- 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
news
Cyclist in London Trek road bike orange backpack and winter clothing - copyright Simon MacMichaelHouse of Lords to debate cycling "safety issues"
A debate on cycling "safety issues" will be held in the House of Lords when Parliament returns from its summer break next month.
The full title of the debate scheduled for Thursday 12 September is 'Safety and regulation issues involved in the use of pedal cycles on the road network' and is an updated version of a debate initially meant to have taken place in June, but that was cancelled due to the dissolution of Parliament ahead of the general election.
Former Metropolitan Police head Lord Hogan-Howe had wished to "ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure that pedal cyclists abide by the criminal law and are held accountable where they breach that law", the rescheduled September debate similarly to discuss "safety and regulation issues" around cyclists using "the road network".
Last November, Lord Hogan-Howe, a crossbench peer in the House of Lords, had claimed that "dangerous" cyclists are "entirely unaccountable" and should have number plates. The former Met Police chief is one of 12 peers who have so far expressed a desire to speak at the debate, Green Party member and pro-cycling advocate Jenny Jones also listed.
The Lords debate also follows the widely reported wish of the previous Conservative government to pass "dangerous cycling" laws, legislation that was put on hold by the election. The Labour Party also said during the campaign that it "will change the law to protect people from dangerous cycling" if it was in government next, although this statement was not seen in the party's manifesto or King's Speech, not that its omission from headline policy precludes future legislation.
The topic of dangerous cycling attracted widespread national print and broadcast media coverage in May, during the aftermath of a coroner's inquest being told that no charges would be brought against a cyclist who was riding laps of London's Regent's Park when he crashed into a pensioner, causing her fatal injuries.
The cyclist, Brian Fitzgerald, was riding in a group at a speed of between 25mph and 29mph at the time of the fatal crash, which led to the death of 81-year-old Hilda Griffiths. The speed limit in the park is 20mph, but the Metropolitan Police confirmed that it does not apply to people riding bicycles (as is the case throughout the country), and that the case had been closed because there was "insufficient evidence for a real prospect of conviction".
In the weeks after the coroner's inquest, former Conservative leader Duncan Smith proposed the introduction of a specific offence of "causing death by dangerous, careless, or inconsiderate cycling, and causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate cycling", to ensure people on bikes "face the same penalties as drivers and motorcyclists" responsible for the death of pedestrians.
Transport Secretary Mark Harper backed the legislation and it looked as thought it would be passed, Labour offering no opposition to the proposal. However, when Rishi Sunak called a general election and Parliament was dissolved, it meant there was not sufficient time for the amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill to be passed.
During the subsequent campaign a Labour spokesperson confirmed such legislation would be resumed post-election: "Labour will change the law to protect people from dangerous cycling, and we commend the families for their relentless campaigning. The Criminal Justice Bill was meant to be a flagship bill for his government, but Rishi Sunak walked away from his promises to these families the moment it suited him. It's understandable that the families of victims will feel let down."
Dan is the road.cc news editor and joined in 2020 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 has been at road.cc for four years and mainly writes news and tech articles as well as the occasional feature. He has hopefully kept you entertained on the live blog too.
Never fast enough to take things on the bike too seriously, when he's not working you'll find him exploring the south of England by two wheels at a leisurely weekend pace, or enjoying his favourite Scottish roads when visiting family. Sometimes he'll even load up the bags and ride up the whole way, he's a bit strange like that.
Latest Comments
- a1white 11 sec ago
Simon Nash needs to just stick to making the produts and seriously step back from social media and all the marketing. He's an absolute liability to...
- Jitensha Oni 13 min 39 sec ago
Because drivers often find it hard too and nobody’s perfect (indeed a few are bad on purpose)? It’s not really fair to expect people cycling to...
- wtjs 27 min 42 sec ago
It embarrassed the police...
- wtjs 32 min 40 sec ago
Even I would say 'report horse ramming to the police ' because just ignoring that report is viewed as less acceptable than if it was a cyclist -...
- chrisonabike 2 hours 2 min ago
I wasn't a bike geek or "serious" rider then (not now...) - my ride was a non-suspended 26" wheel "mountain bike" with V-brakes and piano key...
- mdavidford 2 hours 11 min ago
And, bonus, you can get rid of feed zones - just make them carry all their supplies in the basket.
- IanMK 2 hours 41 min ago
Indistinguishable? I overtook a legal e-bike last week. I am a member of the public and I managed to distinguish it from an illegal e-motorbike...
- Condor Andy 4 hours 28 min ago
I tried to make a thread announcing a league code for Velogames, but it seems to have been banished to the aether. The code is 620099424
- wtjs 4 hours 53 min ago
Speed has nothing to do with it...
- Rendel Harris 5 hours 17 min ago
I agree! I'd keep the ban and remove powermeters as well, personally, though I'd keep radios for safety reasons.
Add new comment
49 comments
The gent in the top pic, clad from head to toe in Lycra, was doing 47 mph as he rode through those red lights.
Was he slacking off, then? I mean, I have it on good authority that the average cyclist in that there London is travelling at 52mph…
I can only see a pair gloves? I assume the phantom cyclist is wearing black, hence nobody can see them
I must admit when I first looked, I saw a scuba driver. It is probably a more accurate picture than any of the house of lords have.
"to ensure people on bikes "face the same penalties as drivers and motorcyclists" responsible for the death of pedestrians"
I wouldn't worry, if the above is true then we'll see a reduction in severity of penalty surely?
"former Conservative leader Duncan Smith proposed the introduction of a specific offence of "causing death by dangerous, careless, or inconsiderate cycling, and causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate cycling", to ensure people on bikes "face the same penalties as drivers and motorcyclists"
So does that mean a Slap on the wrist and a few hours community service then? That's all people who kill cyclists while driving cars appear to get.
will they also debate the dangers pedestrians pose to cyclists, given that cyclists are more likely to be harmed, and less likely to be at fault, in pedestrian-cyclist collisions. According to dft stats
A: No.
A few "usual suspects" from our Noble Lords are going to get some gripes off their chests. No doubt with the aid of a handful of anecdotes of "a criminal / antisocial cyclist did this - what are we going to do about that?" And "many of my (elderly / disabled / visually impaired / concerned parent) constituents are very concerned ..."
No doubt "stricter penalties" and "addressing cyclist impunity (tabards, cycle registration)" etc. will be mooted.
Hopefully some of those who have some actual cycling experience will help weed out the
completely fabricated talesslightly exaggerated details / supply some perspective. Maybe some will even bring up sensible points like yours.Maybe one or two - while duly noting the few issues and the (much much larger) concern of some - will find a way of bringing in the idea that in fact cycling is something we would be wise to massively encourage. For a whole bunch of reasons but including everyone's health and safety [1] [2]. Including pedestrians and even motor vehicle occupants - who are still at risk from other motorists. And one necessary part of this is addressing concerns about the cyclist's safety.
So I guess it's too much to hope that a Lord will stand up and say that this numpty's views are utterly moronic, and village (more like major city) idiot level?
Cyclist fought long & hard to have the heirarchy system of vulnerable road uses made part of the Highway Code. Just as car drivers are supposed to look out for us, we as cyclists have to look out for those lower down the food chain and when in their presence adjust our riding style accordingly.
I agree 💯. But I'd also like the amount of political heat dedicated to each source of danger on our roads to be proportional to how dangerous each source is.
That's not an entirely accurate representation (framing it as a 'hierarchy' hasn't been entirely helpful here). The larger/faster/more dangerous your means of transportation is, the greater the duty you have to take care of the safety of others, but the relevant section of the Highway Code begins
So they're going to target dangerous cycling? Will that include the hordes of illegal E-bikes in every town and city, razzing around at 30+mph without so much as one turn of the pedals,ignoring every traffic law ever invented?
Oh no, I forgot -they're not pedal cycles by definition,they're motorcycles, so they're OK to carry on as before. And of course, they don't wear Lycra cycling kit either. So they're all good.
Seems there's still zero interest in "meddling in the market" by restrictively regulating what is offered for sale. Or the freewheeling delivery companies with their "we don't have employees, we just offer our
dispensible, cheap, deniablevalued partners flexible opportunities" ways (IIRC I read somewhere they've already got pals in the new government). Indeed I'm sure the various delivery firms, makers of electric motorbikes and perhaps even online "mobility shops" are lobbying the new lot e.g. to expand what is legal / add categories of powered vehicles which can use cycle infra, same as the old lot.I genuinely thought this was to debate the safety of cyclists, until I read the article 🤦
Why would you think that? Statistically its cyclists that cause the most injuries and death on our roads to pedestrians and cyclists are the most protected group of any road users. Right? Right?
That's interesting. Please provide us with the source of your information.
Sarcasm
"Labour will change the law to protect people from dangerous cycling, and we commend the families for their relentless campaigning."
Oh dear, just when I had started to think Labour were the sensible ones.
Taking valuable parliamentary time for this when the deaths caused by drivers is ignored is perhaps the best (worst?) indicator of motornormativity in our society. Maybe Lord Hogan-Howe should remove the forest from his own eye before complaining about the mote in others.
Pages