Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Cyclists "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

The former Tory leader believes existing legislation around cycling "is clearly out of date", but has been accused of playing into "culture wars" and deliberately ignoring other road safety issues which cause far more deaths and serious injuries...

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.

Iain Duncan Smith Telegraph article

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.

> Iain Duncan Smith wants cyclists to know "they're not above the law", makes latest call for new laws to punish dangerous cycling

"All this means that the existing legislation is clearly out of date and worse, is now leading to differentiation between dangerous behaviour on the roads – frankly, the punishment doesn't fit the crime or achieve justice for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."

Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Parliamentary portrait)

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.

> Does there really need to be a law for causing death or serious injury by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate 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.

DfT pedestrian casualty statistics

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?"

> "I had no idea how fast I was going": Iain Duncan Smith slammed for hypocrisy on "dangerous cycling" law after driving to Germany with broken speedometer

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.

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.

Add new comment

60 comments

Avatar
Stephankernow | 3 weeks ago
1 like

Any dangerous road user , Regardless of vehicle should not be in the road.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Stephankernow | 3 weeks ago
1 like
Stephankernow wrote:

Any dangerous road user , Regardless of vehicle should not be in the road.

You should tell that to the judges

Avatar
mdavidford replied to Stephankernow | 3 weeks ago
0 likes
Stephankernow wrote:

Regardless of vehicle

Or absence thereof?

Avatar
AidanR | 3 weeks ago
2 likes

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.

Avatar
biking59boomer | 3 weeks ago
6 likes

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.

Avatar
john_smith | 3 weeks ago
3 likes

When a brexiter says "frankly", you know something good is coming.

Avatar
JLasTSR | 3 weeks ago
2 likes

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. 

 

 

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to JLasTSR | 3 weeks ago
4 likes
JLasTSR wrote:

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".

Avatar
JLasTSR replied to hawkinspeter | 3 weeks ago
0 likes

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?

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to JLasTSR | 3 weeks ago
1 like

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?)

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to JLasTSR | 3 weeks ago
7 likes
JLasTSR wrote:

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?

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.

Avatar
JLasTSR replied to hawkinspeter | 3 weeks ago
1 like

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.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to JLasTSR | 3 weeks ago
1 like
JLasTSR wrote:

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.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to hawkinspeter | 3 weeks ago
1 like

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...

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to chrisonabike | 3 weeks ago
2 likes
chrisonabike wrote:

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.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to hawkinspeter | 3 weeks ago
1 like

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)...

Avatar
OldRidgeback replied to hawkinspeter | 3 weeks ago
1 like
hawkinspeter wrote:
JLasTSR wrote:

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.

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.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to OldRidgeback | 3 weeks ago
2 likes
OldRidgeback wrote:

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.

Avatar
qwerty360 replied to hawkinspeter | 3 weeks ago
2 likes
hawkinspeter wrote:

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); 

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to qwerty360 | 3 weeks ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
quiff replied to hawkinspeter | 3 weeks ago
1 like
hawkinspeter wrote:
JLasTSR wrote:

...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...

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...

Can you not both be right? It seems fair enough to me that:

  • access to a motor vehicle be restricted and licensed because of its higher potential for KSIs; but
  • punishment for actual KSIs be broadly equivalent regardless of mode

Although of course we know that KSI by hammer is already treated differently from KSI by car.   

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to JLasTSR | 3 weeks ago
1 like
JLasTSR wrote:

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. 

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.

Avatar
JLasTSR replied to chrisonabike | 3 weeks ago
1 like

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.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to JLasTSR | 3 weeks ago
2 likes
JLasTSR wrote:

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.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to hawkinspeter | 3 weeks ago
0 likes

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...

Avatar
bensynnock replied to JLasTSR | 3 weeks ago
7 likes

As far as I can tell, there are no laws governing motorists. It's like the wild west out there.

Avatar
Adnico replied to JLasTSR | 3 weeks ago
2 likes

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?

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 3 weeks ago
5 likes

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.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to hawkinspeter | 3 weeks ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to hawkinspeter | 3 weeks ago
3 likes

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

Latest Comments