- 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
Houses of Parliament (CC licensed by Rajan Manickavasagam:Flickr)Justice for Cyclists: inquiry seeks evidence from cyclists
The All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group (APPCG) is calling for cyclists who have been involved in a collision or near miss to take part in a public inquiry amid concerns the justice system is failing injured cyclists, and letting drivers off lightly following collisions.
Citing concerns raised by constituents, and news reports, the APPCG says cyclists and their families sometimes struggle to achieve justice, from the incident itself, right through to the courts.
For their inquiry “Cycling and the Justice System” the APPCG wants to hear individual cyclists’ and organisations’ experiences before Monday 16 January, for a report to be published in the Spring.
Lobby your MP to fight Parliamentary cycling backlash
Ruth Cadbury, Labour MP for Brentford and Isleworth, and co-chair of the APPCG, said: “There’s hardly a week that goes by that I do not read or hear of a case involving a cyclist where justice appears not to have been served; drivers apparently getting off lightly when a cyclist has been killed or seriously injured.
“Our investigation will explore if these are isolated incidents or if there needs to be legislation to tighten up the procedures when cyclist’s collisions and near misses are being investigated.”
Intimidation of cyclists in UK 'unacceptable' says MP
In addition to written evidence, the inquiry will feature four oral evidence sessions, on enforcement and investigation of collisions, as well as criminal law and civil justice, and driver awareness relating to collisions and near misses of cyclists. The APPCG will also take evidence from Government departments and ministers.
Among the issues that could be investigated are policing, from prioritising road traffic law enforcement to investigations, the revision of careless and dangerous driving charging standards, the introduction of presumed liability, and a national standard for collision investigation. It will also ask whether the Highway Code needs updating to reflect an increased duty of care on drivers.
The inquiry, which will run until 28 February, is being funded by the Cyclists’ Defence Fund, and legal firms Leigh Day and Slater + Gordon. Results are expected to be published in the Spring, and will inform the APPCG’s work within Westminster to get “more people cycling in the UK, more often.”
Those who would like to submit evidence are asked to email comments or experiences to coffmana [at] parliament.uk, using a maximum of two pages of A4 and no more than five issues for the inquiry to consider. Use ‘APPCG Justice Inquiry’ as the subject of the email. The deadline for submissions is 16 January 2017.
Laura Laker is a freelance journalist with more than a decade’s experience covering cycling, walking and wheeling (and other means of transport). Beginning her career with road.cc, Laura has also written for national and specialist titles of all stripes. One part of the popular Streets Ahead podcast, she sometimes appears as a talking head on TV and radio, and in real life at conferences and festivals. She is also the author of Potholes and Pavements: a Bumpy Ride on Britain’s National Cycle Network.
Latest Comments
- mark1a 3 sec ago
I'll put you down as a no then.
- Boopop 2 hours 11 min ago
I find it deeply jarring and disappointing that Sir David agrees with these people not wanting a cycle lane. Whenever I watch one of his excellent...
- chrisonabike 2 hours 20 min ago
May need insurance, tax and a licence. No problem with the lights though.
- Simon E 2 hours 36 min ago
Yes, they look just like the Lezyne Zecto model. My club bought a couple of sets from the LBS for our midweek TTs so if someone turns up without...
- Hirsute 5 hours 8 min ago
If you can't see a %^$&ing large tractor what ^%$£"!*ing hope is there that you will see a cyclist ?...
- chrisonabike 5 hours 26 min ago
Well if you *can* interview the original riders at all surely they worked, at least?...
- David9694 5 hours 55 min ago
Live: Car plunges over wall and lands on beach rocks...
- biking59boomer 6 hours 1 min ago
Looks like yet another bike share service that's going to fold because of selfish idiots.
- brooksby 11 hours 8 min ago
And finally: I wonder how many of the "more than 3,000" signatures on that petition are actually locals, who live or work there (and are not just...
Add new comment
18 comments
You've been hit by vehicles 32 times? Are you a stuntman?
no, lol, I worked as a cycle courier in London for 10 years
severs1966 - You have been run over on 16 seperate occasions?
ok, so he can remember the number of times, he's still a novice - no need to rub it in
1. Yes, I have. Plus once on foot and once on a motorcycle. I gave up cycling in city centres because of this.
16 impacts from cars (including taxis/minicabs). 4 hospitalisations. 2 emergency surgeries. AT least one of these impacts was a deliberate attack run, an occasion I consider to have been a deliberate attempt at homicide.
On 2 occasions, the driver in question didn't wait to see if I was dead or not. On the very first of these, he waited about 30 metres down the road from the impact, until I stood up. realising that his crime was less than homicide, he immediately left.
I have also witnessed such a homicide attempt against my then wife-to-be, the offender had 2 attempts in immediate succession. There were 46 witnesses, because he drove through the centre of a club ride. The police refused to investigate despite the large number of witnesses, a clear knowledge of the number plate, and a clear description of the driver.
The police refused to investigate every single one of my attempts to report. In one case, the impact occured right in front of a cop, who spent the next 5 minutes shouting abuse at me, and refused to call an ambulance for me (a passer-by did instead). He even ORDERED me to "get out of the way of traffic" because my smashed bike and I were lying in the middle of the road. I couldn't actually stand up, but he didn't care.
This has led me to have a not-very-rosy opinion of cops.
2. Suggesting that being a victim is because of personal incompetence is EXTREMELY insulting and an appalling victim-blaming exercise. I hope you are proud of yourself.
I wonder if you'd like to say that to the families of the two friends of mine who, on separate occasions, were crushed to death by HGVs?
The main reason I got hit so often was because I used a bike as my sole form of transport, so I went everywhere on it. Dressing like a christmas tree doesn't help you when a car driver goes through a red light at huge speed.
On a lighter note, my club used to joke that they were all invulnerable to motor vehicles because I was having all the "accidents" for them.
My point was that 16 is not very many. I would guesstimate I'd had at least double that, but I guess there comes a point where you stop counting, or maybe just stop remembering.
Your stories of cops' reactions sounds a bit extreme - what city was that in?
Not really enough room for my 16 instances of being run over, and the 16 subsequent absolute stonewall refusals from the police to even start an investigation.
Never mind the total lack of interest about that existing issue I have received from the West Yorkshire Police comminiosner.
Neve mind the fact that I have asked APPCG about this general situation on Twitter, which they ignored, and when I asked why they are refusing to help, they blocked me.
The APPCG are the least useful "pro-cycling" organisation in the UK, despite being in the corridors of power itself. They are actually just a cycling club for MPs.
Once they receive the "opened floodgates" of answers to this, they will not use the information in any useful way, instead just using it as the backing to arbitrarily call for "more action for cycling", and then leave it at that; it will be even less useful than Cameron's promise of a "cycling revolution".
Of course, if any contributor complains about the non-outcome, they will be ignored; complain on a social media platform and you will be blocked.
Make no mistake, this is nothing more than a self-publicity, self-aggrandisement exercise for Ruth Cadbury and her mates. As with all MPs, the interest in doing something useful for bike riders comes far, far, far behind obtaining power for herself and then keeping it. The information harvested won't be used unless a clear connection to winning votes in her constituency appears, which it won't.
It's frustrating when politicians answer questions with lies, duplicity and fiction. It's infuriating when they actually launch an entire exercise on the basis of such duplicity.
Your mistake is in thinking the APPCG has more power than any other cycling organisation: they don't. It is made up of a minority of MPs who self-select due to personal interest in cycling: outside of a handful of cycling constituences, I imagine membership of the group is more of a vote loser! They are stonewalled and ignored as much as any other cycling org, though they genuinely do want to see government support cycling.
Which is not to say I think no-one should respond to the inquiry: I think we should. It will not be the fault of the APPCG if it doesn't go anywhere.
How about sending a link to the very next story listed on the road.cc website
http://road.cc/content/news/214797-road-rage-attacker-fined-%C2%A310000-no-driving-ban
Ok. Time to get serious. This is the best opportunity we've had to date to express our fears productively. If you've ever written any comment on this or other forums bemoaning the system that fails us every day and do not participate in this enquiry then with absolute respect you are not part of the solution and are failing to help things move towards a better tomorrow.
To us it's plainly obvious there is a problem but unless government has tangible evidence to base action upon mere hearsay and community whining will not be acted upon. We must give it now it's being asked for, no excuses I can think of would justify silence from us. Only us lose out if we fail to engage.
Lets rally together, share the link with anyone and everyone and submit calm and well written examples for consideration.
I'll be submitting mine in the next few days, along with everyone else on this site of course.
And if no one bothers, then there's no problem.
I'll be sending some examples in, with possibly a few links to road.cc.
@Lela Your pessimism about the UK's political system is understandable. But if Ruth Cadbury can stand up and say "We asked for examples, and it was like opening the floodgates..."; is capable of producing a useful synthesis of all the issues raised; can get strict liability legislation on the statute books; funding for better policing and driver education; new truck safety regulations; well, maybe your life'll be better in future.
Does the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group really has to ask? They are either ttotally inept and dull, or politically compromised; either way, they are failing themselves and cyclists.
Does the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group really has to ask? They are either ttotally inept and dull, or politically compromised; either way, they are failing themselves and cyclists.
Of course email doesn't use A4 paper but travels through the magical internet.
I do know what they mean though and I think many of us could make submissions.
"Those who would like to submit evidence are asked to email comments or experiences to coffmana [at] parliament.uk, using a maximum of two pages of A4 and no more than five issues for the inquiry to consider."
Bugger. There goes my submission.
6 point type is a wonderful thing...
I can do this quicker and more efficiently than the APPCG: The answer to the question you are investigating is yes.