- 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
Big Ben © Simon MacMichael"Where is the effort being put into dangerous driving which kills, maims and destroys lives?": All the reaction to government plan to introduce death by dangerous cycling law
Late on Friday, images emerged online of the Daily Mail's Saturday front page, informed by an editorial published inside by Transport Secretary Grant Shapps, reporting that 'reckless cyclists face jail crackdown'.
🇬🇧 Reckless Cyclists Face Jail Crackdown
▫Transport Secretary Grant Shapps wants to change laws on dangerous cycling
▫@David_Churchill▫https://t.co/1sWqO2C5I8 🇬🇧@DailyMailUK #frontpagestoday #UK 🗞 pic.twitter.com/MeeiHsPP3w— 𝙵𝚛𝚘𝚗𝚝 𝙿𝚊𝚐𝚎𝚜 𝚃𝚘𝚍𝚊𝚢 📰 (@ukpapers) August 6, 2022
While the majority of the national newspapers focused on recession, bleak Bank of England forecasts and the reaction of the two candidates to be the next PM, the Daily Mail broke the news that the government hopes to introduce a causing death by dangerous cycling law that would see bike riders found guilty of the offence face the same punishment as drivers convicted of causing death by dangerous driving, an offence which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
> Government to crack down on "reckless" riders with causing death by dangerous cycling law
Shapps told the Mail the current legislation which means cyclists involved in crashes in which a pedestrian is killed or injured can face prosecution under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 for causing bodily harm through wanton or furious driving, and carries a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment, is "archaic" and "a legal relic of the horse-drawn era".
The minister for transport described the alternative, charging a cyclist involved in such a case with manslaughter, "draconian" and concluded while his government has been a "consistent supporter of the cyclist" it is necessary for a "cycling equivalent of death by dangerous driving to close a gap in the law and impress on cyclists the real harm they can cause when speed is combined with lack of care".
Killer cyclists
By Saturday, the rest of the national newspapers and broadcast media outlets had shared the news, the Metro headlining its story: 'Killer cyclists could face life behind bars in legal loophole crackdown', while The Telegraph reported: 'New death by dangerous cycling law could punish killer riders'.
We must protect cyclists - but we also have to crack down on dangerous riders too. That's why we will introduce a new death by dangerous cycling law.
Read my editorial in the Mail here:https://t.co/xPIQVbXlmy
— Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP (@grantshapps) August 5, 2022
Conservative MP for Devizes in Wiltshire, Danny Kruger, hailed the news, thanking Shapps and saying he is "glad the campaigning by one of my constituents, and many others around the country tragically bereaved by dangerous cycling, has been heard".
Nick Freeman, the lawyer nicknamed 'Mr Loophole' for obtaining not guilty verdicts for celebrities charged with motoring offences, welcomed the "tinkering" of legislation, but added it "doesn't go nearly far enough" and "needs other changes such as compulsory ID".
"Where is the effort being put into dangerous driving which kills, maims and destroys lives?"
Following Shapps' announcement the Independent heard from Dr Ashok Sinha, Chief Executive of the London Cycling Campaign, who said while it is "fine to change the [cycling] sentencing regime", there are questions to be asked about the much greater number of driving-related deaths.
"The greatest number of deaths and serious injuries to pedestrians and cyclists are caused by cars. We routinely see every single day law breaking by motorists – running red lights, turning corners at speed without any attention to pedestrians crossing," he said.
"It's fine to change the [cycling] sentencing regime. But where is the commensurate effort being put into dangerous driving which kills, maims and destroys lives, routinely? I would like to see action taken to address that."
The newspaper also heard from Professor Chris Oliver, a retired surgeon, who stressed it is "very rare for a pedestrian to be killed by a cyclist".
"In 2015, two pedestrians were killed and 96 seriously injured after being in a collision with a bicycle. These accidents created a huge amount of interest in the media," Professor Oliver explained.
"To put those deaths in context, every year in the last decade, about 100 cyclists are killed and more than 3,000 seriously injured on UK roads. By far, the majority is by car-driving motorists.
"There does need to be some proportionate tightening of the law for cyclists accidentally killing pedestrians. Everyone should obey the Highway Code."
In Shapps' editorial he referenced the case of Kim Briggs, a 44-year-old wife and mother who was killed after being hit by a cyclist in 2016.
Briggs' husband Matthew has campaigned for new legislation and told the Today programme: "It's never been about the degree of punishment… it's been about the complication, the chaos and the hurt and the confusion that comes along with the fact that there are no (specific) laws which apply to cyclists.
"It is rare, but it keeps happening. And it needs to be sorted. It is a very simple clarification, a tidying up of the law."
What do you think? Does the law need 'tidying up'? Is enough being done to combat dangerous driving on Britain's roads? Let us know in the comments, by email to info [at] road.cc or on Facebook.
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
- Bigfoz 39 min 48 sec ago
Well, according to Endura's website, they make nothing that fits me. (which is interesting because my club skin suit, from Endura, is both too big ...
- thax1 1 hour 7 min ago
Aww, Northwave's marketing team eh? Bless 'em....
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 34 min ago
Hmm...under "Special Reasons" (Section 6/3) it says:...
- eburtthebike 1 hour 52 min ago
I thought students were supposed to be intelligent?
- whosatthewheel 2 hours 3 min ago
She will serve "no more than a half", so 3 years and 4 months and she is walking free. And with the practically non-existent road policing it's...
- hawkinspeter 3 hours 33 min ago
Just the other day, Mrs HawkinsPeter remarked that our road seemed a lot quieter without all the rat-running and there's notably more traffic...
- hawkinspeter 3 hours 5 min ago
I would assume that it's the scent of huge profits that pulls in investment that does improve treatments, but we can see the end game of...
- hawkinspeter 3 hours 48 min ago
I was wondering if other countries used some kind of anti-copying technology. One type would be to use something like an RFID chip embedded into...
- slc 4 hours 54 min ago
Doubly galling when, as has been pointed out here in the past, a binary search would efficiently reveal the time of theft. Triply galling when I...
- Rendel Harris 5 hours 4 min ago
I have the same having got fed up with losing/breaking/scratching £150+ pairs from Oakley and POC, also with constantly having to change lenses...
Add new comment
41 comments
https://twitter.com/tony_eh/status/1556943714186104833
Thread on killer drivers
"In light of the recent announcement from @shappsGrant regarding the introduction of a new law to deal with ‘killer cyclists’, and very much picking up from the thread done by @ormonroyd, I’ve had a little look on sentencing for killer drivers over the last year or so."
Not surprising but still not great reading. Despite reminders I clearly have too high an impression of the criminal justice system. Reminds me of when Inspector Kevin Smith popped up here - in the context of complaints about low sentences for drivers - and gave some examples of what I found surprisingly low penalties for other assaults.
Or on those "police camera action" type shows where you see the recklessness and devastation caused (plus sometimes other aggravating stuff like evidence of drug sales), they catch someone and then the narrator reads out something like "And he's been grounded for a week without access to his Playstation for the first day".
Bear with me on this. I think we should be in favour of this law.
1) Applicable cases are thankfully rare, so it will have little or no effect on cyclists, especially as the legal system already seems willing to use tough charges (e.g., manslaughter), for cyclist-pedestrian fatalities, while it is reluctant to do the same for drivers.
2) It provides an opportunity to get the principles of the hierarchy of vulnerability beyond the highway code and into criminal law. That might set a precedent for future revisions to the road laws, say by imposing stiffer penalties on any road user who injures or kills a more vulnerable road user.
Done right, we could get the motoring lobby to do our campaigning for us.
more red meat for the gammon and brexitty types. Enemies have to be found to maintain their state of anger and stupidity.
More pointless political trolling.
Where are our beloved gatekeepers? They do so object to trolling...
You're bang on trend there, it's the latest rightist trope to accuse anyone who objects to anything they don't like of being a "gatekeeper". And what are you doing here that's different?
In the interests of fairness and parity, and given that it seems that it is just as probable that the cyclist is killed in any collision with a pedestrian, will Mr Shapps be introducing a crime of causing death by dangerous walking? For the rare but not unknown cases where pedestrians walk out into the road without looking, or are busy staring at their mobile phones, and the cyclist victim is killed.
No? So this is just an anti-cycling measure.
I came close to being in afatal accident on the London Ride 100 a few years ago. A grumpy local forced their way past a marshal and strolled across the road. We were doing about 25mph as she looked left - we were on the wrong side of an island on the closed road. As third in line, no 1 whizzed past, no. 2 brushed her front, I ducked left only to have her step back in front of me. I went over the handlebars and bike landed 20 metres down the road from me. Paramedics came rushing to me, and refused to believe I was unhurt. The lady was unconscious. I believe her bulk saved me.
I complained and had the joy of Brasher himself berating me for trying to destroy his ride - I had the temerity to point out that the ride instructions suggested we could rely on marshals - who were instructed not to interfere, even with a potentially fatal incident - the year before someone was killed in a similar incident at a triathlon.
This morning I was cycling into work, along a protected (wands) cycle lane. A young couple crossed the main carriageway, at no great haste as there was no motor traffic. However, I honestly thought that they were going to just keep on sauntering in front of me... At the last moment, they stopped, right in line between two of the wands. Cos bicycles aren't 'real' traffic and it wouldn't hurt if one hits you...?
Yes, I was covering the brakes and was prepared to lurch out into the main carriageway, but how bl00dy stupid can you be???
I've noticed something similar along the Embankment in London, pedestrians crossing against the lights scurry across the car section of the road and then resume normal walking pace to cross the cycle lane as if they have reached safety, oblivious to the fact that there may be dozens of cyclists bearing down on them with a green light in their favour. I'm biased of course, but it generally seems to me that cyclists treat pedestrians who cross their lane against the lights much more tolerantly than car drivers do, although this may be a function of the fact that cyclists are much more likely to be injured in any incident with a pedestrian than a car driver is.
I've shouted at/towards a few peds being oblivious to the wand-lanes. It's not so bad when then step off the pavement into the lane as you usually get a bit of warning, but it's worse when they're crossing from the other side through stationary vehicles (e.g. junction at bottom of St Michael's Hill) as you won't see them unless you specifically have a look for anyone crossing.
This makes sense because - even while the carriageway width is unchanged - pedestrians now see this as more concerning. They now have four lanes to cross and the two "dangerous" middle ones have less space for vehicles to manouver / for pedestrians to dodge them. Luckily the near side lanes are less busy so pedestrians like to wait there, protected by the wands, while dealing with the motor vehicles.
Adding wands and other "instant" protection for cyclists is a step forward but this is why that is still a long way from "good practice". That would be to have "refuge spaces" for all road users and make it so you only deal with crossing one lane in one direction at a time. For and example see the Pedestrians section in this article. The exception would be bi-directional cycle paths. As far as I can see they are usually implemented where there is no reason to cross the road (nothing to get to on the far side) OR the road is not suitable for people to casually cross at-grade - and therefore signalised crossings, underpasses or bridges are provided.
Other problem with a lot of those lanes along Park Row is pedestrians thinking (I think) that they're a widened footway rather than a cycle lane (which is what the council first did up on the Triangle).
Other other problem is scaffolder's lorries and builder's vans being parked in them
Cycle lanes = Advanced Stop Lines for pedestrians.
You can't punish the motorist they pay lots of tax in the form of fuel duty + vat on that raid tax and vat on new car sales and insurance premiums, so it's so much easier to punish us in the cycling world.
How on earth can they even propose this when they authorities can't and don't prosecute motorists consistenly now.
The next steps will be insurance, number plates and some sort of road tax if we ride on the road
Ridiculous!!!!!!!
I look forward to the same punishments for killer cyclists as are currently given to drivers who kill.
ie a stern word from the judge, a brief ban and a suspended or short prison sentence most likely well under 2 years anyway.
Just in case, cut out and keep this handy guide of excuses for your court appearance, and keep Nick Freeman's number handy.
"The sun was in my eyes"
"I need my bike for work"
"I thought I'd hit an animal"
"The pedestrian had no lights/hi-viz and/or was not wearing a helmet"
"I wasn't expecting to see a pedestrian on that road"
"I thought it was a sack of potatoes"
"Its not my fault if they fall over in front of me"
"I am actually a pedestrian myself and always take care around them."
"I reacted angrily because the week before my grandmother was pushed over by a pedestrian."
"That stretch of pavement is well known to be unsuitable for pedestrians but they continue to use it."
I think it will be an interesting test when the first death by dangerous cycling comes to court.
I think even more so than trying to prove the threshold has been met in a motoring incident, it will be even harder with a cyclist.
My thinking; where as a motorist has to pass a test and have a licence, anyone can throw a leg over the bike and go cycling. There is no legal obligation for a cyclist to have training or be familiar with the highway code.
Therefore, by extention, anything other than shut and dry situations, how can actions be classed as willfully dangerous, when the cyclist has been given no instruction of what is and isn't expected of them? Is this not putting unreasonable expectations of competency on potentially uneducated individuals?
I can't see it working out... so we'll probably end up with cases of death by careless cycling, just as in motoring... for good and bad.
Thinking about it, to me this further highlights that dual access paths etc. just aren't appropriate. Neither party (cyclist / pedestrian) has been given instructions on how to use these paths, and accordingly much friction and incidents are the fall out.
Would be interested to know how many pedestrian /cyclist fataliies happen on these pathways.
It certainly would be interesting to challenge the definition of dangerous in the context of road use, given that being drunk, unlicensed, uninsured, speeding and crashing into people while on the phone often does not meet the threshold of dangerous in many court cases (these problems apparently only being a problem during the momentary lapse that absolves all drivers of responsibility).
It's always been tough to get a conviction against a motorist as the jury will be made up of a majority of drivers, many of whom will be thinking "there but for the grace of God ...".
Whereas it's rare to have a committed cyclist on a jury - more likely it seems to have a "they pay no road tax!" cyclist-hating bigot or two on it.
So I'd not feel too confident of juries showing the same reluctance to convict a cyclist as they show in convicting a cyclist.
But my main issue with all of this is that it's really just another dead cat, thrown onto the table to distract us from the real problem - that absent any meaningful enforcement of road standards, behaviours are getting more feral - and more dangerous - every day.
Sorry - seems to be contagious.
I think the Govt needs to introduce unicorn licences. I appreciate that unicorns are extremely rare, but it might be needed and legislation relating to horses just isn't specific enough.
I couldn't agree more. It's clear that unicorns are a great deal more of a safety risk than horses because of the pointy thing they have. Unicorns should be required to wear protective plastic tips on the pointy things and have high viz also.
Do stars and rainbows count as hi-viz?
Correct me if I'm wrong (please), but I thought that if you are driving, and the police ask for your driving licence etc, there is no obligation for you to have that with you - you just have to present it to a police station within seven days.
Why would cyclists be treated any differently?
Yes, known as a 'Producer'..
Last century stuff since a traffic car will have ANPR'd a motor vehicle so know the Registered Keeper, MOT and VED status before doing the stop.
But ANPR does not and can not tell the Police whether the person driving holds a valid driving licence or not, so it is far from last century stuff.
That is why the stop is required i.e. the registered keeper may not be the actual driver.
"consistent supporter of the cyclist"
Grant Shapps does not consistently support cyclists although one might argue that his department and by inference the government does. Even the the government doesn't join the dots between policy and practice. This is particularly true if you go down to policing and local government levels.
I walked in to town on Saturday (I don't usually get beyond Sainsbury but they didn't have what I needed. Absolute carnage! Drivers are preoccupied with looking out for other cars (and in some cases parking spaces). Crossed one road (leading to the car park) in both directions. First time I stopped at the curb started to cross when somebody decided to swing in. Other direction, stopped at the curb car pulled up in front of me and then stared right waiting for a gap in traffic.
If Shapps was genuinely interested in road safety he'd be giving interviews explaining that rule H1/2 were designed to protect pedestrians & cyclists and that drivers that couldn't do that should give up driving.
Pages