Government agrees to introduce tougher laws for “dangerous cyclists” who kill or injure, as Transport Secretary says “it’s only right tiny minority who recklessly disregard others face full weight of the law”

Indeed.  There is a view that if you are driving you are competent and that's self-evident.  Tested and licenced, isn't it?  You're "official".  Plus you're a citizen in good standing - you're solvent enough to operate a car, you're careful about maintaining things to some extent (you clean the windscreen, MOT it), responsible enough and sufficiently pro-social to pay "road tax", fuel tax etc.

On a bike?  You clearly can't be responsible - after all we let kids ride them.  There aren't even speed limits!  There's no test, "don't pay road tax", no numberplates etc.  Plus "I wouldn't cycle there with all those cars" - you've called your own judgement/responsibility into question.

You've already opted into the awkward squad - and that's the more charitable view!  Failures in life - overgrown manchildren, wannabe TDF racers, eco-zealots, "bloody students", dodgy immigrant delivery riders, young thugs and thieves who aren't even successful enough to get a car ... those with disdain for the mainstream, no responsibility or accountability...

Looking at it with my cycling helmet on* it seems bizarre that riding a bike is seen as being less responsible / pro-social and driving a car the opposite, but that is definitely a view.

Albeit I suspect that (outside rare surges of media interest) most people don't actively think about cycling at all, and alternatives to driving rather infrequently.

* which may be a cap, now it's summer...

I think you're underestimating the likelihood that PCSOs will be deployed to stop cyclists and inexpertly check that their cycles "comply with the regulations" in "cycling safety" crackdowns whenever the Mail etc whip up anti-cycling hysteria and fines issued for lack of reflectors (front, rear or pedal) etc.

Steve K wrote:

I do worry about the definition of "inconsiderate" cycling - is there a law on "inconsiderate driving"?  

Yes. They're both in the Road Traffic Act 1988. All that's new is adding a separate level of "death by" for the cycling offences.

Well ... being fair, if your dangerous cycling *has* killed someone then it would appear to be as dangerous as killing someone with a car?

There *may* be a secondary effect of "see - cycling is a dangerous as driving" which in ways *apart* from the new law causes a change in public perception.

I think the public perception of cycling is pretty polarised, with a chunk of it strongly negative.

Being charitable you could say them bashing cycling to play to a baying core vote is "not proven". The government have just allowed some minor details to be tacked on the end of a bigger bill - perhaps "we're probably gone soon, why not let in a few things which *some* people might like and ideologically we don't care about".

... Except as Hirsute reminds us* they've a long history of failing to take opportunities to *actually* address road safety and legal inequalities on our roads. So in practice they've done almost nothing - and have avoided what seems to be "open goals" ... Except of course that would be upsetting the motor trade, the motorist and maybe some "concerned pedestrians".

* Thanks Hirsute, had forgotten some of those. I can only think of one "positive" (in theory) - increasing maximum sentence for death by dangerous driving. Which I doubt has any effect on safety, but "being seen to be tough". And perhaps you could count them knocking back a couple of weird ideas like cycle numberplates and compulsory helmets if being completely fair. Any others?

I'll break this into two strands:

1) Assuming no intent to harm, the fact that harm is in fact caused is to some degree down to luck. The majority of collisions between cyclists and pedestrians that result in death involved either an elderly person, or someone who has struck their head on a kerb or similar. A driver speeding and driving recklessly has much greater potential to kill. They are therefore more dangerous.

2) If harm is intended, a vehicle is a convenient and safe (for the driver) weapon. A bicycle is not - the cyclist is roughly as likely to be seriously injured as their target.

I would agree - with a car you've the possibility not just to kill but to dismantle, and kill the person behind also. But ... driving is not only legal, its seen as a pretty unexceptional thing to do (almost "waking down the street"). Perhaps I should have emphasised the "appear" part in my comment - just wanted to acknowledge the "but it's the same, dangerous behaviour on the road leading to someone being killed" concern.

Yes we do have precedent for variable penalties for killing people - I think this will just look "the same" if it was your child / partner etc.

In practice - and as noted this is likely to be newsworthy as perhaps once our twice per year - I suspect people are likely to apply the distorted standards we have with driver-caused deaths but in reverse.

So (1) in the driving case we tend to assume no intent ("it was an accident"), because that's how we and everyone we know drives. Plus we *have to drive*. Whereas cycling is clearly a deliberate choice (you could have driven, walked, got the bus...)!

(2) For similar reasons to above people tend to minimise the decisions of those in motor vehicles ("suddenly saw red ... only intended to push them out of the way..."). So just a normal human whose actions were unfortunately magnified because they were wearing a powerful exoskeleton. I suspect that the same result on a bicycle will be seen as worse - because it is so "extreme" and *personal*. You're likely to physically hit anyone you choose to ride into...

Oh, and (Presumably what the amendment mentioned about "equipped") "but cars have MOTs and drivers are trained and licensed". Some people are going to consider a bike aggravates things, as if you'd fitted road wheels to a sofa and gone out "for a play" on the roads...

It will be interesting to see how the charging and sentencing compares between the driving and cycling offences.

There is likely to be a bias against cyclists, despite their "vehicles" being inherently being less dangerous than cars, due to being the out group and the normalisation of (bad) driving.

Of course, it will take some time for there to be enough convictions to make a comparison, because there are so few deaths caused by cyclists.

chrisonabike wrote:

Plus we *have to drive*. Whereas cycling is clearly a deliberate choice (you could have driven, walked, got the bus...)!

Getting a bus is also a deliberate decision so if a bus driver kills someone with his bus, all the passengers share liability with him because without them making the decision to get a bus he wouldn't have been there!

Maybe this is in place to massively reduce the threshold for dangerous driving convictions. "If a cyclist is convicted for killing someone while going 25 in a 20 and having a pedestrian step out in front of them then a drunk driver looking at their phone and blowing through a crossing and killing someone can't possibly be considered merely 'careless'."

Patrick9-32 wrote:

Maybe this is in place to massively reduce the threshold for dangerous driving convictions. "If a cyclist is convicted for killing someone while going 25 in a 20 and having a pedestrian step out in front of them then a drunk driver looking at their phone and blowing through a crossing and killing someone can't possibly be considered merely 'careless'."

You wish!

Backladder wrote:

You wish!

It doesn't seem very likely does it...

Patrick9-32 wrote:

Maybe this is in place to massively reduce the threshold for dangerous driving convictions.

I really, really doubt it!  That would be that "comprehensive review of road traffic offenses" from just ... 10 years back.  Along with lots of other things which the government declined to support, dropped, gave the nod to but then kicked into the long grass or otherwise did not follow through with in practice.  (This is when they've had a stonking majority for some time also, don't forget).

Along with the usual announcing "support for active travel" then either not delivering on the money or indeed cutting this back (practiced by all the main political groups, barring e.g. the Greens - oh and a point for Welsh Labour for renumbering the (existing, arbitrary) default 30mph to 20mph of course!)

Road Peace released a list this morning of the things the government has said it will do to improve the roads but hasn't had time/inclination for whilst having the time for this measure:

• New laws for hit and run offenders
• Publishing of England road safety strategy 
• Undertake full review of motoring offences and penalties, first promised in 2014 
• Transport’s Roads policing review: call for evidence began in 13 July 2020 with recommendations due in Spring 2021; to date, no update has been published
• Pavement parking consultation review - closed November 2020. No update has been published 
• Allowing death by careless driving sentences to be appealed by families under the unduly lenient sentences scheme 
• Establishing the Road Crash Investigation Bureau: promised, then quietly shelved 
• Clarify the difference between careless and dangerous driving
   

And what it did find time for:

Cutting funding for active travel (in 2023) (more on that from Sustrans)

Declaring they're "on the side of the motorist".

Ordering a review of LTNs.

Apparently - the Conservative party this is, not government - running a network of attack groups touting ULEZ and LTN nonsense (and worse) to have a crack at Sadiq.

Brought in legislation on "Automated vehicles" - by itself this could be seen as necessary and just dealing with reality, but they blocked things like sorting out the definition of "careful and competent drivers" at the same time or creating some advisory council.  So it seems as much "how can we help the industry get these sold?"

Ran a consultation on upping the power on EAPCs / throttle-only ones.  Who was calling for this again?

Consultation on restricting the generation of "surplus funds" by local authorities policing traffic.

This current one they have made space for, as an amendment it seems to be a case of "tacked on at the last minute".  I'm not sure how much "deliberately choosing to have a go at cycling" this has?  Someone more knowledgeable about parliamentary proceedings could tell us perhaps.

That'll be interesting - I'm pretty sure no Tory politican or culture warrior could even explain how a bicycle works, let alone set "appropriate" standards for maintenance & safe operation.   Just sounds like them pandering to the "TheY SHouLD HaVE RegIsTrATiOn PlAtES" crowd small but loud gathering.

Halfords can't even build bikes properly how the hell can they be trusted to do a bike MOT competently ?

Would they even get a fine? 

Nah. They'll just get a tongue lashing and told to be more careful in the future. Meanwhile the cyclist's estate will be sued for damages to the door and the mental well being of the motorist.