- 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
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
London cyclist approaching junction.jpgGovernment announces cycle safety review in wake of Alliston case
Transport Minister Jesse Norman will today announce that the Government is launching what it says will be a wide ranging review in to cycle safety. The review has been launched in response “to a series of high profile incidents involving cyclists” according to the official press release of the announcement - thought to be a reference to the case in which cyclist Charlie Alliston who was was this week sentenced to 18 months in a young offenders institution for the death of pedestrian Kim Briggs when the pair collided in London’s Old Street in February 2016.
The statement announcing the review says the first phase will look at whether a new offence equivalent to causing death by careless or dangerous driving should be introduced for cyclists, before moving on to the question of wider improvements for cycling road safety issues.
Some of the statement announcing the review and of the structure of the review itself are likely to raise both eyebrows and hackles amongst sections of the cycling community.
Many will no doubt point out that it is over three years since the then Tory lead Coalition Government promised a review in to sentencing policy in relation to convictions for the offences of causing death by careless driving, and causing death by dangerous driving in a bid to tackle poor driving standards and make the roads safer for everyone. Despite repeated requests from Cycling UK, British Cycling, MPs, and peers the lenient sentencing review has still not published its findings and only got started in 2016 at which time the Government said it would present legislation before the end of 2017. As yet neither the review nor any new legislation have been forthcoming. In the interim over 5000 people are estimated to have been killed on UK roads - around 1200 pedestrians and over 300 cyclists.
The structure of the review is also likely to cause comment with the Government choosing to put examining the case for creating new offences of causing death by dangerous, or careless cycling ahead of actually making roads safer for pedestrians and cyclists. Some will no doubt wonder if following the Alliston case ministers want to be seen to be doing something to appease the clamour in sections of the right wing press (and ahead of the upcoming Conservative Party conference) rather than actually doing something.
If saving lives is the priority it certainly looks like an odd way of setting up the review given the grim fact that - as the minister mentions in his comments accompanying the announcement - while two pedestrians were killed by cyclists in 2015 that tragic figure is eclipsed by the 407 pedestrians killed by other vehicles that same year, and the 100 cyclists.
This line from the minister is also likely to cause comment in that it would appear to give equivalence to the amounts of pain and suffering caused by dangerous cycling and dangerous driving:
“We’ve seen the devastation that reckless cycling and driving can cause, and this review will help safeguard both Britain’s cyclists and those who share the roads with them.”
While there is no argument that any death or serious injury whatever the cause will result in needless pain and suffering it seems odd that the minister chooses to mention cycling first when in 2015 - the year she uses as an example according to Department for Transport statistics two people were killed by cyclists (the minister doesn't mention whether in either case charges were brought against the cyclists) while 1,730 people were killed by other vehicles, the vast majority in incidents involving motor vehicles - that's not to mention the 22,137 people seriously injured, again mostly in incidents involving motor vehicles.
Here are Transport Minister Jesse Norman's comments in full on the announcement of the Governments cycling safety review plus the rest of the announcement:
“Although the UK has some of the safest roads in the world, we are always looking to make them safer.
“It’s great that cycling has become so popular in recent years but we need to make sure that our road safety rules keep pace with this change.
“We already have strict laws that ensure that drivers who put people’s lives at risk are punished but, given recent cases, it is only right for us to look at whether dangerous cyclists should face the same consequences.
“We’ve seen the devastation that reckless cycling and driving can cause, and this review will help safeguard both Britain’s cyclists and those who share the roads with them.”
Since the government trebled spending on cycling between 2010 and 2017, there has been a huge increase in the number of cyclists on our roads.
In 2015, two pedestrians were killed and 96 seriously injured after being hit by a bicycle. Every year more than 100 cyclists are killed and more than 3,000 seriously injured on British roads.
The review, which will seek to improve all elements of cycle safety, will be in two phases.
The first phase will analyse the case for creating a new offence equivalent to causing death or serious injury by careless or dangerous driving to help protect both cyclists and pedestrians. This phase will be informed by independent legal advice and the conclusions are expected to be reported in the New Year.
The second phase will be a wider consultation on road safety issues relating to cycling. It will involve a range of road safety and cycling organisations, as well as the general public and will consider different ways in which safety can be further improved between cyclists, pedestrians and motorists. It will consider the rules of the road, public awareness, key safety risks and the guidance and signage for all road users.
Further details of the review will be announced shortly.
Responding to the announcement Paul Tuohy, Cycling UK’s Chief Executive said:
“The consultation on road safety issues is an opportunity to keep cyclists and pedestrians safer. Cycling UK looks forward to working with the Department for Transport on this consultation to ensure it focuses on evidenced ways that keep our most vulnerable road users safe, by addressing risks such as dangerous roads, drivers and vehicles.
“The proposed review of cycling offences needs to be carried out as part of the Government’s promised wider review of all road traffic offences and sentencing. This will ensure the justice system can deal with mistakes, carelessness, recklessness and deliberately dangerous behaviour by all road users.”
road.cc's founder and first editor, nowadays to be found riding a spreadsheet. Tony's journey in cycling media started in 1997 as production editor and then deputy editor of Total Bike, acting editor of Total Mountain Bike and then seven years as editor of Cycling Plus. He launched his first cycling website - the Cycling Plus Forum at the turn of the century. In 2006 he left C+ to head up the launch team for Bike Radar which he edited until 2008, when he co-launched the multi-award winning road.cc - finally handing on the reins in 2021 to Jack Sexty. His favourite ride is his ‘commute’ - which he does most days inc weekends and he’s been cycle-commuting since 1994. His favourite bikes are titanium and have disc brakes, though he'd like to own a carbon bike one day.
Latest Comments
- chrisonabike 6 hours 51 min ago
To be fair the Germans didn't give everyone much notice they were done with the war in November. Could have saved everyone tooling up for the Big...
- Blackthorne 7 hours 32 min ago
I disagree, the lucky few who get to wear one of these will certainly produce more mass.
- Dnnnnnn 8 hours 7 min ago
That wasn't what my original post was about - it was about the NHS as it is now. If you're going to be run over by an ambulance tomorrow, there are...
- imajez 8 hours 31 min ago
I prefer the not haveing to faff with brakes in first place, which is the typical reality for hydraulic systems.
- Backladder 11 hours 35 min ago
I'm sure the met are merely waiting for it to build up to a critical mass and then they'll swoop in and confiscate and crush them all then there...
- qwerty360 13 hours 27 min ago
Reality - I expect most first year lectures have more than 80 students at them; So 80 bicycle spaces is a rounding error on potential demand....
- whosatthewheel 15 hours 6 min ago
Especially that it is a traffic light controlled junction so he must have been completely blinded not to see the red on his left hand side and a...
- biking59boomer 15 hours 37 min ago
Send the details to UK network rail and Transport for Wales as well!
- KDee 16 hours 26 min ago
So that Pulsium from Lapierre has a 415mm wheelbase? I assume it's on 20 inch wheels then!
- ktache 17 hours 22 min ago
It's been one hell of a ride Cav, thanks for letting us share some of it. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/nov/09/mark-cavendish-final-race-...
Add new comment
117 comments
This country.
Alliston was prosecuted under an existing law and imprisoned for 18 months. As a reaction to that, a legal review would suggest that the authorities feel that his conviction should have been for a more serious crime and his punishment should have been harsher. Which is ludicrous.
I've been had off by a zombie phone-obsessed ped, resulting in a "sore elbow" for the ped and the usual road rash for me. Had I died, I wonder what law the police would have prosecuted the ped under? If at all, obviously.
My 3 point plan for road safety improvements :-
Reduce all speed limits by 10 mph (excluding existing 20mph zones) and fine anyone who breaks these limits (roaming speed camera checks) one month's salary and 3 points on their license.
a 2 year driving ban for using a mobile phone behind the wheel.
Implement presumed liability for any accident involving a car and a pedestrian/cyclist, and increase minimum sentencing guidelines (and longer ban lengths) where evidence that the driver (or cyclist) was at fault/driving dangerously, and accept dashcam/handlebar camera footage as evidence in prosecutions.
I drive quite a lot (more than I'd prefer) and I'd be happy to accept these kinds of rules (afterall it's just stricter enforcement of laws that already exist) to ensure greater safety when travelling by any means. People lobbying against changes to the law are demonstrating an intention to break the law surely?
I'd settle for the current careless/dangerous driving laws to be replaced with careless/dangerous road use laws. ie extend the current road laws to cover all road users, be they motorists, cyclists, skate boarders or pedestrians crossing the road.
The law change would make little material difference to cyclists who already ride considerately (that's 99.999% of us right?), or pedestrians who look before crossing the road. The press could then move on to another of their pet click-bait subjects and the focus could move back to making an actual difference to road safety.
And totally driven by the media. There may be libertarians in the Government but as current events are showing the media wind up the populace who the Government then respond to.
So much anti cycling sentiment is now driven by the media. They have to try to be PC about how they report other "minorities". So we're an easy target.
Don't worry, the daily mail has a completley unbiased and open account of the topic.......errr no
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4904570/Cyclists-mow-pedestrians...
Libertarians don't make me laugh.
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department/amp
Librarians don't make me laugh.
Just this weekend I was taken out by an idiot in a BMW that didn't look. Forced me right off the road causing damage to my bike and personal injury. He stopped long enough to ensure I didn't damage his car and to scream at me asking 'did you hit my car?', then he fucked off without even asking if I was ok. Rang 101 to report a hit and run but was told that because he didn't actually hit me and only forced me to crash its only classed as me falling off my bike so they weren't interested. Not even a reference number.
The police/government aren't interested in our safety.
Do you know what... bring the laws in line with motor vehicles... i'm fine with that.
For a start, it'll provide clearer guidelines about how to judge certain instances. For instance, how is anyone going to ever get off a case of 'wanton and furious cycling'? What current jury would say not guilty when they see anyone cycling on a road as crazy!
So thats a positive.
Also, its a non-event. More clearer, arguably stricter but potentially not, laws for an extremely rare event. The 1-3 cyclists this will effect are unlikely to feel a difference.
And its for that second reason why these reforms will be passed. Their relative pointlessness means that they'll be no biggy to bring in.
what worries me more is the review of cycling safety being included at the same time. I can visualise no circumstance where this will be a genuine review of cycling safety in the current climate, more an exercise to identify the easiest way to publically show greater control o cycling (in the name of safety).
So... I will suggest it'll be one of more of the following;
- Mandatory helmet use (easy enough to implement)
- Cycling bans from all dual carriageways
- Mandatory day lighting
- Mandatory use of hi-viz equipment
What fun...
Jimmy Ray, I think you could be right. So it's time to be heard on any of the media you use such as comments in articles the national and local press, social media, writing to your MP etc. Just make sure it's the other lot that are abusive , not you. I was pleased to see that some of the recent comments to the Mail's article
http://go.redirectingat.com/?id=80023X1531141&site=road.cc&xs=1&isjs=1&u...
were actually quite helpful. So someone's making a start.
If you make your point no-one else will do it for you.
Is it illegal to send bags of faeces through the Royal Mail?
Taking cues from media-generated frenzy directed against cyclists that I observed on the BBC this morning, perhaps we should lobby for pedestrians to wear mandatory helmets to pritect tgem should they walk out in front of us and compulsory hi-viz clothing to make them easier to spot. This might also reduce pedestrian/jogger, pedestrian/pedestrian and pedestrian/skateboard collisions thought I doubt it would make any difference to the number run over by motorista...
The interest in the Alliston case also contrasts sharply to the lack of interest in last weeks incident in Sureey where a driver ploughed into a bunch of people walking in an unlit country lane and killed some of them. Not even arrested. Hard to see how the driver was not culpable as thet were clearly driving too quickly to stop when presented with the need to do so. No doubt this will be a "momentary distraction" and points at worst..
Original text of the letter from Jesse Norman, Under Secretary of State for Roads, to British Cycling, Cycling UK, Bicycle Association, Sustrans, Will Norman - TfL walking and cycling commissioner, Chris Boardman – TfGM walking and cycling commissioner, National Courier & Despatch Association, Institute of Couriers and the Cycle to Work Alliance
The original letter, hosted on Google Drive.
This is not going to turn out well for the Right Hon. Mr Norman.
So a cyclist (admittedly a bell end) kills a pedestrian who walks out onto the road without looking, gets an 18 month custodial sentence..... yet a lorry driver (professional driver) runs a red light and kills a mother and daughter crossing at a pedestrian crossing - gets 14 months........
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4008720/Harrowing-dashcam-footag...
Apologies but this news story was from the Daily Heil
Cycling home from work last night my kids were nearly orphaned by a driver that overtook me at the last possible second to force his way between me and a pedestrian island before slamming his brakes on and immediately turning left - and that includes me moving into primary position having left the earlier cycle lane to try and prevent exactly this happening:
https://goo.gl/maps/3gR85Uo7KRo
Must have saved him all of 5 seconds.
Really wish I'd had a camera running. Didn't get his number plate and really couldn't be bothered as nothing will happen to him anyway. In hindsight, I wish I'd followed him to get it and asked him what the hell he was thinking - he must live near there.
Absolutely no excuse for his behaviour, but I'm starting to think that drivers consider it some sort of sport!
We have had numerous pedestrians, using the public transport networks, and drivers going about commiting terrorism acts killing and hurting innocent people including children.
So pedestrians and drivers should be stopped and searched as potential suspects and assessed what danger they pose to the public.
No reports of cyclists involved in any such acts but are at risk from dangerous boyracer drivers, furiously revving their engines, swerving, speeding, blocking up roads and spewing out their poisionous fumes and disgusting black smoke causing cancer and harming children in particular.
Despite cyclists facing all these dangers and further dangers from pedestrians knocking off cyclists from their saddles, they still persue witch-hunt against cyclists just to satisfy now even more poweful anti-cylist lobbyists of mainly lazy fat drivers.
While sad that people get injured or killed a lot on the road..… more rules to create more fines for the government to collect more money to waste... is probably waht the end result will be
Only if there were a way to ensure most jurors on cycling cases had the sort of recent and substantial experience of cycling that most will have of driving. Otherwise convicting cyclists will almost certainly be a lot easier. Or we could, you know, just leave the law alone rather than worrying over one event.
You're often better off filling in an online form to report the incident. You can check all the relevant bits about fearing for your safety and that way it can be treated as an assault if you've got any camera evidence to back you up.
"It will also look at ways to make Britain’s roads safer for responsible cyclists."
Who's responsibility is it to decide whether a cyclist is responsible? And if deemed irresponsible does that mean they can run you off the road with impunity?
it's positively encouraged when you reach the age of 60 and do a bowel cancer test.
St Chris will tear him a new one.
Will Norman will issue 2,000 words that say zilch and do less.
I note there's also fuss about the need to restrict the sale of these dangerous brakeless bikes. Fair enough, they've been responsible to the deaths of at least one person over the last 10 years.
In contrast, diesel cars have only killed about 200,000 people across Europe over that time. So clearly there's no urgency there.
1>>200,000 in motorist-maths.
My current favourite (?) WTF news story is the van driver who went up onto the pavement to park, killing a young girl playing on said pavement. His defence was that he couldn't see anything so assumed it was all fine. He was left to go free from court.
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/delivery-driver-who-m...
Unless you could prove how close the car was to you with your video evidence the police won't be interested..... somewhere in the trial here is my experience of exactly that scenario. Police response was pretty much "and what do you expect us to do"
In practice I suspect that is exactly what it will mean.
This is at the core of the whole discussion. Motor vehicles either directly or indirectly kill hundreds of times more people every year than cyclists, but because we have built a society which is pretty much completely dependent upon them - or seems to be, in the eyes of the average Joe or Josephine - then we can't make any major changes and address the real issues because it will inconvenience or annoy too many people. Instead, we'll just pi$$ around and fiddle at the edges and the minorities so we look like we're doing Something Serious.
(Google the picture about congestion with cars driven by internal combustion engines vs cars driven by electric motors. They look the same, and that's before you get onto questions about the required infrastructure for all that charging and generating all that additional electricity. (Sorry, thats a bit OT)).
I believe in being pro-active about my health. And, in order not to burden the NHS I am going to start sending some out for review and inspection from a selected shortlist of people that I have been compiling. They're not all doctors, but judging by their own public production of, and affinity with, effluvia I have every confidence that they're the right people to receive samples.
And this staggering case, where a lorry driver who was blind in one eye failed to notice an elderly couple, ran them over and killed them; nine months suspended sentence. Some utterly incredible posts from the driver and his daughter, literally beyond belief.
"Family's shock as half-blind lorry driver who killed couple walks free"
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/familys-shock-as-halfblind-lorry-...
I certainly hope this review will be thorough and conscientious.
Pages