never mind the practicalities of cycling) now stopping me for imaginary offences.
And ... in fact I do break the law.
I do not always dismount the instant I reach a footway - if there's nobody about or I'd be no hassle I do occasionally ride short distances (e.g. to access the cycle racks). (Never mind that no doubt police are as confused as some councils are on whether a particular place is in fact shared use).
I don't have any speed measurement devices currently fitted, so no doubt sometimes I will be going faster than the speed limit (not specifically an offense but it's always open to the police to decide...)
Despite having low-powered lights and trying to keep them pointed appropriately I've had people say they're "way too bright". Well - they are LEDs and with some lenses because dynamo powered, and if you're in an unlit area and somehow manage to look right into one, yeah...
So that's every anti-cycling police force, organisation and person empowered to harass and intimidate cyclists on the basis of "without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road".
Along with "must have lights" but "mustn't have lights that work" - that's the 1970's EverReady 5 lumen incandescents at the back of the garage back in use then.
Yvette Cooper has plummeted in my estimation.
I've been told, by two different police officers in the same week that the exact same setup of lights is too bright and dazzles drivers, and is too dim and that's why the driver drove into me.
Schrödinger's bike lights, innit?
"or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road"
That is the part that part that made me wince as well. I also wonder how much it would in the minds of some motorists justify punishment passes and use of cars as a weapon to harass cyclists.
I hope that doesn't pass parliamentary vote as it stands, it needs to be very narrowly defined or removed altogether.
The part about lamps and lighting could be redefined to something sensible, I don't think it's often a problem in the real world. I rarely see riders who could do with pointing their lights down a bit, but some of the lights for off road riding at night are ridiculous so it might not hurt to have some legislation relating to their sale and use, but it needs to be much more specific.
i had the 'your light is too bright and aimed too high' accusation once. i asked them if their vehicle (an XC90) was in-spec regarding the aim and intensity of its dipped beams so a comparison could be made, and they chose to drive away.
The legislation on motor vehicle lamps needs to change as well, but of course it won't. Literally every new car, van and truck sold for the last 20+ years that has LED or HID/xenon is too bright. Even if that XC90 was in spec, I'm pretty sure it's more dazzling and blinding than 99.999999% of bicycle lamps.
I don't think I know any older persons who drive at night, they all consistently say they can't see against the constant glare. It's especially a problem for anyone with cataracts, they can't get NHS surgery until an optician deems them unsafe to drive, but apparently that only means unsafe to drive in daylight. I'm sure going after cyclists will tip the balance though and make it safer for everyone.
Pages