- 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
Big Ben © Simon MacMichaelGovernment to crack down on “reckless” riders with causing death by dangerous cycling law
Transport Secretary Grant Shapps has repeated a pledge 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, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
The Daily Mail reports that the new legislation would be included in the Transport Bill which will begin its passage through Parliament later this year.
Currently, 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, which has a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment. They can also be charged with manslaughter, which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
In the past five years there have been roughly one prosecution per year of a cyclist under the 1861 Act, the most recently concluded case resulting in 29-year-old Stewart McGinn jailed for 12 months after he crashed into pedestrian Elizabeth Jayne Stone, aged 79, in Monmouth in June last year, fatally injuring her.
> Jail for pavement cyclist who rode off after fatally injuring pensioner
Shapps described the relevant section of the 1861 Act as an “archaic law,” telling the newspaper that it was “a legal relic of the horse-drawn era,” and that charging a cyclist with manslaughter was “a draconian option.”
He insisted that the law needed to be overhauled to crack down on reckless cyclists who harm others.
“We need the 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,” he said.
“For example, traffic lights are there to regulate all traffic. But a selfish minority of cyclists appear to believe that they are somehow immune to red lights.
“We need to crack down on this disregard for road safety. Relatives of victims have waited too long for this straightforward measure.
“As we move into an era of sustained mass cycling, a thoroughly good thing, we must bring home to cyclists – too often themselves the victims of careless or reckless motoring – that the obligation to put safety first applies equally to every road user. There can be no exceptions,” he added.
Calls for an offence of causing death by dangerous cycling to be put on the statute books intensified in 2017 after cyclist Charlie Alliston was sentenced under the 1861 Act to 18 months in a young offenders’ institution following a crash in London’s Old Street that resulted in pedestrian Kim Briggs losing her life. Her widower, Matthew Briggs, has campaigned since then for the law to be reformed.
Alliston, who had been riding a fixed wheel bike with no front brake at the time of the fatal crash, was also charged with manslaughter, but was found not guilty of that offence by a jury at the Old Bailey.
Until recently, the maximum jail term for causing death by dangerous driving stood at 14 years but for offences committed on or after 28 June this year a life sentence can be imposed.
However, even in the most egregious cases, the sentences handed down to drivers convicted of the offence are far less.
By contrast, cyclist Emir Loka, who crashed into pedestrian Peter McCombie in east London in July 2020, causing fatal injuries, was jailed last year for the maximum two year term stipulated in the 1861 Act. Like Alliston, he was cleared of manslaughter.
> Cyclist who killed London pedestrian jailed for two years
Shapps’ latest comments on the subject follow confirmation he planned to bring in an offence of causing death by dangerous cycling when he appeared on Nick Ferrari’s show on LBC earlier this year.
At the time, Duncan Dollimore, head of campaigns at the charity Cycling UK, told road.cc: “Changes to the Highway Code are beneficial to all road users, and it is unhelpful of the Transport Secretary to try and explain or justify them on a quid pro quo basis by linking them to the potential introduction of new cycling offences. The two issues are entirely separate.
“As the Transport Secretary’s own minister Andrew Stephenson confirmed in December, the DfT is already working on the terms and remit of a call for evidence into road traffic offences. While that is long overdue, with a full review first promised over seven years ago after prolonged campaigning from Cycling UK, there’s little more than we can say on this issue, other than that we’ve never opposed cycling offences being be part of that review.
“Introducing new cycling offences in isolation however would simply be a sticking plaster on a broken system, because our current careless and dangerous driving offences aren’t fit for purpose – replicating them for cycling makes no sense at all,” he added.
In 2020, 346 pedestrians were killed in road traffic collisions in Great Britain, but cyclists were only involved in four of those fatal crashes.
It should also be underlined those figures, compiled by the Department for Transport from police reports, do not seek to apportion blame.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Wheelywheelygood 24 min 46 sec ago
Nothing to do with water it's that your not keeping up your numbers of people in wheelchairs hit by bikes while on the pavement, try going around...
- chrisonabike 27 min 6 sec ago
You've been quoted in the article as being concerned "about the safety of cyclist and vehicles”....
- S.E. 5 hours 9 min ago
My guess is that they sell mainly on the German market - feel free to correct me. That might explain why they are not "pushing" their products,...
- ktache 5 hours 34 min ago
Now Emily Chappell really liked the Lezyne , I have the HV version, good, but I find the handle uncomfortable in use. I've often wondered about the...
- biking59boomer 4 hours 41 min ago
What about this one!? Taken in Cardiff Civic Centre 1939
- Muddy Ford 5 hours 44 min ago
Charlie Alliston got 18mths and is the reference case (because there are so few cases) for all campaigns by anti-cyclists that 'cyclists are not...
- belugabob 6 hours 46 min ago
My local football practice pitches (all weather, in a fenced off area, are regularly the scene of inconsiderate parking, with vehicles blocking the...
- Spangly Shiny 7 hours 11 min ago
Assos ASOS anyone?
- chrisonabike 7 hours 24 min ago
Replace them all with Bromptons and they'd take up zero space within days or even hours, as they are all relocated elsewhere. To eBay or possibly...
- Andrewbanshee 7 hours 55 min ago
Where I live we are experiencing a lot of housing development on small and large plots of land. These developers don't seem to have problems...
Add new comment
126 comments
It was the serious injuries I was after. Happy to take the death figures on trust.
This would be good to have - if it exists. I remember this coming up also - was it sriracha or alsosomniloquism who mentioned that?
EDIT - while searching something else I came across this - is it the original or useful?
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/collisions_involving_pedestrians#...
Thanks Chris.
Yes that seems to back up the previous discussion.
2015-16 Cyclists caused 7.5% of pedestrian KSIs due to RLJ. Modal share about 2% at that time IIRC.
Are you the person who was claiming the other day that figures on the number of black people stopped and searched were meaningless unless supported by data regarding crime levels in different areas, age, time of day etc? Exactly the same applies: obviously the vast majority of pedestrian KSIs due to RLJ are going to occur in urban areas, where cycling's modal share will be far higher than the national average, e.g. in London up to 25% at rush hour in some areas. Funny how you're so quick to dismiss stats that don't support your argument yet present ones that make cyclists look bad without questioning.
I wouldn't shoot at this point. I think finer detail is certainly needed. The figures would be more informative even if only split by e.g. city / town.
Without it I'd suggest this is just saying (like hawkinspeter earlier) we need much better junction design! The existing signalised ones are almost solely designed to keep drivers safe while maximising motor vehicle flow.
After all some of those red light junctions in busy areas of e.g. London may have cycle lanes / ASLs added! Many of these will be "bolt-on" designs to retrofit cycling. Designs are invariably not standard - it's a "whatever we can" at each retrofit. (We do have "standards" but they are all "guidance" and seem to be widely ignored). This makes it more confusing and possibly dangerous for vulnerable road users (on wheels and not) than it should be. Possibly more dangerous than before the changes when "you're fine if you're not on the road" mostly worked.
I'm slightly confused Rendel.
Should we adjust raw statistics to ensure they are accurate or not?
Last time I suggested that would be a good idea you accused me of racism...
FWIW I'd be more than happy to see any additional information on this topic and adjust the statistics accordingly.
Yes, you do appear to be. The last time you said that quoting statistics without your suggested adjustments showed I knew nothing about statistics, and yet here you are doing exactly the same thing because the raw statistics appear to support your argument. You can't have it both ways, I'm afraid.
That's not quite true is it Rendel.
I've already stated that I'm happy for these statistics to be adjusted as more information becomes available so my position is entirely consistent.
Statistics need to be appropriately adjusted in order to be reliable.
During our last discussion you went on this little rant about adjusting statistics
Thus making it perfectly clear you knew nothing about statistics.
It was only at this point that I said you knew nothing about statistics.
Maybe you could clarify your position Rendel? Should government statistics be adjusted to improve their accuracy or not?
So why were you quoting that cyclists are responsible for 7.5% of KSIs through red light jumping when they only have a 2% modal share and calling it "worryingly high" when the slightest analysis of the statistics would show a far more nuanced picture? Either you missed the blindingly obvious or you chose to quote the raw data because it confirms your prejudices in a way that properly adjusted data wouldn't. Which, I wonder?
Now you're just being disingenuous.
Anybody reading this thread can see that I used the phrase 'worryingly high' about my recollection of the statistics discussed in a previous thread.
On the previous thread I recall that attempts were made to adjust for modal share and the KSI % was still above modal share.
That is worrying in my opinion.
I'm happy to have another go at the adjustment as neither Chris not I have been able to track down the fabled previous thread.
Do you have any useful data to add?
Or perhaps you could answer my previous question:
Maybe you could clarify your position Rendel? Should government statistics be adjusted to improve their accuracy or not?
"There can be no exceptions,” he added
Shapps is a buffoon, so him being in a Cabinet led by Johnson is no surprise. Traffic law, as [not] enforced by the police is jam-packed with so many exceptions that the laws have effectively ceased to exist. Nobody has ever been prosecuted for close-passing in Lancashire; I have numerous examples of no action being taken over blatant RLJs at high speed and/or by heavy lorries; absence of MOT, insurance and VED has been normalised in Lancashire because people carry on evading all of them for years even after they're reported with indisputable evidence. P19 JTW here was first reported following detection on 16th July. 3 years freedom from tiresome unnecessary VED and, by definition, insurance and 7 months evasion of MOT on a vehicle with a 3500 kg limit: Lancashire Constabulary is certainly working to keep the economy moving and free of red tape!
There's someone living locally who has a car which ran out of tax in December 2020, his work vehicle ran out of tax in May this year. Despite reporting this to the police and DVLA, nothing has been done. they are still both untaxed.
Can't really see cyclists getting away with a momentary lack of concentration claim.
They will be hung out to dry due to the constant vilification of cyclists and punished for not paying road tax or not having insurance.
I'm opposed to it because cyclists will not be treated in the same manner as drivers.
Or can they employ "it's not my fault they fell over" , " I thought it was a sack of potatoes" defences?
Well that's just more happy hunting grounds for "top lawyer and road safety expert"s.
The proof will be when one of those dangerous TT scorchers kills someone and it goes to trial *. Or maybe an OAP on a e-cycle. Or better a mum with some kids on a mamafiets. Then we'll see whether any of the following work (like they do for drivers) or actually count against them, as they should: "no visor or shades and the sun was very low", "unfortunately due to age / bike geometry my client was unable to turn to look in that direction", "because of the speed I was travelling I was unable to stop in time" or just "I have no recollection of that".
* Was going to say "you might have to wait a several decades for this to occur" but it sounds like there will be less TTing rather than more. Or maybe it'll resume but in areas with more pedestrians?
Sweat was in your eyes!
Difficult to argue against that; I can't be the only one who gets a bit sweaty when cycling furiously.
A confession! Hang him.
Damn it! Nearly the perfect crime.
Momentary lapse in concentration due to fear of life from vehicles behind.
I'm no fan of most politicians but some of what Grant Shapps says seems pretty even handed (I was surprised too). Of course the headline is designed to appeal to car driving voters but that doesn't mean the new legislation is not just, even if the risk of being killed by a cyclist is negligible when compared to motor vehicles.
“As we move into an era of sustained mass cycling, a thoroughly good thing, we must bring home to cyclists – too often themselves the victims of careless or reckless motoring – that the obligation to put safety first applies equally to every road user. There can be no exceptions,” he added.
When a cyclist is killed by a dangerous driver I always hope the punishment is suitably severe although we all know it usually isn't. I can't justify thinking I should be treated differently if my dangerous cycling killed someone.
Of course it remains to be seen if causing death by dangerous cycling sentences are fair when compaired to causing death by dangerous driving. I think we all suspect they will be more severe but only time will tell.
Duncan Dollimore, head of campaigns at the charity Cycling UK, told road.cc: “Changes to the Highway Code are beneficial to all road users, and it is unhelpful of the Transport Secretary to try and explain or justify them on a quid pro quo basis by linking them to the potential introduction of new cycling offences. The two issues are entirely separate.
“Introducing new cycling offences in isolation however would simply be a sticking plaster on a broken system, because our current careless and dangerous driving offences aren’t fit for purpose – replicating them for cycling makes no sense at all,” he added.
This is also true of course so maybe we should just bin the whole lot and come up with something fair and proportional that would punish whoever kills through their dangerous and selfish actions on the road and provide justice for the bereaved.
I'm no fan of politicians either - especially the brexthick variety; the liars, the ignorant, the deceivers, the parochial, stupid kind. These kind also seem to have it against people who ride cycles. It's a general sort of equation: gammon = hate cycles = ignorance of the EU = brexthick.
Nice bit of pointless trolling.
I'm sure our resident gatekeepers will be along any second to tell you off...
That sounds like a good idea. I think maybe some kind of ... comprehensive review of road safety might be where to start. Of course those things don't just happen overnight!
Unlike the tack taken by Martin73 (unsurprisingly) I don't think this should solely look at outcomes. We should take account of the degree of danger your choices present and aggravating circumstances. Like we have now for death by dangerous / careless driving. Not just intoxication / other criminal acts but also e.g. if you're driving a massive truck that would have higher weighting than if you were rollerskating, or on a bike. Lawmakers being all over the science (!) obviously we'd review the data on this to set the scale. Maybe rollerskaters are much less likely to be able to prevent a collision than a cyclist but pose as much danger?
Don't forget - no-one has taken away the charges of GBH / manslaughter / murder - if those would be more appropriate they can still be applied.
I think your analysis is far too well thought out and nuanced for our overlords to grasp, but you've got my vote for leading the comprehensive review of road safety.
I actually read that too positively the first time. It's not a open-faced shit sandwich (maybe Danish?) It's pie-in-the-sky with a shit topping, with some chocolate sprinkles on.
"As we move into an era of sustained mass cycling ..." - really? What are the current figures on that? What is your government - or what are you, Mr. Shapps - doing to bring that about?
Being charitable, he's been spending time near a cycle superhypeway in London or he's started listening to Chris Boardman (which would be good!).
The sprinkles ("too often themselves the victims of careless or reckless motoring") are being slathered with another layer of unpleasant coating e.g. reminding everyone of these dangerous scofflaws.
I'm not outraged about this. I already have low expectations of Shapps on cycling and indeed transport in general. Plus the statement appears to be political theatre when people are playing for a very particular minority audience (Conservative Party members). I'll go with Duncan on this one.
It is political theatre but I was still happy to hear a politician say;
"an era of sustained mass cycling, a thoroughly good thing" and "cyclists – too often themselves the victims of careless or reckless motoring."
even if he didn't mean it.
Maybe if brexshit wasn't costing every family £4200 a year compared to £350 for being in the eh, the govt would have the funding for any real cycling infra?
This is the Grant Shapps who is so concerned with keeping people safe that he has put a proposal out for consultation that would address the shortage of HGV drivers by allowing anyone with a standard licence to drive a 7.5 tonne lorry with no extra training, so one could pass one's test in a Nissan Micra and drive something like the vehicle pictured the next day. If this passes I think it would almost certainly kill more people in a year than the number killed by cyclists in two decades.
Anyone who passed their test before 1997 can drive one of these already with no extra training; you can even pull a trailer! Just checked my licence and I'm legally allowed to drive class C1E...
https://www.hgvtrainingcentre.co.uk/hgv-training-cat-c1e-licence/
I found that out today, Herself pointed it out to me earlier when I was telling her about it - what next, anyone with a driving licence allowed to fly light aircraft!? Bonkers.
You don't even need a driving licence for that! https://www.intotheblue.co.uk/experiences/biplanes-bicester-heritage/
I have driven a 7.5t lorry on a few occasions and it wasn't difficult. Most are not much harder than driving a car, although an old one had an odd gearbox and crawler gear, plus airbrakes that needed a minute to charge up before you moved off. But that's more about reading the manual of a particular vehicle.
It was an odd decision to allow existing licence holders to hold onto those rights indefinately when they changed the rules. It's effectively age discrimination.
Pages