- 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
London cyclist approaching junction.jpgGovernment announces cycle safety review in wake of Alliston case
Transport Minister Jesse Norman will today announce that the Government is launching what it says will be a wide ranging review in to cycle safety. The review has been launched in response “to a series of high profile incidents involving cyclists” according to the official press release of the announcement - thought to be a reference to the case in which cyclist Charlie Alliston who was was this week sentenced to 18 months in a young offenders institution for the death of pedestrian Kim Briggs when the pair collided in London’s Old Street in February 2016.
The statement announcing the review says the first phase will look at whether a new offence equivalent to causing death by careless or dangerous driving should be introduced for cyclists, before moving on to the question of wider improvements for cycling road safety issues.
Some of the statement announcing the review and of the structure of the review itself are likely to raise both eyebrows and hackles amongst sections of the cycling community.
Many will no doubt point out that it is over three years since the then Tory lead Coalition Government promised a review in to sentencing policy in relation to convictions for the offences of causing death by careless driving, and causing death by dangerous driving in a bid to tackle poor driving standards and make the roads safer for everyone. Despite repeated requests from Cycling UK, British Cycling, MPs, and peers the lenient sentencing review has still not published its findings and only got started in 2016 at which time the Government said it would present legislation before the end of 2017. As yet neither the review nor any new legislation have been forthcoming. In the interim over 5000 people are estimated to have been killed on UK roads - around 1200 pedestrians and over 300 cyclists.
The structure of the review is also likely to cause comment with the Government choosing to put examining the case for creating new offences of causing death by dangerous, or careless cycling ahead of actually making roads safer for pedestrians and cyclists. Some will no doubt wonder if following the Alliston case ministers want to be seen to be doing something to appease the clamour in sections of the right wing press (and ahead of the upcoming Conservative Party conference) rather than actually doing something.
If saving lives is the priority it certainly looks like an odd way of setting up the review given the grim fact that - as the minister mentions in his comments accompanying the announcement - while two pedestrians were killed by cyclists in 2015 that tragic figure is eclipsed by the 407 pedestrians killed by other vehicles that same year, and the 100 cyclists.
This line from the minister is also likely to cause comment in that it would appear to give equivalence to the amounts of pain and suffering caused by dangerous cycling and dangerous driving:
“We’ve seen the devastation that reckless cycling and driving can cause, and this review will help safeguard both Britain’s cyclists and those who share the roads with them.”
While there is no argument that any death or serious injury whatever the cause will result in needless pain and suffering it seems odd that the minister chooses to mention cycling first when in 2015 - the year she uses as an example according to Department for Transport statistics two people were killed by cyclists (the minister doesn't mention whether in either case charges were brought against the cyclists) while 1,730 people were killed by other vehicles, the vast majority in incidents involving motor vehicles - that's not to mention the 22,137 people seriously injured, again mostly in incidents involving motor vehicles.
Here are Transport Minister Jesse Norman's comments in full on the announcement of the Governments cycling safety review plus the rest of the announcement:
“Although the UK has some of the safest roads in the world, we are always looking to make them safer.
“It’s great that cycling has become so popular in recent years but we need to make sure that our road safety rules keep pace with this change.
“We already have strict laws that ensure that drivers who put people’s lives at risk are punished but, given recent cases, it is only right for us to look at whether dangerous cyclists should face the same consequences.
“We’ve seen the devastation that reckless cycling and driving can cause, and this review will help safeguard both Britain’s cyclists and those who share the roads with them.”
Since the government trebled spending on cycling between 2010 and 2017, there has been a huge increase in the number of cyclists on our roads.
In 2015, two pedestrians were killed and 96 seriously injured after being hit by a bicycle. Every year more than 100 cyclists are killed and more than 3,000 seriously injured on British roads.
The review, which will seek to improve all elements of cycle safety, will be in two phases.
The first phase will analyse the case for creating a new offence equivalent to causing death or serious injury by careless or dangerous driving to help protect both cyclists and pedestrians. This phase will be informed by independent legal advice and the conclusions are expected to be reported in the New Year.
The second phase will be a wider consultation on road safety issues relating to cycling. It will involve a range of road safety and cycling organisations, as well as the general public and will consider different ways in which safety can be further improved between cyclists, pedestrians and motorists. It will consider the rules of the road, public awareness, key safety risks and the guidance and signage for all road users.
Further details of the review will be announced shortly.
Responding to the announcement Paul Tuohy, Cycling UK’s Chief Executive said:
“The consultation on road safety issues is an opportunity to keep cyclists and pedestrians safer. Cycling UK looks forward to working with the Department for Transport on this consultation to ensure it focuses on evidenced ways that keep our most vulnerable road users safe, by addressing risks such as dangerous roads, drivers and vehicles.
“The proposed review of cycling offences needs to be carried out as part of the Government’s promised wider review of all road traffic offences and sentencing. This will ensure the justice system can deal with mistakes, carelessness, recklessness and deliberately dangerous behaviour by all road users.”
road.cc's founder and first editor, nowadays to be found riding a spreadsheet. Tony's journey in cycling media started in 1997 as production editor and then deputy editor of Total Bike, acting editor of Total Mountain Bike and then seven years as editor of Cycling Plus. He launched his first cycling website - the Cycling Plus Forum at the turn of the century. In 2006 he left C+ to head up the launch team for Bike Radar which he edited until 2008, when he co-launched the multi-award winning road.cc - finally handing on the reins in 2021 to Jack Sexty. His favourite ride is his ‘commute’ - which he does most days inc weekends and he’s been cycle-commuting since 1994. His favourite bikes are titanium and have disc brakes, though he'd like to own a carbon bike one day.
Latest Comments
- OldRidgeback 10 min 49 sec ago
The Australian police really hate cyclists it seems.
- levestane 37 min 32 sec ago
I think this is because the emissions we drive through our consumption (imports) are not counted as UK emissions?
- Rizzo27 1 hour 32 min ago
I’ve found Specialized to be well put together and refined but not necessarily budget. I had a RadWagon before my Specialized Vado 4 and the level...
- stonojnr 2 hours 32 min ago
but I thought that was the Avanti process, your bike doesnt get in the special cycle storage carriage without a printed reservation, that you then...
- stonojnr 3 hours 17 sec ago
he could get one of those flame thrower dog robots, might concentrate the minds of the drivers abit, the speed detector signs that article talks...
- stonojnr 3 hours 18 min ago
we could get Mr Loophole to take the case....
- grOg 10 hours 56 min ago
As soon as I saw the video, I thought; unlicensed rider, stolen bike with stolen plates; that sort of criminal wouldn't give a second thought about...
- NOtotheEU 12 hours 31 min ago
I recieved an email this week from a WMP officer drafted in to help as they were overwhelmed with submissions and falling behind. It said two of...
- quadtodd 15 hours 9 min ago
You might have missed this: ...
- michael.macklin@va.gov 18 hours 31 min ago
Calipers: not apealing.Red Levers: The Most Beatiful Levers In The World ! Gonna work some overtime.
Add new comment
117 comments
I didn't realise it was so complicated but successive governments have hammered motorists with ever increasing taxes, charges, regulations, limitations, fines and penalties and generally spending on roads has stagnated or decreased as a % of revenues raised from motorists which ironically affects cyclists more as those potholes are much more danagerous to a bicycle than even a motorcycle and certainly more than a car.
I made quite clear they don't stop everyone and that is normal after all no law no matter what it covers from murder to mobile phones will stop people from breaking them but in general it does see a reduction in such offences.
Most people know they aren't allowed to use mobile phones as there has been plenty of coverage about it, including by the motoring organisations (https://www.theaa.com/driving-advice/legal/mobile-phones and https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/know-how/mobile-phone-laws/) plus as previously stated it is a law unlike using one when cycling which at moment the best that can be done is to charge someone with careless cycling but naturally both require a police officer to actually be there at the time. I should point out I believe that the penalty for driving while using a mobile phone should go further, possibly even black listing users from phones.
Actually everyone can affect their own behaviour, even affect those in the immidate vicinity but the habit recently seems to be to try and defend what I consider to be the indefensible with some of the oddest excuses which includes ones such as if they break the law and do something why can't we.
I suspect most of what I'm saying will be picked apart and ignored, that is fine because the ultimate outcome will be increased regulation/laws aimmed to bring bicycles in line with other vehicles and since someone needs to pay for them it'll lead to increased costs for cyclists. Either way it'll be my last comment on this article.
I find it hard to believe you mean this collection of obviously-not-true, 'hard-pressed-motorist', cliches seriously. It's just boilerplate stuff, that you must know bears no relationship to reality.
The facts are that the cost of motoring has reduced substantially and continually over the last 40 years (probably why the number of households with a car has increased from 1 in 7 to more than half). That's the reality, and I'm sure you are aware of that.
Motorists do not pay, and have never paid, anywhere near the full rental/opportunity cost of the roads (you think all that prime urban real-estate you drive or park on comes for free, unlike all other land? If you live in a rented house do you only pay the cost of maintenance?).
What drivers pay is a contribution towards the other external costs they create in terms of pollution, policing, health, and maintenance - but they don't pay for exclusive use of the roads (because they couldn't afford it).
There are effectively no revenues raised from motorists, because the net balance of costs and revenues is negative. Motoring is subsidised. Because it has been allowed to become so central to the the functioning of society and the economy (and the more it's subsidised the more central it becomes).
All the rest of what you write is true but sadly I think all too many people actually do mean this sort of guff seriously. Big part of the problem, in fact.
Oh how I was just thinking that there should be a review of how the law treats dangerous cycling as I was overtaken on my way home this evening as I was riding in primary position wearing helmet and high viz jacket, dynamo lights on, reflective panniers etc., signalling clearly with my right arm to turn right, by a completely idiotic car driver who only just managed to avoid the vehicle coming in the opposite direction. It is all on video but I really doubt the Met Police would be remotely interested.
Please submit the footage to the police.
The way I see it is that the more cyclists that use cameras and report bad driving to the police, the better. If motorists never know whether cyclists are watching them or not, then some of them may think twice before certain maneouvres. And, in the rare cases that the police follow up the complaint, the chastised motorist is almost certain to whine and complain about it to lots of fellow motorists who then get the idea that "the cyclists might be watching".
(By the way, I don't believe in cyclists as a collective, so feel free to ignore my views)
Unless your camera is mounted in such a position that you were able to prove how close they passed you the police won't be interested.
I reported an incident where a car squeezed past me at a traffic island, full hd footage, front and back, camera mounted on seat post and handle bars..... and the response "sorry you cant prove how close the car was to you, can't do anything"..... roughly translated "we can't be bothered doing anything".
In my opinion it doesn't take a rocket scientist to prove that if a car and a bike go through a gap just over 1m wider than a car that the car did not give the cyclist enough space.... but the police seem to think that it is too difficult to prove.
It depends on the police force. If you think they just dismissed the footage without properly examining it, then you can push the matter further if you're so inclined.
I think it's still worth submitting as many cases of bad driving as possible so that close-passing/bullying behaviour can be at least counted.
Also you absolutely can prove the distance from the camera mathematically if you know the focal length of the lens, the sensor size and the size of the object in real life. I'm assuming that your issue relates to a helmet mounted camera rather than one mounted to the bars?
Reardless, as you say they squeezed past inside a traffic island so it's obvious that it was an illegally close pass. You should go back to the police and insist that they take action - you have definitive proof and they have a duty to investigate and prosecute illegal driving. The more we take action, the more they have to listen.
Tonight a 73 yr old man (cyclist) lost his life in derby in a collision with a lorry still to early for details are they going to use that in the review. One thing for sure confrontation will become the norm not the exception. Sad day the majority will have to suffer because of a dick head. The government needs to remember we have a vote too
Come on you lot, have some faith in democracy. There is a strong libertarian streak in our legal system; that is the very reason we have the freedom to choose to wear a helmet or not. Plenty of governments have had the option to legislate before and haven't. The final question will be is it worth the cost (for a couple of cases) and the answer will be, no, lets not bother. Freedom is cheap.
It's not about faith in the legal system - it's the fuckwits in charge with their slim (paid for) parliamentary majority that will change the laws that will impact us.
Perhaps latching on to any tiny issue and inflating it's importance will provide a welcome distration from their inability to manage brexit, the economy, the NHS or society in general. Add in a complicit hate fuelled media and there will be plenty of column inches praising these urgent new laws to combat the real dangers on the roads!
Or what will play well with the tabloids. What do you think that might be?
Or are you taking the Michael? I honestly can't tell.
Faith in democracy. Hollow laughter I'm afraid. None of that faith left after the bizarre self harming of the referendum.
Faith in this government not to legislate in the interests of big corporations. No.
If your optimistic final sentences were true they wouldn't even start - it is clearly obvious that the real danger is too low to care over. I suspect this is the start of the clearance - get us out of the way of the autonomous vehicles.
Major road laws reviews only come along once in a generation, if that.
I fear this could extend to not just helmet laws for cyclists but lay the path for Autonomous Vehicles. Every major vehicle manufacturer is pushing this at the moment, and lobbying government hard. They need to control cyclists and pedestrians to get their products on the market.
This is not going to end well.
Though this isn't about our legal system, its a political decision to determine what the law will be, so whether there's a 'libertarian streak' in the former is irrelevant.
Whether it will be worth the cost doesn't stop them, cf the dangerous dogs act.
The usual thing that stops this sort of nonsense is a lack of parliamentary time. And the trouble is, this government appears to prefer to bypass parliament anyway (as they know they haven't really got a majority - apparently the payoff to their DUP mercenaries hasn't actually gone through yet) so there is reason to worry.
So, 100 plus cyclists killed every year on the roads but actually it's the cyclists' behaviour in particular that we are going to look at trying to improve 'cos they kill 2 people a year .
And anyway cyclists are not really supposed to use our road network and are pretty stupid to do so as it's actually designed for cars and goods vehicles and cyclists just don't mix well with this type of road user so we'd like to legislate to make the life of the cyclist a little bit tougher and put more legal constraints on people stupid enough to ride bikes so we can turn round and tell them 'tough' when they get knocked off or killed and they weren't wearing a helmet or enough hi-viz at the time....
This won't end well - it feels like we're swiftly reaching the point where it is completely acceptable to villify cyclists. I very much doubt we will see laws based on evidence but instead bile and bluster will shape legislation.
This all feels so entirely in keeping with the state of modern Britain - so depressing and yet unsurprising.
It hasn't started well. Standing roadside with my bike taking a photo in a quiet country lane this morning a Jeep thing pulled up and the male driver launched into a verbal attack on me that culminated in "you'll get what you deserve..." Unprovoked, unwarranted but I'm sure he feels in light of recent anti-cycling rhetoric he's throughly entitled. As you say, acceptable to villify cyclists.
Right now any pleasure I get from cycling is totally negated by the threat I feel I face and I'm within an inch of just giving up.
Don't give up cycling - you'll only be hurting yourself.
Absolutely don't give up. Screw 'em, keep riding. Ride more if you can. Granted, we may all need to grow the hide of a rogue bull rhinoceros, but screw 'em anyway.
Wow! Only three years after announcing a review of road law and punishments, the government swing into immediate action.
Lying. Bunch. Of. Hypocrites.
So, mandatory helmets then.
But seriously, motors kill thousands every year, so why aren't they pulling their hair out when motorists just get a slap on the wrists, bloody two-faced twats.
I liked your post but then withdrew it because of the mandatory helmet comment, which I'm sure was sarcastic, but even so, I couldn't stomach it. To coin a phrase "Over my dead body".
Second sentence spot on, except for the fact that it isn't "motors" it's drivers.
He said "motorists" not "motors. I believe that "motorists" is another word for "drivers", it is not another word for vehicle. Just like "biker" can be used to mean "cyclist", it is not used to mean "bike".
Actually he did say 'motors' - read it again (not that it's a big deal, and anyway my eyes are starting to deteriorate as well).
Ahh, you are right. He says "Motors" in the first sentance but uses "Motorists" in the second. It was only the second time he said it that I noted it.
Though it does bring up the question, as it is the vehicle that impacts with the pedestrian is it not the motor that kills? Where as in most of the cases with cyclists it is the impact of the cyclists head that causes the serious injury so is may not be entirely incorrect usage? Though I of course accept that it is not really the usage that is of question, rather the connetation that it has
It takes one cyclist to make my life a vote winner, something thousands of drivers have failed to do.
Pages