- 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
- Cross country mountain bikes
- Tubeless valves
- 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
- Rendel Harris 45 min 54 sec ago
He made it to the finish abalone, picking off some notable scallops on the way - probably earned a few squid too.
- w61 4 hours 17 min ago
Agreed. Filmores work great and also look less clunky than alternatives.
- David9694 5 hours 17 min ago
Six-year-old's lucky escape as car flips in three-vehicle M6 crash...
- Simon E 6 hours 4 min ago
I appreciate the thought but it would be far better if they both (and others) were still alive to inspire us. Just think how many more lives they...
- NR23Derek 5 hours 33 min ago
Why are the shared use paths so narrow? Norfolk County Council says "the land wasn't available". In fact, what they mean is they built up to the...
- belugabob 6 hours 42 min ago
I would question whether 96% of drivers have heard of (or understand) the 2022 updates to the highway code, never mind conform to them.
- Jogle 7 hours 33 min ago
I think that the could be distilled to "I don't like cycling and so neither should you. And I don't like buses. Now stop wasting my money on...
- David9694 8 hours 11 min ago
was planning on getting some WD-40 / GT 85 rivalry going, looked it up and now mind blown! 🤯
- snooks 8 hours 46 min ago
Holds it in place better no doubt. It's not complicated.
Add new comment
117 comments
"Official figures show that 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." I love how the Daily Fail actually quoted these figures in their article yet still managed to completely miss the bigger picture.
Well, gosh, my mind's put at rest now. I'm glad this is going to be a serious look at road safety and not just cycle-bashing...
This. One law, for all road users. And rather than 'causing death', it should be 'causing danger of death or injury. Penalties to be determined according to the severity of the danger caused.
No road users should be behaving in a way which causes foreseeable danger to others. And people shouldn't get away with it simply because they got lucky and didn't happen to actually kill or maim anyone - otherwise the chances are that they'll just keep doing it until they do.
FFS, I couldn't even bring myself to read the whole article. It is so depressingly predictable.
Seems we've taken a major wrong turn somewhere and now we are completely lost. Somehow we need to wipe the slate clean and start again!
Make it a condition of the UK driving test that motorists first of all HAVE to pass a cycling proficiency test by demonstrating their competence to ride a bike for at least half an hour through real-life urban traffic.Throw in some multi-lane roundabouts and turning right off dual carriageways for good measure.
If your riding is so poor that it causes potential danger to yourself or unnecessarily impedes other traffic then you don't get to sit your driving test.Until you pass.
Only exemptions would be for those unable to ride a bike through some disability.
And the driving test needs to be made harder. Far harder than it is at the moment.
It can be no mistake that the first part of this review looks into penalising cyclists first. This is a very serious threat to the hobby I love.
Very, very serious.
Quick show of hands: how many people think that this review will end up saying that there's no place for human-powered vehicles on modern roads...?
Almost certainly the endgame. And it's not only about 'hobbies' - it's also about throwing away one if the best possible public health interventions.
Have you hacked our webcams?
I'm interested in whether they'll try to ban horse riders from the roads as well.
Probably not ban horses: far too many hunting and shooting people vote conservative, I suspect.
(and: I couldn't possibly comment
)
If there's a new offence of Dangerous cycling, surely there should be a similar offence of Dangerous walking. If someone steps off the pavement in front of a cyclist, not giving them enough time to stop or avoid them, a collision occurs and the cyclist dies, surely the pedestrian is at fault in just the same way.
I suspect this might be the point when we get formal jaywalking laws in the UK, unfortunately...
Yeah. While I am not keen on pedestrians being used as some sort of stalking horse to attack cyclists I am also not keen on any laws which further consecrate the road as a place on which humans are reluctantly allowed to exist.
Most pedestrians and most cyclists have enough skin in the game to wish to avoid collisions with each other. Motorized traffic is a completely different kettle of fish to which other rules should be applied.
Let's not get distracted into a peds vs. cyclists debate when it should be peds+cyclists versus 4x4s.
The law isn't the problem, it's Jury's repeated unwillingness to convict 'embattled' motorists.
The problem is surely that the test jurors are invited to apply is relative to their experience as drivers. Since most of them will be aware of doing stupid things from time to time they are generally willing to discount all but the most egregious errors.
This is also why we should fear and oppose the dangerous/ careless suggestion - most jurors will have no or little recent cycling experience and will, I suspect, judge cycling relative to their desires of what cyclists should do ( wear helmet and hivbiz, stay in the gutter, have lights, but not too bright, ...)
The Aliston case makes a contrast with the Squire/Sinden case. In which the driver made some statements that seem rather unlikely to be true
(e.g. that his phone sent multiple texts while he was driving because 'an object fell on the capacitative screen' in such a way as to trigger a screen intended to detect human fingers, and to form words), and where his defense was that that Squire came off a (ridiculously narrow and grass-covered) verge (that it's rather hard to imagine any cyclist choosing to cycle on in the first place) onto the road too close (14 seconds of travel time) in front of him for him to avoid hitting him.
He also initially claimed he never saw Squire, then changed his story to make all sorts of claims about what he saw him do (e.g. getting on and off the narrow, kerbed, verge, swerving out to the centre of the lane in front of the van, etc)
Sinden of course got off completely. No discussion of any charges of perjury, no interest from the Daily Mail as far as I'm aware.
https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/somethings-seriously-wrong-here/
I just can't see anything but a blatant double-standard in comparing the two cases. The justice system in this country is broken, in this respect as in many others.
If its treated the same as 'Dangerous Driving', Charlie can expect to get out on appeal with a retrospecive fine :-o This proposed new law/ waste of time and money only serves to address some political devision and reinforce it in the attempt to gain the populist vote
Now open for comment on the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41337440#comment_128136295
If you care to voice an opinion and mark those of others according to how you feel about the topic.
Would be interesting to know how many of the pedestrian/bicyclist KSIs occurred due to the cyclist being illegally on the pavement (as opposed to the Aliston case). Apparently the government doesn't keep stats to make that distinction.
But if, as I suspect, a lot of the collisions occur on the footway, then the solution would be to provide dedicated cycling space to get the pavement-racers off there.
so, the sad part of this is that they'll do a knee-jerk review and as a sop to the frothing Daily Mail readers, they'll increase fines and also make helmets mandatory along with carrying ID...
Australian style response claiming it's all about making cyclists safer...
To further my post above, http://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/cheltenham-news/keen-accomplis....
I wonder why that didn't make the headline news either!
I hope the family of the cyclist asks to meet with ministers asking for a change in the law in order to prosecute pedestrians who by their own actions, cause death of another!
Yep, that sounds about right.... two high profile incidents about cycling and the government loses its shit.... thousands of other people killed in accidents involving motor vehicles.... but they are not a priority.
It just goes to highlight the double standards that cyclists are subjected to on a daily basis.
If a cyclist cycles down a shared use path, and rings their bell several times, and passes the pedestrian at about 12mph, giving them about 2 feet of clearance (which was as much as the path allowed).... they are called bloody hooligan.
Yet a car driver can pass by a cyclist with a similar, or normally greater speed differential, giving a few inches of clearance, so that the car driver can join the queue of stationary traffic 30 yards down the road..... and apparently it's the cyclists fault for not giving the car enough room to overtake..... go figure
I don't wish to alarm anyone that the outcome of this enquiry has been pre-judged, but I have been made aware that the government are already building special prison facilities to hold those convicted of cycling in a public place.
Prison cycle.png
Dare I utter these words and of course they may well come back to bite me on the behind rather hard, but what with Brexit and other issues surrounding Brexit etc. I dare say that this may well be very low on the list of things to change right now. If not then the government has it's priorities all wrong for this country.
Well, Brexit is proof that they do have their priorities arse-about-tit. The only reason a referendum was called was as a sop to Tory backbenchers. Don't trust this bunch to even display warped logic - the only thing predictable about them is their stupidity and ineptitude.
Meanwhile the Labour shadow education secretary couldn't even manage 5 GCSEs.
That'll learn em for their parents not paying them through Eton, what what!
It's ok, Diane Abbott went to Cambridge.
I am not sure what relevance the number of GCSEs or if the University was OxBridge has in proving “stupidity and ineptitude” or not.
Academic success and successful application of learning are two distinctly different things.
For example, I did very poorly (to put it mildly) on my GCSE exams because at that age I could not see the relevance of academia so left not long after to start working. After 8 years working in retail management I finally understood how academia could be applied to real world activities. I decided to go to university as a mature student and obtained a nice business degree and currently do well in Business Consultant and Executive roles.
On the other hand I have a family member who went straight from High School to College to OxBridge University on a full scholarship and came out with a 1st degree in English. Apart from a short stint as a postal worker they have spent the vast majority of the last three decades unemployed as they do not have the ability to apply academic learning to real world scenarios.
Aye, the Tories don't have a monopoly on stupid, or being out of their depth and too thick to see it. But this current shower of shit is as bad as I've seen.
Pages