Iain Duncan Smith wants cyclists to know "they're not above the law", makes latest call for new laws to punish dangerous cycling

Iain Duncan Smith, the politician who spearheaded the campaign to pass new dangerous cycling laws such as causing death by dangerous cycling, has again appealed for new legislation — the Conservative MP suggesting he has spoken with Labour's front bench since the election and "they're thinking about what they can do with this".

Speaking to BBC Radio 4 this morning, Duncan Smith repeated his desire for an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill, arguing for legislation so "cyclists understand that they're not above the law" and that "a small minority" are made to "recognise that there are responsibilities" that they can be prosecuted for.

An amendment introducing such changes 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 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. 

> House of Lords to debate cycling "safety issues"

Now, Duncan Smith has repeated his calls for the amendments to be revisited, although his comments on Radio 4 appeared to lack a complete understanding of the Highway Code and relevant legislation.

"We put forward an amendment which had cross-party support before the last election but sadly, of course, we had an early election and the amendment fell," he said. "The idea is to try and bring cyclists, both electric cycles and also pedal cycles into the Highway Code so that the laws and the responsibilities that exist in the Highway Code exist to cyclists, which at the moment don't really, and we've had a number of deaths."

Cyclists are already part of the Highway Code and advised to adhere to it, although the Code in itself is not the law. Of course, many of its points are backed up by relevant laws, which is more the wording it appears Duncan Smith was attempting to use.

"We had, I think, between 2018 and 2020 [2018-2022, not 2020], something like just under 2,000 pedestrian casualties of which nine were fatal and nearly 700 actually were serious injuries. In fact, there was one when I was bringing it in, a woman in Regent's Park who got knocked down by a cyclist that was over the speed limit and that was a pedal cycle, that wasn't even an electric cycle and we've seen many of these electric cycles going past us at incredible speeds."

> Does there really need to be a law for causing death or serious injury by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling?

The case Duncan Smith referred to was the much-publicised death of Hilda Griffiths back in 2022. Despite little media or political coverage at the time, a coroner's inquest in May of this year hearing that the cyclist involved would not be prosecuted sparked headlines across the written and broadcast press.

Brian Fitzgerald was riding in a group at a speed of between 25mph and 29mph at the time of the fatal crash. 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".

While incidents such as that one attract much political and media interest, the Department for Transport statistics still show that 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.

That added context to the pedestrian casualty figures cited by Duncan Smith was not mentioned during the Radio 4 segment, the former Conservative leader continuing: "I'm a motorcyclist. I had to pass huge tests and restrictions, all sorts of things to understand what speed was and to understand also how dangerous it is to exceed the speed limit and none of these cyclists who are now on pretty powerful bikes (referring to e-bike riders) have to do any of that, pass any tests or carry any protective equipment, so it's getting them within the Highway Code so that dangerous cycling or cycling that causes death or injury are prosecutable offences and for cyclists to understand that they're not above the law."

> "I had no idea how fast I was going": Former Conservative leader slammed for hypocrisy on "dangerous cycling" law after driving to Germany with broken speedometer

At this point the presenter put the point to Duncan Smith that there are fears such legislation could have an effect of deterring people from cycling, something that would see missed positive gains in health and reducing motor traffic.

"Well, there are a group of people that constantly say that 'if you do this, people won't cycle' but my answer to that is — I don't think most people that cycle cycle with the view that they don't care about the law or care about other people's ability to go about their daily lives, particularly pedestrians," Duncan Smith replied. "I am yet to meet a cyclist who says to me 'I don't really care about anybody else, I'm just going to knock them down, doesn't really bother me'. 

"So that isn't the case, I don't think you put people off cycling because they want to go out and cause mayhem, I think what you do is you allow that small minority, and it is at the end of the day, to recognise that there are responsibilities and the way to do that is to allow the police to be able to do what they have to do and to suspend people's ability to cycle and to prosecute them if they commit these offences.

"There are cases of this, I've just given you some figures on it, Matt Briggs who's the one that got me involved in this, his wife was killed by a cyclist riding an illegal bicycle, they couldn't prosecute. In the end they had to come up with some 1861 law on dangerous coach driving [Charlie Alliston was sentenced to 18 months for causing bodily harm through wanton and furious driving] which they managed to tweak to get the prosecution done, but of course it had a very limited amount of punishment available to someone who killed somebody."