- 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
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 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
- mdavidford 2 sec ago
You could have neutral service carrying a range of helmets, none of which actually fit right...
- brooksby 12 min 10 sec ago
And that's the thing. It's the motorists who are creating the danger, and yet they think it is everybody else's problem to solve.
- brooksby 15 min 55 sec ago
There is a tale told in my family, passed down to the younger generations:...
- cyclisto 17 min 56 sec ago
Absolutely no brand snobber here, and if wasn't in love with my current old heavy bike, I would definitely like to have a Ti bike, so I have...
- chrisonabike 31 min 30 sec ago
Just not here. It's the wrong location, local people are against it and we have to listen to them....
- mark1a 11 hours 21 min ago
Well... as it happens, I have the Bosch EasyPump. I bought it a year ago with some Christmas gift money. Its main use is on my van which doesn't...
- Simon E 14 hours 22 min ago
I do too. It's a 'real world' read fill of people doing real world riding instead of a glossy lightweight brochure for spenders and dreamers....
- FionaJJ 15 hours 8 min ago
Exactly. I won't lie, I did quite enjoy pointing out that the reason olive oil had got so much more expensive was because of the droughts in the...
- chrisonabike 18 hours 35 min ago
What about all the computer misuse? Stop with the downloading already!
Add new comment
60 comments
Any dangerous road user , Regardless of vehicle should not be in the road.
You should tell that to the judges
Or absence thereof?
I find IDS's obsession with cyclists, to the exclusion of other (more dangerous) road users, both illogical and disturbing.
That said, there's a very good chance that he didn't write that headline.
Although we shouldn't ignore IDS's anti-cycling campaign we should also see it for what it is; good old fashion dogwhistle politics. He's seeking to use current anti-cycling feeling for his own political ends. He's also a former leader of a party that has just had the worst electoral hammering in it's history and shows every sign of splitting, with the centre and the hard right going their separate ways. This government is not immune from anti-cyclist pressure but neither is it greatly influenced by it either. if the UK and it's devolved governments are looking to improve health and the environment then active travel is a must, whatever IDS says.
When a brexiter says "frankly", you know something good is coming.
I tend to think we need to have the same laws governing cyclists as govern other road users, it simplifies matters, it will allow us to show stats that are directly comparable. The number of cyclists that will be prosecuted under these new laws will be negligible. This will demonstrate far more effectively than anything else that cyclists as not a danger to the public in fact I suspect it will be quite the reverse.
Personally I don't think bringing in speeding for bicycles is terribly necessary but then I don't ride anywhere where there is a 20mph zone. Our local limits here in Suffolk are 60, 40, 30 and I am quite happy cycling about with those but I am in no danger of breaking the speed limit.
It doesn't make much sense to use exactly the same laws to govern cyclists and motorists. There's the obvious problem as to how to prevent motorists from using bus and cycle lanes which is one area where the law has to be different. Cycling without MOT and insurance doesn't seem applicable either.
What we should be doing is recognising that there are dramatic differences between 10kgs of bicycle and 1800kgs of car, especially when you consider the difference in speeds that they can go. I would suggest that we prioritise traffic law enforcement based on the danger that is presented by the various riders/drivers i.e. use KSI statistics to inform policy rather than just "hurr durr, everyone's the same".
The MOT and Insurance I agree with you but whether its 100kgs or 1800kgs that kills or injures someone you cannot expect the family of the person hurt to see that there is so much difference, their relative is injured or dead and if the person that caused that was driving or cycling in such a way that caused that to happen then surely they deserve to be dealt with by the courts in the similar way?
I'm sure people will feel the same (or ... they might feel "it was just an accident" in a collision involving a vehicle... ). However are there not already different laws and "usual penalties" for causing death in different circumstances (ignoring things with greater intent like murder)? See e.g. guidelines for food safety and hygiene offenses - although of course this might be upgraded to manslaughter. (Which presumably is available in cases of causing death on the road?)
No, there should be much more responsibility for the more destructive modes of transport. This is why there is a requirement for passing a driving test and holding a driving license for motor vehicles, with even larger vehicles (e.g. lorries) having more stringent tests and requirements. This is also why it is acceptable for a six year old to cycle around and not acceptable for them to be driving a transit van.
True enough about licensing. I tend to think parents should insist that their children do Bikeability before they go out on the road on their own. Largely because mine made me do the cycling proficiency test. I thought it a waste of time because I knew what I was doing on a bike, but it made me look at the highway code and learn a bit about what everyone was supposed to do and when, which was actually really useful.
I think it's worth teaching kids Bikeability, but it wouldn't be feasible to ensure that every cyclist on the road had done a cycling proficiency test. It'd be better to make the traffic safer for all road users and thus take away some of the requirement for cyclist training. I'd like to see a Highway Code test included in schools' curriculums - that would help cyclists and drivers.
We've apparently got some of these in the UK (though I missed out ...) - just add "dealing with road traffic as a pedestrian, cyclist or (go kart) driver" to the National Curriculum.
In between sessions for schools they can do them for all the drivers over n points. Don't want to practice slowly and carefully to improve skill (in a pedal car - or maybe a speed-limited electric buggy would be more accurate)? Don't get your licence back...
That's excellent. As a cheaper alternative, maybe schools should just use the surrounding roads - close the roads to motorised traffic for an hour or so during non-peak times.
That would be a "surely no one could possibly object to this" idea! Except as we already know it would currently be shot down (because eg. "we support 20mph limits but only where they make sense eg just outside schools"). In fact in Edinburgh at least I'm pretty sure a few *parents* would still object (if they on those streets)...
On the other hand, it would be feasible to ensure all new drivers undertake bikeability training as a required component of the driving test. It would also be feasible to make this a requirement for all drivers renewing their licences. Drivers unable to ride a bicycle would be able to select the option of a tricycle or power assist hand cycle and the percentage of disabled drivers unable to operate the latter would be vanishingly small.
That would be an excellent idea - not so much for the physical handling skills, but the knowledge of appropriate cycling road positions e.g. taking primary and avoiding the door zone.
Also general roadcraft. Teach people the basic rules and practices when they are operating a vehicle that is far less capable of harm. Practical experience of hazard perception (children, pedestrians on phones; drivers pulling out; people waiting at lights; Busses + HGV's manouvring; etc, etc);
Hmm... perhaps? Cycling (as currently practiced in the UK) certainly demands a high level of awareness and understanding of behaviours on the roads. Not certain how much translates directly to driving though? That's why I think the "traffic garden" approach is the best solution - kids get to see things from the perspective of each mode in turn. All those calling for "understanding" and "more empathy" on the streets should be noisily campaigning to have these build and used everywhere!
We could have both of course... but that's another front to campaign on.
I'm an optimist so I see value in teaching kids to cycle in the UK. However we should recognise that 90-something percent are going to ditch this immediately they hit driving age. That is if they ever started doing so by themselves outside of the park. We haven't made safe routes for kids to cycle and adults don't cycle.
Can you not both be right? It seems fair enough to me that:
Although of course we know that KSI by hammer is already treated differently from KSI by car.
For some core rules/principles perhaps *.
In general as HP says different modes, different rules. (Which is already the case - I for one won't be demanding the right to cycle on motorways or insisting that no cyclist may filter past a motor vehicle or that you can't park your bike on the pavement).
I just don't think "we're all following the same rules" will do anything to change people's perception as things are in the UK. In fact regardless of the reality and of the law some motorists already feel that cyclists are "not playing by the same rules". So are "cheating" by using the same space. (I suspect this is part of the motivation for "you don't pay road tax!").
I think the only thing that will change people's perception is cycling being mainstream - so "everyone's doing it" at some point. Of course to reach that point in the first place we will have had to bring speed limits down on "streets" and removed some of the cut-throughs for motorists. Then - just like in NL - I predict that drivers will mostly be OK with sharing politely with cyclists in these areas (as they mostly are in NL).
I'm not against having a few cycling police at that point any more than I am against the current road police who will invariably be dealing with the predominant mode of transport e.g. drivers.
* Hence why I'm not too keen on "cyclists get to turn left on red / treat red lights as 'give way' ". Of course we can achieve something similar with greater safety without needing to create a legal exception.
I might have simplified it a bit. I was thinking one thing and wrote another. The motorway one would never happen since all sorts of vehicles are already excluded, but I used to cycle down dual carriageways quite often when I went to Chelmsford in my youth. I still cycle on the A11 once or twice a year for a short distance but it is a short distance.
I regularly cycle the dual carriageway bits of the A37 in Weston-super-Mud and whilst I can see why those kinds of roads are intimidating to cyclists, they should be safe if drivers ease off their aggression - long straight roads with excellent sight lines and an extra lane to easily enable safe overtakes.
It might be safer in some ways - if only because the number of cyclists is miniscule. I agree that it should be safer - but perhaps only in the sense of motorways e.g. safer for motor vehicles. Unless everyone sticks to the speed limits and you're close to their speeds... And like everything I'd guess as soon as the traffic volumes go up it becomes really inhospitable - that "overtaking lane" will disappear (until gridlock slows everyone).
Longer straighter roads may see people switching off (or failing to switch the phone off) - because straight road / smooth traffic flow. Or getting tunnel vision - with people swapping lanes and "discovering" slower cyclists hidden by other vehicles.
I'm guessing approx zero of those driving there would places with you (especially not taking their kids / cats / ageing in laws with them)? FWIW Never going to be 8-to-80 compatible even if there were police at every junction and all drivers had signed a pledge to be very very careful...
As far as I can tell, there are no laws governing motorists. It's like the wild west out there.
1. Bicycles don't have speedometers.
2. Few cyclists ever exceed motor vehicle speed limits, many drivers often do.
3. "Simplifying" matters so "stats are directly comparable" is unimportant.
4. Fast cyclists need to watch the road, the footway and the traffic, not a dial.
5. Did I mention, bikes don't have speedos?
What we need are stringent laws to stop politicians siphoning money away from the public purse such as giving highly paid imaginary jobs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betsygate
It's clear that parliamentary watchdogs aren't able to do their jobs properly due to the poorly defined terms in Parliamentary Staffing Allowances.
Thinking about it, shouldn't we have some kind of law to prevent politicians like IDS from misrepresenting official statistics just so that they can push their own (usually cruel) agenda? We have the Code of Practice for Official Statistics, but it appears that it is just ignored. We wouldn't have so much food poverty if it wasn't for IDS' disastrous influence on the DWP.
But who would create the laws?
But who would administer the laws?
Turkeys will vote for Christmas sometimes but only if they get to define "Christmas". Or they're sure it's only going to apply to other turkeys. And generally only if something worse is threatened (they know that sleaze allegations come and go - people do get riled but are remarkably inconsistent about caring).
Needs some very clever and robust feedback loops to keep that doing what you expect, because if one thing is guaranteed it is people who already got to the top know how to work the system and have powerful mates.
Recall "we've had enough of experts" and Liz Truss deciding that advisory boards and then the entire civil service were in fact a fifth column.
Pages