- 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
Cyclist in London with pedestrians in foreground - copyright Simon MacMichaelCyclists "horrified" by Iain Duncan Smith's Telegraph column suggesting "dangerous cyclists should be driven off our roads", as Conservative MP accused of ignoring main road safety issues in latest call for stricter legislation
Iain Duncan Smith's campaign for updated legislation to punish instances of "dangerous cycling" continued this weekend, the MP penning a column in the Telegraph newspaper titled: "Dangerous cyclists should be driven off our roads".
The language used "horrified" some cyclists online, many urging the Conservative politician to look beyond just those who ride bicycles if he is concerned with improving safety on UK roads. One accused him of playing into "culture war" feeling around cycling, while others suggested the "driven off our roads" headline could encourage violence against cyclists.
Duncan Smith has this year spearheaded the political campaign for new "dangerous cycling" laws, his proposed amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill likely to have passed had it not been for the sudden calling of a general election halting Parliament's work.
In his column published this weekend, he wrote: "The 1861 law ['Causing injury by wanton or furious driving', the law under which cyclists can currently be prosecuted if dangerous riding causes death or serious injury] simply doesn't deal with the issue of dangerous cycling, speeding and the dangerous practice of riding bikes on pavements and jumping lights.
"All this means that the existing legislation is clearly out of date and worse, is now leading to differentiation between dangerous behaviour on the roads – frankly, the punishment doesn't fit the crime or achieve justice for the victims' families.
Sadly, there are some who persist in claiming absurdly that if such restrictions were put in place, cyclists would stop riding bikes, which apparently trumps road safety. Riding safely within the law isn't a threat to cycling, it is only a threat to those determined to ride unsafely."
However, the reaction to the piece on social media, notably Twitter/X where it was shared by the Telegraph and Duncan Smith, includes much criticism of the Tory MP and the "driven off our roads" headline of the column.
One cyclist replied to Duncan Smith: "I'm horrified at this headline — I HAVE been driven off the road once, the physiotherapist took six months to get me walking properly again. It was very painful and difficult! And I'm just a mum trying to get home from school to make dinner for my kids, in one piece."
Another called the article "divisive" and said it leaned into "culture wars" around cycling.
Duncan Smith's campaigning largely centres around individual cases — such as the much-publicised death of Hilda Griffiths who died following a collision with a cyclist in Regent's Park, an incident the Metropolitan Police chose not to prosecute the rider for due to "insufficient evidence for a real prospect of conviction".
He also this weekend cited the case of a two-year-old child in Wales who was left needing stitches after a collision with a woman riding an e-bike on a footpath. Police said the legal 250w bike had not been modified to exceed the 15.5mph limit at which point the motor must cut out, and officers decided not to pursue a criminal case against the 65-year-old woman riding.
As tragic and horrific as individual cases of death and serious injury can be, the official casualty statistics do also clearly highlight that pedestrian death or serious injury in collisions involving cyclists is rare and, while incidents such as these attract much political and media interest, pedestrians are far more likely to be killed in a collision involving the driver of a car than involving someone riding a bike.
Between 2018 and 2022, nine pedestrian fatalities and 657 cases of pedestrians suffering serious injuries were reported in road collisions involving a pedal cycle. By contrast, in that same time period, 1,165 pedestrians were killed in collisions involving the driver of a car, while there were 20,557 reported serious injuries.
Some asked Duncan Smith why his road safety campaigning appears to centre solely on tackling the far rarer cases involving cyclists (on average, 2.25 deaths per year between 2018 and 2022) rather than those involving the drivers of a car (on average 291.25 deaths per year during the same time period).
One reply to Duncan Smith's piece asked him to "now do motorists", while another asked why "if he is so serious about road safety" he is less vocal in support for "separate walking and cycling infrastructure in all our towns and cities?"
An amendment made by the politician introducing such "dangerous cycling" laws had looked almost certain to pass earlier in the summer, however the general election being called suddenly by Rishi Sunak meant there was not sufficient time for the legislation to pass. During the election campaign, Labour said it would support new laws "to protect people from dangerous cycling", although little has been heard on the matter since the party formed a government.
Last week, new Transport Secretary Louise Haigh said she "met road safety experts to discuss how to make our roads safer for all", the government forming its Road Safety Strategy.
Today I met road safety experts to discuss how to make our roads safer for all.
This was stage one of our new Road Safety Strategy - the first in over a decade 🚗🚲🚶
We know there is more work to be done, and we are determined to prevent more tragic deaths on our roads. pic.twitter.com/FVkZRDeVVn
— Louise Haigh (@LouHaigh) October 7, 2024
Dan is the road.cc news editor and has spent the past four years writing stories and features, as well as (hopefully) keeping you entertained on the live blog. 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 joined road.cc in 2020. Come the weekend you'll find him labouring up a hill, probably with a mouth full of jelly babies, or making a bonk-induced trip to a south of England petrol station... in search of more jelly babies.
Latest Comments
- Fursty Ferret 45 min 59 sec ago
Im inherently sceptical of any company that uses the term "AI" in their marketing, as it's usually an indication of a marketing department that's...
- hawkinspeter 46 min 2 sec ago
Until we start banning cars from roads (e.g. due to lack of law adherence or too many KSIs), then we should not have any cycling bans. And no, I...
- brooksby 48 min 29 sec ago
Drivers keep getting stuck on housing estate stairs thinking it’s a shortcut (Metro)...
- hawkinspeter 53 min 8 sec ago
You should tell that to the judges
- hawkinspeter 55 min 54 sec ago
I tried a search of "commuter cyclists" on DuckDuckGo and that was worse than "family cycling" for diversity. The same search on Google scores much...
- essexian 1 hour 39 min ago
What do PCC do....?...
- Festus 2 hours 1 min ago
The problem I can see if used in bunch racing is the lack of control that wider bars give, atm just the odd rider is using narrower bars, remember...
- Rendel Harris 3 hours 51 min ago
Reminds me of the fabulous exchange between the Speaker and Dennis Skinner:...
- Aluminium can 3 hours 57 min ago
Pirelli cinturatos - start out feeling fast-ish (considering their thickness) and with a bit of give to roll over bumps. After a very hot summer...
- kingleo 10 hours 24 min ago
The A103: the choice is, parked cars that are rarely used or cycle lanes.
Add new comment
58 comments
You beat me to it Burt!
On a related (if admittedly superficial) topic, could I ask road.cc to stop plastering this idiot's mug shot across these stories; the additional free publicity really isn't warranted.
Expecting Ian Duncan Smith to say something intelligent and measured is like expecting walking in the rain to make you dry. IDS stands for 'is definitely stupid' in the halls of Westminster. Remember, he's the man who claimed a college course of a few weeks was degree level.
Apparently known at school as "Wally Duncan Smith" and in the army as "Ian Drunken Smith".
99.6% of pedestrian fatalities are associated with collisions with motor vehicles.
The vast majority of the time, pedestrians are separated from motor traffic, because they are walking on pedestrian infrastructure.
Some of that pedestrian infra is now shared infra with cyclists, and certainly cyclists and pedestrian journeys are aligned more closely on the highway, as cyclists generally cycle to the left, close to the ped, infra.
Not mentioned in the data is the analysis of fatal collisions where a pedestrian has been in collision with a cyclist. A few years ago I read the summary of a medical PhD student's investigation into this. If memory serves me correctly, he examined 20 fatal incidents that occured in the East Anglia region. His results showed that 25% of the pedestrian fatalities were caused by 100% culpability of the cyclist. the remaining 75% were either 50-50 culpability between the Ped and Cyclist, or was 100% the fault of the pedestrian.
If this was projected onto the national statistics shown above, then only a maximum of three fatalities over that 5 year period could be attributed to dangerous, reckless cycling.
Once again, the danger posed by mobility scooters is missing from these statistics. They are not classed as vehicles (well, mostly - it depends on the type), but scooter-pedestrian crashes result in around 10 pedestrian deaths per year.
I'm not arguing that they should be covered by dangerous driving offences, although there is merit in that idea. Rather, I'm pointing out that it is yet another area where a more dangerous group of users of the highway are overlooked in favour of cyclist-bashing.
Source?
Let me get back to you on that one. But this is a good start:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920923000263
This refers to e-bikes and e-scooters, rather than mobility scooters. I'm aware of the odd pedestrian being killed by someone on an e-scooter, but I've never heard of anyone being killed by someone driving a mobility scooter.
Unfortunately: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-65383596
She was 92 and died from a lower respiratory tract infection that she developed from the collision. Very rare, but it can happen.
"The 1861 law ['Causing injury by wanton or furious driving', the law under which cyclists can currently be prosecuted if dangerous riding causes death or serious injury] simply doesn't deal with the issue of dangerous cycling, speeding and the dangerous practice of riding bikes on pavements and jumping lights."
Well, no. That's why Dangerous Cycling, Careless Cycling, cycling on pavements, and failing to obey traffic signals are already offences which *can* be used to deal with those 'issues'.
When they say "it doesn't work" what is their definition of "works", given that cyclists have been prosecuted and convicted under the existing legislation? Then there are offenses for motorists that the same people apparently believe "work" but many of them lead to no longer sentences and there doesn't seem to be much evidence that this has "worked" to e.g. make motorists drive more safely / obey the law better?
But hey, why not spend time to add some more laws which are going to be applied once or twice a year?
OTOH (and still "Conservative") money for some extra "cycle police" (who probably would spend as much time chiding drivers as cyclists) might show genuine interest in making the world a better place. AFAIK IDS isn't proposing that though. Nor regulating those food delivery companies and sellers of illegal-to-ride-almost-anywhere e-motorbikes and scooters.
Could this really be to "fix" things ... for him? (Well - and Mr. Briggs which I believe IDS cited in another interview as a spur for his interest in this issue?)
Indeed. BeyondTheKerb Bez wrote about this around the time of Alliston's conviction: "it seems odd to suggest that this old law is unfit for purpose: it is perfectly capable of punishing people more harshly for killing with a bicycle than new laws often do those who kill with cars"
https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/the-law-must-be-fixed-mustnt-it/
I suggest that we stiill understand the word 'grevious' in large part due to its appearance in the 'outdated' 1861 act, because GBH is common. I also suggest that the writers of any updated laws (which will be coming about any day now due to the promised review of all driving offenses) might do well to look at the 'wanton and furious driving' part to see how to write clearly.
I don't object to updated laws at all, but they don't exist in a vacuum: I wonder what portion of the public (and thus the police, juries., and judges) believe that no careful and competent person would cycle apart from on specific (and of course remote) facilities.
Those were exactly my thoughts - and they should also have been the thoughts of IDS who, after all, has been involved in introducing legislation, so ought to be more familiar with the existing situation (or at least be bothered to go and find out)
Poor choice of words, very poor and there should be a public apology for the choice of words, but something does need to be done about the poor standard of 'cycling by those who ride bicycles', especially in the capital. I was taking part in a guided tour through the east-end a week ago and the sheer number of young people on bikes just flying through red lights, even as pedestraians are crossing, was off-the-charts. The guide actually warned everyone before we started, that you have to watch out, as its so dangerous now for pedestrians and its true. Is makes me so mad when I see it. True, a lot of offenders are illegals on illegal e-bikes doing food deliveries, but the number of young people just sailing through red-lighted crossings is equal to it and its not good enough. Makes life hard and dangerous for 'cyclists' who actually respect highway code. You hurt us all when you ride like a c**t. Any constructive thoughts? ...I would welcome a blitz on red-light running in London or nationally, for an extended period, so long as it was focused on ALL road users.
To quote yourself, "Poor choice of words, very poor"
You can just search something like "Deliveroo Accounts" on Facebook Google to find dozens of massive groups dedicated to renting out Deliveroo accounts so that illegal migrants can use them. Go ahead and try. Its amazing there's not more national coverage on it. Everyone sits with their heads in the sand like you for fear of being called a bigot by someone like you.
Presumably you only want to punish the workers and not their Deliveroo bosses that make lots of money by exploiting them?
I'm assuming alexuk has passed all this documentary evidence on to the police (are they a believer in police being primarily interested in internet chat?). So no doubt they've done their bit and the rest of us can cover the er... expertly legally-advised food delivery company bosses...
You miss the point. Your original post included some fair points, but the immigration status of the delivery people on illegally modified bikes was not relevant and your decision to mention what can only have been an assumption on your part did you no favours. Perhaps you were attracted to the phrase 'illegals on illegals', thinking it was witty, but it just made it look like you are someone looking for an excuse to complain about immigrants.
The delivery companies definitely have a role to play when it comes to improving the behaviour of those working for them, and their business model is boosted by using workers who are often desperate and won't make a fuss. That sometimes includes people who don't stick up for themselves because are in fear of having their immigration status exposed. But I doubt IDS has any interest in changes that involve supporting workers' rights.
Exactly, for that kind of quote he needs to give proof, not prejudice.
It's not a "poor choice of words". It's a kind of words that small minded bigots use with conviction to profile and target minorities.
The roads aren't policed. I wonder how many people were KSI'd while you were on that tour and how many mangled pedestrian barriers and destroyed road signs you walked past without noticing as it's normal that people drive into these things all day long.
Would this blitz only focus established red lights??
In leafy Essex?
I would welcome enforcement of red light jumping offences and strict enforcement. It's not uncommon now to see not one but two or three cars jumping a red light, especially temporary lights. Yes, some cyclists do it, especially in London but if you include the amber gamblers who accelerate through an amber light then a significant proportion of drivers do too.
I'd welcome enforcement of red light jumping offences against all road users, provided the enforcement action was proportionate to the actual risk of harm posed by the offence.
And if the miscreant cyclists don't pay their fines on time, they should be doubled up to fourpence.
Sounds fair, give the police a quota, they can ticket one cyclist for every two hundred motorists.
I've been driven off the road whilst on by bike, several times. Well, more like rammed off the road. By dangerous drivers. followed by being carefully lifted off the road, by paramedics.
Pages