Conservative minister says government still considering new "dangerous cycling" law

"the current laws are old" In what way? There are a lot less cyclists than 100 years ago. There are a lot less pedestrians as well, and pedestrians are a lot more careful crossing the road due to the number of cars. The quality of bicycles is a lot better meaning the riding quality is better. All this should result in less risk for other road users and less collisions. If the laws were okay 100 years ago then they are more than adequate today.

This is just dog whistle politics.
In the unlikely event that it's enacted I'm not concerned because:
1 The risk is negligible,
2 A 'death by dangerous cycling' law will be ineffective just like the 'death by dangerous driving' law .

A very poor use of parliaments time.

.

When will these ineffective ministers realise that, generally, we do not need legislation - we need to use enforcement of existing legislation. And to this the "sledgehammer/nut" aspect, and things become even more exasperating.

I'm not worried, because there's no time for anything to happen before the general election.

I'm not worried. I'm sure these laws will include the usual caveats that you can make up BS excuses for dangerous cycling. 

"Sun was in my eyes"

"I couldn't see very well so I just carried on like there was no one else around"

"I don't remember hitting that pedestrian and then repeatedly hitting them with my panniers. Why yes, I was slightly puzzled by all the blood on them and the dent in my frame but who knows how they got there"

"I have never been caught after hitting a pedestrian before so I am clearly of good character and mounting the pavement to mow one down was definitely the first time I have ever cycled dangerously"

I was reading the report into the introduction of compulsory ID for voting, and how it had effectively disenfranchised enough people to have had an effect on the results of elections... It seems to me that this is the same sort of thing: focus on a problem which really isnt a problem and then make lots of General Melchett noises about solving this hens tooth of an issue with shiny tough new legislation which will generate good headlines even if it causes all sorts of other problems which didn't exist before.

;TLDR = Oh, FFS <face/palm>

One of the issues almost entirely overlooked by everyone is the role of group think in the Dept of Transport.

The DoT's lack of interest in creating safe conditions for active travel / cycling isn't just a recent phenomenon - it stretches back more than three decades. 

In the minds of DoT civil servants the only two real priorities are road and rail - this is reflected in internal structures, policy development and how investment decisions are appraised.

In some respects, the ability of Ministers to effect any change is limited by whether their worldview reflects that of the Civil Servants that serve them - the same being true across many other Whitehall depts. 

Great to see our leaders tackling the big issues of our times, like climate change, war, poverty and killer cyclists.

Still, no need to worry, that comprehensive review of road laws promised all those years ago* will be published soon.

* How many?  I've lost count.

Does this also mean that the DfT is considering banning convicted offenders from cycling as part of their sentence?  Will cyclists be able to plead exceptional hardship to avoid a cycling ban?   Will there be a new offence of cycling whilst disqualified? Will all cyclists need cycling licences?  Would the equivalent law for pedestrians ban them from walking?  Hopefully all this nonsense will get dismissed before it ever reaches parliament.

Here's a stat for the government - in the 7 years from 2011 to 2016 (inclusive), there was 1 cyclist death and 101 serious injuries to cyclists in collisions with pedestrians. 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

Now, how might that compare to KSIs to pedestrians from cyclists? Genuine question? Who is the biggest source of harm to the other, putting blame/causality to one side for a moment?

This doesn't bode well for getting tougher sentences for motorists committing offences driving larger cars.

If sentencing were proportional to the vehicle gross weight however...

This herd of fools in charge of the UK will try anything to cling onto a few, no, in fact any, votes. The sheer desperation of the drivel that the Tories spout is mind boggling. We should be roundly ignoring Tories as they will soon to be redundant and some would say already irrelevant!

https://road.cc/content/news/228969-reading-cyclist-died-after-pedestria...

Cyclist going along, no sign of doing anything illegal. Pedestrian leaving pub and steps into road. Cyclist killed in the collision. 

No investigation into potential criminal offence.

Go stick your dangerous cycling laws up your arse.

Good to see this Government once again really knuckling down to dealing with the most important issue of our time and not just stoking a culture war for their own ends.

A few years back, cycling along at about 25mph,  I was battered and bruised in a collision with a pedestrian who ran into the road without looking. I look forwards to the government levelling things, and creating an offence of dangerous pedestrianing, to protect us cyclists from irresponsible pedestrians.