- 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
grant shapps - screenshot via twitter.PNGGrant Shapps calls for new ‘death by dangerous cycling’ law
The Secretary of State for Transport Grant Shapps announced in an interview yesterday that he intends to introduce harsher penalties for people on bikes who kill or injure others through “dangerous cycling” – three years after an independent report commissioned by the Department for Transport recommended the introduction of such an offence.
Cycling UK, however, has said that any attempt to introduce new cycling offences in isolation "would simply be a sticking plaster on a broken system”.
When questioned on the impending Highway Code revisions during an interview with Nick Ferrari on LBC, Shapps said: “The purpose of the changes is if you drive a lorry, you should give way to a van, which will give way to a car, which will give way to a cyclist, which will give way to a pedestrian.
“These are just common-sense changes to protect everybody.
“And there is another change I’m bringing in which you may not be aware of, which is to make sure that we’re able to prosecute cyclists who, for example, cause death by their own dangerous cycling.
“So this is quite a balanced package, and I think it’s worth noting that the injuries and deaths that take place because of cyclists are also unacceptable.”
> Cyclist who killed London pedestrian jailed for two years
At the moment, if a cyclist kills a pedestrian through riding dangerously, the Crown Prosecution Service can charge them with manslaughter and/or causing bodily harm through wanton and furious driving, a crime under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act which carries a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.
In 2017 cyclist Charlie Alliston was convicted of causing bodily harm through wanton and furious driving in connection with the death of pedestrian Kim Briggs. He was sentenced to 18 months’ detention in a young offenders institution, though the jury cleared him of the more serious charge of manslaughter.
In the wake of Alliston’s conviction, Briggs’ husband Matthew campaigned for the creation of new offences related to causing death or serious injury while cycling. He called for cyclists to be subject to similar laws to motorists, with causing death by careless driving and causing death by dangerous driving carrying maximum jail terms, respectively, of five and 14 years.
> Husband of pedestrian killed by cyclist claims ministers are scared of “cycling lobby”
“This case has clearly demonstrated that there is a gap in the law when it comes to dealing with causing death or serious injury by dangerous cycling,” he explained at the time.
“To have to rely on either manslaughter at one end, or a Victorian law that doesn’t even mention causing death at the other end tells us that there is a gap. The fact that what happened to Kim is rare is not a reason for there to be no remedy.”
Following a review of the existing legislation on dangerous and careless cycling, in 2018 the government launched a three-month consultation into reforming the law, though there has been little progress made in the three years since it was held.
A similar fate befell a private member’s bill introduced into the House of Lords in January 2020 with the aim of creating new offences for dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling. The bill failed to make it past its first reading.
> Pedestrian who died after RideLondon collision had been warned by marshal not to cross
Of the 346 pedestrians killed on Britain’s roads in 2020, only four were involved in a collision with a cyclist (regardless of who may have been at fault for the incident). Car drivers, meanwhile, were involved in three-quarters of all road fatalities that year, despite the reduction in motor traffic due to lockdown restrictions. Between 2015 and 2019, 99.3% of pedestrian fatalities involved motor vehicles, while only 0.7% involved bicycles.
Responding to Shapps’ announcement, Duncan Dollimore, Cycling UK’s head of campaigns, 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.”
After obtaining a PhD, lecturing, and hosting a history podcast at Queen’s University Belfast, Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.
Latest Comments
- ktache 4 min 19 sec ago
The people at Hexlox have asked me to tell others about their back Friday deals, but I don't quite know what the offer is yet. But saving anything...
- Freddy56 8 min 58 sec ago
Would love to know if anyone else thinks the army green winter jackets are actually better than black to hide the cyclist profile in low light?
- momove 17 min 30 sec ago
You two are going to have to help out the undereducated here!...
- VIPcyclist 42 min 28 sec ago
Whilst I was reading this I was thinking : sounds familiar, yep, that's right . Then I read the bit about being referred for a fitness to drive and...
- Dnnnnnn 55 min 35 sec ago
I'm unclear how simply considering the views of people who travel through an area is voting for rat-runs. No need to explain though.
- David9694 1 hour 54 min ago
When you don't know for sure what the whinge would be if this work was postponed to January, but you know there would be one:...
- biking59boomer 2 hours 35 min ago
Sadly the cyclist hate in this country seems to have worsened of late. Dangerous motoring combined with anti-cycling officialdom in some places is...
Add new comment
90 comments
Sounds like a new play on this old elision of "e" and its translations. Such linguistic louchness and textual tomfoolery will doubtless be disparaged, maybe even by so-shall workers...
Isn't it entology - the study of forest and woodland guardians? Seems to have an obvious appeal for badgers.
Nah. Study of walking trees. Can't stand the bastards myself. No sooner have you dug a nice sett some bloody overgrown privet hedge walks off with your ceiling
Seems like a good reason to study them - know thine enemy and all that...
So the "Dangerous and Reckless Cycling (Offences)" bill comes up again.
For those not familiar with this, it first appeared (as far as I can make out) in a ten minute bill by Andrea Leadsom to the house on 22nd March 2011. That bill did not make progress.
Ms Leadsom also made the statement (and I have been unable to find the date that she said this and the exact words but this is what I recall) to the house
'that the average sentence given to cyclists who kill is considerably less than the maximum sentence that a motorist can be given for the same offence'. *
In her 2011 speech and during the Alliston trial she referred to the old and archaic law that needs updating because "There are other offences, such as manslaughter and grievous bodily harm, that could theoretically be used against a cyclist, but these are also rarely appropriate in the case of road accidents." (Hansard)
That old and archaic law is The Offences Against the Person Act 1861, that carries a section on “drivers of carriages injuring persons by furious driving”.
It declares:
“Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour.”
“The real problem is the fact that as yet there is no offence of causing death by dangerous cycling.” (Leadsom Hansard)
So she is right that 2 years is less than the 14 that the motorist could get. But there is still manslaughter and GBH. **
I will also point out that her impassionate speech referenced the death of Rhiannon Bennett who was killed by a cyclist who was only fined £2200 and did not serve a prison sentence.
(There were two interesting things about this case that had commentators puzzled at the time. The first is Ms Leadsom gave evidence to the house that had not been presented at the trial with regard to the position of the cyclist and his victim. The second was that the value of the cycle seemed to be important and increased in value at every press report. When Ms Leadsom spoke of it in 2011 she gave a figure of £6000. Later reports had it up to £10,000, earlier reports less. We wondered why this was mentioned as the value of cars that were used in offences are not normally reported. It seems, with hindsight, that Ms Leadsom required that value to quote to demonstrate the paultry fine. Which is why the value of the cycle is always reported in press reports to this day, I assume to create a negative impression.)
In 2018 the issue was raised again by Ms Leadsom with the support of Matthew Briggs the widower of Kim Briggs who had been killed by Alliston. Again the claim was made that the old and archaic law was inadequate and should be updated with a new modern law that specifically dealt with cyclists because...
"Alliston was cleared of manslaughter but found guilty of causing bodily harm by “wanton and furious driving” and was given 18months. (yes that old archaic law)
In a statement outside court, Briggs said: “This case has clearly and evidently demonstrated there is a gap in the law when it comes to dealing with death or serious injury by dangerous cycling.
“To have to rely on either manslaughter at one end, or a Victorian law that doesn’t even mention causing death at the other end, tells us there is a gap. The fact that what happened to Kim is rare is not a reason to have no remedy.” (The Guardian)
The bill next seemed to appear in 2019 and again in 2020 by Baroness McIntosh of Pickering. She asks lots of questions about cyclists riding on pavements and jumping red lights. That also failed to go through. This was possibly because at the time of the Alliston case there was a legal review and a report by Laura Thomas of Birketts was published in early 2018.***
Her recomendation was to take the existing legislation (Road Traffic ACt 1988) and to amend it by...
"remove the restriction of "mechanically propelled vehicles" to the offences of causing death or serious injury by dangerous or careless driving."
This would ensure that any vehicle used on the highway would be subject to the same law and would include any future vehicles that may appear that are not yet known. So this would cover cars & cycles as well as horse and cart, mobility scooters and of course e-scooters that did not exist then and do not seem to be covered by the law now.
Based on this a consultation was put out, but we still await the results.
The impression that I got was that the report by Laura Thomas came to a sensible and pragmatic conclusion, but a conclusion that did not please her masters. They are hankering after a specific new law aimed at cyclists. OK it ticks the remit of having the same maximum penalty of 14 years in prison for causing death and 5 years for careless and inconsiderate driving, but it was not to include anyone else.
So should we be worried about this attempt at resurecting the Dangerous and Reckless Cycling bill?
Well I think we should.
First because it is aimed specifically at one group in society when Laura Thomas has identified that the existing law could just be levelled up. If we applied this principle to, for instance single out a group based on ethnic background would that be fair?
Secondly, the government has been hankering after this for 11 years, they have a weak leadership who could lose them the election and the public (Tory voters) have been set against cyclist by a long campaign and boisted to a frenzy by headlines claiming that the woke left-wing cycling mafia forced the changes to the Highway Code. Which is why the two are linked.
Have no doubt that the enraged voters feel that these lycra louts should be put back into their place and nervous Tory MP's need a few popular vote winners and possibly quite soon.
Finally, I am also worried because we (cyclists) got a lot of concessions**** in the Highway code. I wonder at what price?
Why do I say that, well for instance, to get the Cycle Event warnings sign into the signs book, we had to accept tinkly bells on new bicycles. Pedal reflectors were a trade off for the current (and inadequate) regulations for cycle sport on the highway. There are many other such trade off's usually unheard of and done in the background to get even the little bits of legislation in place.
So is this bill going to be our trade off? Has it already been agreed by our cycling representatives to appease the motoring lobby?
We can only wait and see.
Andy
*she also went on to say that not enough cyclists were being prosecuted.
** of course this also doesn't reflect the real world where motorists are hardly ever proscecuted and if they are recieve negligable fines. I think of my club mates here.
*** A proper lawyer, not a puffed up wannabe. By the way I recommend reading the report. It goes a long way to explaining the current situation and why motorists are not charged with manslaughter.
**** Yes I know that there is no change to law and that the HC is just clarifying things, but to get it into the HC is a big thing. For instance the Cycle Event signs are in the sign book but are not in the HC and cycle events are also not mentioned.
Edit to correct a typo.
Wow, thanks. Think this should be a blog post somewhere rather than below the line. Worthy of a coffee and a Sunday morning.
Just one speculative point - on "cyclists got a lot of concessions". True from one perspective. I'm wondering how it would be if we choose to see the highway code changes as the "green shoots" of a slightly more modern approach to transport? A genuine "we're all just people making journeys - how do we ensure that everyone can travel safely rather than just prioritising the motorist and fitting everyone round them". This is likely wild optimism or even naive considering our motoring-dependent reality. But a positive move - like rephrasing "accident" as "crash"? So rather than "cyclists blagged something from drivers here - but we'll pay" maybe verbalising this differently might be interesting? As in "this is mostly about updating / being a bit more explicit in the HC wording to reflect safe and sensible practice - oh plus that 'let pedestrians cross at side roads' bit"?
Your welcome.
I don't often actually write on forums, especially cycling forums as I tend to get shot down quickly unless I present some traceable evidence.
On your second point, perhaps I am too cynical.
I hope that my view is wrong. But "if you ignore history you are doomed to repeat its mistakes".
Yes the pedestrian bit puzzles me as well. Perhaps if you take that out then the hierarchy doesn't make sense. Or this somehow is the result of a bigger lobby group with several interests.
What the actual fuck!?! What was the context of that remark exactly?
Of course the average sentence for cyclists should be much less than the maximum sentence for motorists. The average sentence for motorists is much less then the maximum sentence for motorists. The average sentence for motorists should be higher of course, but even then it should be less than the maximum sentence. If the average sentence for cyclists was the same as the maximum sentence for motorists it would be a sign of some shocking miscarriages justice.
That's the problem, I can't find that reference now. I was the comment afterwards that not enough cyclists were being prosecuted that surprised me.
If I recall correctly the average sentence of cyclists who kill, at that time, seven years and all of the recent events resulted in a prosecution.
Perhaps Ms Leadsom was refering the cyclist who was mearly fined and may have been thinking dangerous cycling offences. Until we can find the time and place I can't be certain. But I do recall it.
You have picked up the point very well, that she is comparing apples with pears. If she had stated the average sentence of motorists who have caused death and compared that to convicted cyclists, then it would have been a very poor argument.
I can't make any sense of this post. Could you please re-read it and edit it so that it makes some sort of sense?
I have reread it, and I have no idea why you're confused. Leadsome is alleged to have complained that the average sentence handed down for causing death via dangerous cycling is lower than the maximum sentence possible for causing death by dangerous driving. My point if you need it stated more simply is "Duh! Obviously it is and obviously it should be."
There you go.
Are any of the "death by" laws really worth having?
Sure, careless driving should be an offence. Dangerous driving should be an offence. No issue with careless/dangerous cycling being an offence, as long as well defined and the penalties reflected the level of risk of harm appropriately.
But if you kill or seriously injure someone, what's wrong with just using manslaughter/GBH/ABH?
Why should you be entitled to a discount on the maximum or the recommended sentence purely because you used a car - or indeed a bicycle - with such recklessness that it was resulted in someone's death?
Because it is not a law aimed specifically at cyclists.
Not defending the utter laziness and prejudice behind the reluctance to prosecute drivers, but my understanding that for ABH and GBH you would have to demonstrate intent to harm. This may well be appropriate in some cases, but not I believe the majority.
Involuntary manslaughter at first glance may suit some cases, but again my understanding is that it would have to be demonstrated that it results from an unlawful act, or gross negligence (link to FLACCS). Speaking as a mere badger-sett-lawyer, it seems that may complicate things for a jury's tiny minds - I fear a prosecutor might be more keen to get them on something certain and familiar, especially in a high profile case involving a death. Don't get me wrong, again in some cases this would be utterly appropriate, but it is not universal.
I think the "death by" laws are worth having when pursued vigorously. My view is that a catastrophic collision is vanishingly unlikely when people are driving safely (sounds tautological, but I think it is more actually self-evident). The collision with teh bus stop yesterday is a case in point. You can't demolish a piece of street furniture and overturn your car when driving appropriately to the conditions. And yet the excuses (from people who weren't driving) flood in. Aaa might have been a deer, might have been a branch and so on.
The problem is they are not pursued, and this requires a culture change, and that needs political leadership.
People on here were fornicating? I had no idea it was that type of website.
I actually don't think anyone can't cope with the extra responsibility. I've no problem with cycling responsibly and giving pedestrians their place. I do have issue with motorists who get away with slapped wrists, who don't take responsibility and fall on the services of a Mr Freeman to get them off on a technicality.
Just fuck off, Boo.
That is all. 👍
I thought the idea was to remove from the statute book laws which were virtually unused, not add them on.
You do realise that coming up with new, useless laws is pretty much the raison d'etre of politicians?
we should have a law of death by dangerous politicians, I propose exhibit A is the delayed lockdown in 2020, feel free to add your own examples and see how quickly we run out of alphabet!
What a waste of time
Okay Mr Shitts - I think I spelt that right - I'm calling for an offence of Causing Death By Cow. In 2020, 22 people were killed by Cows. This is moo-onstrous. During the same year, a shocking 5 people were killed by cyclists. This obviously an unacceptable situation and cannot continue.
My logic is impeccable. I shall succeed.
Stop milking this story to exercise your personal beefs.
Pull the udder one.
"Death by dangerous herding"?
You're Simon Richardson, and I claim my £5.
Don't farmers just have some insurance to cover their ox?
Only when it's covetted.
Obviously they're the lowest of the low.
Pages