Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Prime Minister urged to extend dangerous driving law to cyclists

Theresa May says Department for Transport will look at issue in wake of Charlie Alliston case

Theresa May has been urged today at Prime Minister's Questions to make extend the law on dangerous driving to include cyclists.

The appeal followed the conviction last month of Charlie Alliston, aged 20, for causing bodily harm through wanton and furious driving in connection with the death of Kim Briggs in February last year.

Mrs Briggs, 41, had been crossing London's Old Street when she was in a collision with Alliston, sustaining fatal head injuries.The cyclist had been riding a fixed wheel bike with no front brake, meaning it was not legal for use on the road.

Heidi Alexander, the Labour MP for Lewisham East, the constituency Mrs Briggs lived in, asked the Prime Minister: "Does she agree that the law on dangerous driving should be extended to included offences by cyclists and that the 1861 offence of wanton and furious driving, on which the prosecution had to rely in this case, is hopelessly outdated and wholly inadequate?"

Mrs May said that Ms Alexander had "raised an important issue. We should welcome the fact that the prosecution team were able to find legislation under which they were able to take a prosecution, but she makes a general point about ensuring that our legislation keeps up to date with developments, and I am sure that the Secretary of State for Transport will look at the issue," she added.

An Old Bailey jury cleared Alliston of manslaughter but found him guilty of the wanton and furious driving charge.

The offence, which falls under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, carries a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment.

Alliston, from Bermondsey, has been told he could face prison when he is sentenced later this month.

After the cyclist was convicted, Matthew Briggs, the victim's husband, called for the Road Traffic Act to be updated so that cyclists would be subject to similar laws as motorists.

> Husband of woman killed by cyclist calls for changes to law on dangerous cycling

Following the jury's  verdicts, Duncan Dollimore, head of advocacy and campaigns at Cycling UK, predicted tThose hat their would be calls for  “laws on irresponsible cycling should be aligned with the laws on irresponsible driving,” but said that legislation needed to be updated for all road users.

"The fact that he has been convicted of an offence dating back to legislation from 1861, drafted in archaic language, will doubtless lead some to argue that the laws on irresponsible cycling should be aligned with the laws on irresponsible driving," he said.

"The reality is that the way in which the justice system deals with mistakes, carelessness, recklessness and deliberately dangerous behaviour by all road users has long been in need of review.

"In 2014 the Government acknowledged this when announcing a full review of all motoring offences and penalties, but then waited three years to launch a limited consultation last year which closed six months ago, with silence ever since.

He added: "To ensure that there is consistency with charging decisions, and with how dangerous behaviour on or roads is dealt with, it is vital that the Government ends the delay, and gets on with the wide scale review that politicians from all sides, victims' families and various roads safety organisations have tirelessly demanded.”

The charge of causing death by careless driving, which has a maximum penalty of five years, may be brought in cases where the standard of driving "fell below the standard expected of a careful and competent driver."

The more serious charge of causing death by dangerous driving, punishable by up to 14 years' imprisonment, is brought when the standard of driving "fell far below the standard expected of a careful and competent driver."

Those and other offences relating to motorists fall under the Road Traffic Act 1988, as amended by subsequent legislation.

 

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

48 comments

Avatar
Mungecrundle | 7 years ago
3 likes

We live in a society where some people are so enraged at hindrance to their progress that they drive at and abuse school crossing patrol operatives or whatever lollipop ladies are called these days.

Pressing the button at a pedestrian crossing is the sort of thing that Kim Jong Un would do.

Avatar
brooksby replied to Mungecrundle | 7 years ago
1 like
Mungecrundle wrote:

Pressing the button at a pedestrian crossing is the sort of thing that Kim Jong Un would do.

While we're at it, don't forget those *monsters* who step out on a zebra crossing...

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to brooksby | 7 years ago
1 like
brooksby wrote:
Mungecrundle wrote:

Pressing the button at a pedestrian crossing is the sort of thing that Kim Jong Un would do.

While we're at it, don't forget those *monsters* who step out on a zebra crossing...

Indeed, had abuse for that many times, whereas being shouted at for pressing a crossing button was a new one.

Thing is, if motorists would reliably stop at zebra crossings, we wouldn't need the light-controlled ones. The latter waste far more time for both parties than zebras would, because the ped has to wait an age for the lights to respond, and drivers often end up having to stop at an empty crossing where the lights have finally changed several minutes after the pedestrian crossed.

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 7 years ago
0 likes
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
brooksby wrote:
Mungecrundle wrote:

Pressing the button at a pedestrian crossing is the sort of thing that Kim Jong Un would do.

While we're at it, don't forget those *monsters* who step out on a zebra crossing...

Indeed, had abuse for that many times, whereas being shouted at for pressing a crossing button was a new one.

Thing is, if motorists would reliably stop at zebra crossings, we wouldn't need the light-controlled ones. The latter waste far more time for both parties than zebras would, because the ped has to wait an age for the lights to respond, and drivers often end up having to stop at an empty crossing where the lights have finally changed several minutes after the pedestrian crossed.

Except where the crossing is very busy a d a zebra would result in extended stoppages where a pedestrian is almost across when the next arrives and starts crossing. Probably most commonly an issue at railway stations when a trainload of people arrive at once. But otherwise zebras are far better.

Avatar
Mungecrundle | 7 years ago
0 likes

Been shopping in Cambridge today with some mates, the city centre was full of pedestrians and cyclists and for the most part they just seem to rub along in a fairly relaxed manner. Pedestrians wander about in the road, cyclists ding their bells and weave through them. Nobody seems to worry too much and the expectation of having to stop keeps the relative speeds pretty low.

 

Or so I thought..

 

As we were walking along the pavement a somewhat butch looking girl, in her 20s, at a guess rode her bike diagonally from the road and onto the pavement, heading for a narrow walkway between some buildings. In doing so she ran into a gentleman walking the other way. As if that was not bad enough she then proceeded to yell at the poor guy she had just run into shouting "are you f***ing blind, do you you want to get run over?" The gentlemen in question started to look like he was going to do something rather ungentlemanly and before it turned ugly we sort of stepped in. The cyclist was absolutely out of order but instead of simply apologising she really seemed to want to make something of it. It was all rather ugly and uneccesary.

"That's why people don't like cyclists" said one of my friends. 

I pointed out that the agressive person was simply an agressive person who happened to be riding a bike and that she represented only herself and not cyclists in general.

But you can see why being on a bicycle is tagged as the identifying feature of that person. I hate that we all get lumped together as some homogenous group rather than seen as individuals responsible for our own actions and not those of morons who happen to share a transport choice.

 

Avatar
davel replied to Mungecrundle | 7 years ago
1 like
Mungecrundle wrote:

But you can see why being on a bicycle is tagged as the identifying feature of that person.

That's the thing: I really can't.

I'm not being obtuse or deliberately dim, and I'm not denying that's a typical response, but an aggressive prick on foot or in a car won't elicit a 'that's why people don't like pedestrians/drivers' response.

So... My best guess is that there are relatively few of 'us', and there's been such shitty media coverage of cyclists and the treatment of cyclists (eg in the justice system) that it's OK to give 'us' a kicking, solely over a particular mode of transport. I'd like to think I'm fairly rational, and that there are logical explanations for what seem to be double standards all over the place, but it smells a bit like persecution to me (can you be persecuted over mode of transport? Train passengers probably feel shat on, and isn't there a permanent war on the motorist?).

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to Mungecrundle | 7 years ago
2 likes
Mungecrundle wrote:

But you can see why being on a bicycle is tagged as the identifying feature of that person. I hate that we all get lumped together as some homogenous group rather than seen as individuals responsible for our own actions and not those of morons who happen to share a transport choice.

 

But your anecdote is very similar to what I get from motorists, including as a pedestrian. E.g. just yesterday I got abuse from a driver for the 'crime' of daring to press the button at a lights-controlled crossing, thus leading to him having to stop.

People never seem to blame drivers as a group for that sort of behaviour. Once a group is numerous enough they become invisible. It's a real-world superpower.

Avatar
brooksby replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 7 years ago
2 likes
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

E.g. just yesterday I got abuse from a driver for the 'crime' of daring to press the button at a lights-controlled crossing, thus leading to him having to stop.

I've had that happen before, and never really understood the complaint (if I'd waited until there were no cars before pressing the button, I wouldn't have needed to press the button because there were no cars and I could have just crossed...).

Avatar
boxrick | 7 years ago
0 likes

Some of those BBC comments were painful  to read, it makes me so sad the majority of people think this way. I also get a similar spout of junk when I speak to people about cycling. 

A real shame

Avatar
eltonioni | 7 years ago
1 like

The government has zero appetite to deliberately make life more difficult for cyclists. Here's what really happened;

Opposition MP planned to get herself in the news to virtue signal without making an effort.

Prime Minister kicks it into the long grass with no intention of going looking for it later.

Avatar
davel replied to eltonioni | 7 years ago
3 likes
eltonioni wrote:

The government has zero appetite to deliberately make life more difficult for cyclists.

When you've got a transport minister who doors a cyclist, by mistake, and then suggests the cyclist (the minister not having seen him) was going too quickly, zero appetite or effort is required to actually make cyclists' lives more difficult.

The current trend is pretty shit for 'us'. All the fatties and motons need to do to 'win', is keep things on the present trajectory.

(totally agree with your point about the political noise and response, though)

Avatar
David9694 | 7 years ago
0 likes

On the BBC site comments 555 and 556 juxtaposed are two of my faves.  I wonder what all the removed ones were like?

God, I'm so winded by the Alliston case; I'm sorry that the lady died.

Isn't it pretty unusual to get questions in the House when someone is killed on the roads?  Although not as a knee-jerk to Alliston, I'm not averse to a reasonable update in the furious riding law.

 I guess it's not made the priority list til now because actual incidents are pretty rare. We seem to accept the hundreds of motor related deaths each year  - many aren't even news.

I did a bit of law many years ago.  For criminal charges, you have the actus reus, the criminal act, and the mens reus, the intent, or motive.  The mens can, in descending order, be malice afore-thought, the red  mist/ angry in the moment, negligent or careless,  unintentional, or plain unfortunate despite taking due care.  The way motoring law seems to be operating is that an assumption is made that everything that happens is always at the unintentional end of things.  Music blaring/SMIDSY.

Back to the BBC news story comments, it's useful-ish to get a sense of the anti-cycle comments, however grossly, grossly mis-informed or lazy we consider them to be.  Not using  those high quality cycle lanes, where allegedly available (my first teenage smash was with another bike on a cycle path) and the vey presence of cycles lanes, sacrificing space clearly needed for cars, etc are two such gripes.

And there are SO MANY of these springing-up everywhere, aren't there, and so thumpingly expensive per kilometre to build - I could give you 10 miles of greenfield dual carriageway for that, and I'll throw in a graded interchange.

The VED argument keeps on being trotted out (extract from the .gov website below just to lay that old one to rest -again) and of course there are no untaxed, uninsured vehicles and no drivers out there with either penalty points, a ban, or no license at all - do tell me if I'm being unfair here.  

One correspondent wants us to have and display a certificate of bike roadworthiness - just like motor vehicles always have done.  (Verging on New Forest cycling code now  - keep those wee stops discreet next weekend, guys and gals!) These things are totally necessary, given what a menace, with our freebie cycle lanes we all are.

There are some people popping on the BBC comments trying to be sensible and reasonable, so well done you for trying.

 

The rates explained

The first vehicle tax rate is based on CO2 emissions.

When the first vehicle tax period has ended (this is either after 12 months or if the vehicle is sold or transferred within the first 12 months), the amount of tax that needs to be paid depends on the type of vehicle. The rates are:

£140 a year for petrol or diesel vehicles
£130 a year for alternative fuel vehicles (hybrids, bioethanol and LPG)
£0 a year for vehicles with zero CO2 emissions

 

 

Avatar
dassie | 7 years ago
3 likes

Stats in perspective from interweb.

Table 1: Number of deaths where a pedestrian was injured in collision with
(a) a pedal cycle, or (b) a car, pick-up truck or van, England and Wales,
2006-2010

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Deaths (persons) |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Year | (a) Pedestrian hit by | (b) Pedestrian hit by |
| | pedal cycle | car, pick-up or truck |
|------+------------------------------+----------------------------------|
| 2006 | 3 | 233 |
|------+------------------------------+----------------------------------|
| 2007 | 6 | 267 |
|------+------------------------------+----------------------------------|
| 2008 | 3 | 247 |
|------+------------------------------+----------------------------------|
| 2009 | 0 | 141 |
|------+------------------------------+----------------------------------|
| 2010 | 2 | 123 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

(ONS)

 

Avatar
peted76 | 7 years ago
1 like

There are some right beauts on the beeb comment.. could keep me amused for hours!

I've noted these little gems for our amusment,  before having to get back to earning a living.. 

 

"Cyclists are a major traffic hazard."

 

"I saw a track bike only last week weaving in and out of the traffic and then jumping a red light. I also walked on a shared path only last evening. Not one cyclist passed me at the recommended width of 1.5 meters. Some must have going 30 mph and some actually brushed past me."

 

"A cure for this would be to insist cyclists have insurance and some form of number plate.
If they could be tracked down after ploughing through a red light or shouting a load of obscenities at anyone who gets in their way, they might think twice about doing it?" (I'm lovign the use of the word 'cure' here)

 

"A reckless Cyclist can be as lethal to a Pedestrian as a Reckless Vehicle Driver is to a Cyclist. There should be no exceptions."

 

"They should use the opportunity to include some legislation to protect pedestrians and other road users (and countryside users) from dangerous horse riders too. Too many hunt riders use their horses as weapons with no legal comeback for the people the injure." (Where does this person live?!)

 

"These manic, arrogant cyclists are a danger and nuisance to pedestrians and road users.
They need to be brought under control by tougher legislation.
Having Green goals and aspirations is not a licence to cycle anywhere or anyhow you like."

 

"I dream of a world without any cyclists....."

 

"Living in the country I'm sick of being at the mercy of stupid, fat, middle aged men, wearing Lycra, riding three abreast down narrow country lanes. Creating massive tailbacks and 20 minutes delays, whilst clearly taking a perverse pleasure out of pissing off the local car owning fascists. 
What is the fascination of looking like a badly stuffed sausage, ED and varicose veins?"

 

"why we pander to grown men who chose to ride children's toys to work is beyond me."

 

"@43 you don't see them wearing the ridiculous lycra that the cyclists do here, us car drivers should not have to see the awful sights that are out there. Sir Chris Hoy was right no one over 8st should be allowed to wear lycra."

 

Avatar
poppa | 7 years ago
2 likes

The cyclist was clearly in the wrong and the outcome was tragic, however the media and public response does seem out of proportion. From the last data I could find, for 2013,  33 pedestrians *every month* are killed in road traffic accidents  (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/annual-road-fatalities). Maybe one or two of those drivers were just as irresponsible as the cyclist in question?

 

Also, as an aside, whilst the number of pedestrian, motorcyle and car passenger deaths have pretty much halved since 2000, the number of cyclist deaths has not reduced by a much lesser amount, about 15%.  That needs some work IMO.

 

Avatar
Canyon48 | 7 years ago
4 likes

Unfortunately, it really does make me despair that there is such a massive public reaction to a single cyclist being an idiot on a fixie - yet there is so little reaction to the regular deaths of vulnerable road users due to the inattention or incompetence.

Avatar
KevM | 7 years ago
0 likes

I say just let them do it. Let's be honest, it's like any other law. It's only a problem if you break it, and let's be honest again, the only "cyclists" that ride dangerously, are the knob ends that aren't really cyclists but give us all a bad name.

Avatar
STiG911 replied to KevM | 7 years ago
1 like
KevM wrote:

I say just let them do it. Let's be honest, it's like any other law. It's only a problem if you break it, and let's be honest again, the only "cyclists" that ride dangerously, are the knob ends that aren't really cyclists but give us all a bad name.

This is the thing . At the end of the day he was only proseuted because his bike didn't have a front brake. The actual manner of his riding wasn't dangerous because he was where he was supposed to be - in the road, but that doesn't stop morons from claiming that cycles doing over a given speed (I think it's 15mph this week) are speeding and therefore dangerous. People are stupid.

 

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to KevM | 7 years ago
4 likes
KevM wrote:

I say just let them do it. Let's be honest, it's like any other law. It's only a problem if you break it, and let's be honest again, the only "cyclists" that ride dangerously, are the knob ends that aren't really cyclists but give us all a bad name.

Nice parody. Got all the cliches in.

Of course it's just like any other law - it will be enforced highly selectively in line with the general balance-of-power in society.

Avatar
beezus fufoon replied to KevM | 7 years ago
5 likes
KevM wrote:

I say just let them do it. Let's be honest, it's like any other law. It's only a problem if you break it, and let's be honest again, the only "cyclists" that ride dangerously, are the knob ends that aren't really cyclists but give us all a bad name.

surely it was your parents who chose Kev?

Avatar
davel | 7 years ago
1 like

God, the comments on that BBC article are depressing.

I look forward to dangerous and careless jogging, then the many reactionaries who only seem to be tolerant of obesity and diesel fumes will have won.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to davel | 7 years ago
0 likes
davel wrote:

God, the comments on that BBC article are depressing. I look forward to dangerous and careless jogging, then the many reactionaries who only seem to be tolerant of obesity and diesel fumes will have won.

I don't recall the same kind of witch-hunt after that jogger nearly pushed a pedestrian under a bus. I get the feeling that Labour as a party doesn't really like bikes and just does whatever their big-oil overlords tell them to do.

Avatar
stemps replied to hawkinspeter | 7 years ago
2 likes
hawkinspeter wrote:

I don't recall the same kind of witch-hunt after that jogger nearly pushed a pedestrian under a bus. 

Really? I'm guessing you're not a runner, then. Adam Boulton called for running to be banned outside of parks and gyms. Jan Moir in the Mail used anti-runner jealousy as a springboard for attacking cyclists for being fit and having muscular legs and one idiot in the Telegraph who had previously written articles about how brilliant running is wrote a piece claiming running makes you an aggressive sociopath. 

Avatar
davel replied to stemps | 7 years ago
2 likes
stemps wrote:
hawkinspeter wrote:

I don't recall the same kind of witch-hunt after that jogger nearly pushed a pedestrian under a bus. 

Really? I'm guessing you're not a runner, then. Adam Boulton called for running to be banned outside of parks and gyms. Jan Moir in the Mail used anti-runner jealousy as a springboard for attacking cyclists for being fit and having muscular legs and one idiot in the Telegraph who had previously written articles about how brilliant running is wrote a piece claiming running makes you an aggressive sociopath. 

That was the pits, and an excuse for all the jealousy and intolerance to be aimed at, basically, anyone who exercises outdoors.

It just screamed 'do not let these unhealthy bigots anywhere near policy'. Then you look at the nonsense that comes out of some MPs...

Avatar
SingleSpeed replied to davel | 7 years ago
2 likes
davel wrote:

then the many reactionaries who only seem to be tolerant of obesity and diesel fumes will have won.

 

They'll never believe you because to them it doesn't exist they walk into a car put the A/C on and arrive in a car park aftrer the 'traffic' was being held up by pedestrians and cyclists.

Avatar
alansmurphy | 7 years ago
3 likes

After us, pedestrians.

We need to all wear cameras and report every incident. I must have Rode with my eyes closed before or just accepted it but every single day I am noticing a pedestrian on their phone or dancing away, stepping out ahead of me. I'm doing very well not to call them what they are...

Avatar
David9694 | 7 years ago
3 likes

On the BBC site comments 555 and 556 juxtaposed are two of my faves.  I wonder what all the removed ones were like?

God, I'm so winded by the Alliston case; I'm sorry that the lady died.

Isn't it pretty unusual to get questions in the House when someone is killed on the roads?  Although not as a knee-jerk to Alliston, I'm not averse to a reasonable update in the furious riding law.

 I guess it's not made the priority list til now because actual incidents are pretty rare. We seem to accept the hundreds of motor related deaths each year  - many aren't even news.

I did a bit of law many years ago.  For criminal charges, you have the actus reus, the criminal act, and the mens reus, the intent, or motive.  The mens can, in descending order, be malice afore-thought, the red  mist/ angry in the moment, negligent or careless,  unintentional, or plain unfortunate despite taking due care.  The way motoring law seems to be operating is that an assumption is made that everything that happens is always at the unintentional end of things.  Music blaring/SMIDSY.

Back to the BBC news story comments, it's useful-ish to get a sense of the anti-cycle comments, however grossly, grossly mis-informed or lazy we consider them to be.  Not using  those high quality cycle lanes, where allegedly available (my first teenage smash was with another bike on a cycle path) and the vey presence of cycles lanes, sacrificing space clearly needed for cars, etc are two such gripes.

And there are SO MANY of these springing-up everywhere, aren't there, and so thumpingly expensive per kilometre to build - I could give you 10 miles of greenfield dual carriageway for that, and I'll throw in a graded interchange.

The VED argument keeps on being trotted out (extract from the .gov website below just to lay that old one to rest -again) and of course there are no untaxed, uninsured vehicles and no drivers out there with either penalty points, a ban, or no license at all - do tell me if I'm being unfair here.  

One correspondent wants us to have and display a certificate of bike roadworthiness - just like motor vehicles always have done.  (Verging on New Forest cycling code now  - keep those wee stops discreet next weekend, guys and gals!) These things are totally necessary, given what a menace, with our freebie cycle lanes we all are.

There are some people popping on the BBC comments trying to be sensible and reasonable, so well done you for trying.

 

The rates explained

The first vehicle tax rate is based on CO2 emissions.

When the first vehicle tax period has ended (this is either after 12 months or if the vehicle is sold or transferred within the first 12 months), the amount of tax that needs to be paid depends on the type of vehicle. The rates are:

£140 a year for petrol or diesel vehicles
£130 a year for alternative fuel vehicles (hybrids, bioethanol and LPG)
£0 a year for vehicles with zero CO2 emissions

 

 

Avatar
matthewn5 | 7 years ago
7 likes

What a fucking joke. Government stuffing up negotiations that are crucial for the future of the country, but Labour MPs pick on bloody cyclists. You couldn't make it up.

Avatar
exilegareth replied to matthewn5 | 7 years ago
4 likes
matthewn5 wrote:

What a fucking joke. Government stuffing up negotiations that are crucial for the future of the country, but Labour MPs pick on bloody cyclists. You couldn't make it up.

New Labour always had a socially authoritarian strand of thought that believed every problem could be addressed by making up a new law. These are the people who exist in every political party, convinced you can prevent dog fouling by introducing new penalties, then, when they don't work, by penalizing dog walking without carrying a dog poo bag. Even I can figure out that the same people who don't clear up after their dogs now will simply carry two bags so they don;lt get penalized in future - the same two bags that never get used because they'll let their dogs shit anywhere when no-one's looking.

 

I may be getting old and grumpy.

Avatar
ConcordeCX replied to exilegareth | 7 years ago
4 likes
exilegareth wrote:
matthewn5 wrote:

What a fucking joke. Government stuffing up negotiations that are crucial for the future of the country, but Labour MPs pick on bloody cyclists. You couldn't make it up.

New Labour always had a socially authoritarian strand of thought that believed every problem could be addressed by making up a new law. These are the people who exist in every political party, convinced you can prevent dog fouling by introducing new penalties, then, when they don't work, by penalizing dog walking without carrying a dog poo bag. Even I can figure out that the same people who don't clear up after their dogs now will simply carry two bags so they don;lt get penalized in future - the same two bags that never get used because they'll let their dogs shit anywhere when no-one's looking.

 

I may be getting old and grumpy.

go outside and have a shit, you'll feel a lot better for it.

Pages

Latest Comments