- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- 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
- Tubeless valves
- 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
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Cyclists Stay Awesome bell (credit: road.cc)MP calls for mandatory bell law for cyclists “to warn pedestrians”, as Iain Duncan Smith renews ‘dangerous cycling’ law campaign and claims e-bikes are causing “major danger”
A Conservative MP has called for cyclists to be required by law to fit and use a bell when riding a bicycle, as the party’s former leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith renewed his campaign to introduce tougher laws to punish dangerous cycling.
During a debate on the Labour government’s new Crime and Policing Bill, Duncan Smith argued that his proposed legislation – which, despite attracting cross-party support last year, was shelved due to the general election – would crack down on people “genuinely abusing” the Road Traffic Act, as well as e-bike riders “causing major danger” to pedestrians on paths.
The second reading of the Crime and Policing Bill, branded “one of the biggest legislative updates to policing for decades”, took place in the House of Commons on Monday. Labour says the legalisation aims to clamp down on anti-social behaviour, shop theft, and street crime, including giving police officers more power to search for stolen mobile phones.
However, clause four of the bill could affect people riding bikes in pedestrian zones or on footpaths, by enabling police officers or local officials to issue fixed penalty notices of £500 to anyone found to be breaching a council’s public space protection order (PSPO), replacing the current £100 ceiling for on-the-spot cycling-related PSPO fines.
And, as Monday’s Commons debate turned to cycling, Duncan Smith urged the government to consider including his proposals for tougher ‘dangerous cycling’ laws as part of the Crime and Policing Bill.
Cyclist in London with pedestrians in foreground (credit: Simon MacMichael)Last year, the former Conservative leader spearheaded a campaign to introduce an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill, which would lead to tougher sentences for people who kill or injure while cycling dangerously.
The amendment looked almost certain to pass last summer, but was stopped in its tracks by Rishi Sunak’s decision to call a general election in July, meaning there was insufficient time for the legislation to pass through parliament.
Meanwhile, 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 entered government.
Faced with this apparent lack of progress, Duncan Smith questioned on Monday whether his ‘dangerous cycling’ proposals were still being considered by the government, asking: “Is that gone?”
“The main point I was making was we have had deaths on the street where cyclists cannot be prosecuted for having killed someone,” the Chingford and Woodford Green MP said.
“We are still using a piece of legislation from the mid-19th century, which was offensive and wild carriage driving, which is not acceptable but it hardly ever commits anybody and convicts them either.”
He continued: “So, I would encourage the government to please look again at dangerous cycling where people genuinely abuse the Road Traffic Act and nothing ever seems to be done for them, particularly now on e-bikes which are very dangerous and they’re used in the pathways. Even if they’re not committing a criminal offence in the sense of it, they are causing major danger.
“And ASB – antisocial behaviour – is a big thing our constituents notice and they feel very threatened by people who ride them down on the pavements. It may seem small, but it’s not.”
Following Duncan Smith’s intervention, Labour’s policing minister Dame Diana Johnson noted that the government was looking at introducing new dangerous cycling laws “in detail”.
“The issue of dangerous cycling we are looking at, and we recognise what a doughty campaigner he is, so we are certainly looking at that in detail,” Johnson said.
> Iain Duncan Smith's anti-cycling crusade is anti-reality
Expanding on his former part leader’s proposals, Sir Julian Lewis – the Conservative MP for New Forest East – also called for a new law requiring cyclists to fix bells on their handlebars.
“It would also help if it were made mandatory for all cyclists to have a bell so they could at least warn pedestrians of their approach,” Lewis suggested.
In response, Duncan Smith said he would take his fellow MP’s mandatory bell suggestion “into consideration” as he attempts to revive his campaign for updated cycling legislation.
Bike bells were last on the agenda in parliament in March 2022 when, incidentally, the then-Conservative government insisted that it had no plans to make bell usage mandatory.
The Labour MP for Putney, in west London, Fleur Anderson had raised the issue with the Department for Transport, asking then-Transport Minister Grant Shapps whether he had made any assessment “of the potential merits of requiring all bicycles to include a bell?”
In reply, Trudy Harrison, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary and now the chair of the Bikeability Trust, rejected the idea on behalf of the government.
“Rule 66 of The Highway Code recommends that bells are fitted to cycles, and that people who cycle should always be considerate of other road users, including by calling out or ringing their bell if they have one,” she said.
“All cycles are required at point of sale to be fitted with a bell, but we do not intend to legislate to make the use of bells on cycles mandatory, as there are other ways for people who cycle to warn other road users of their presence.”
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
- slc 5 min 6 sec ago
Fair enough. She doesn't strike me as someone easy to please. I wondered if the article was just a bit poorly edited (elsewhere it has MT talking...
- Jakrayan 42 min 45 sec ago
Yeah, the number of times I've had oncoming drivers overtake a stationary vehicle - parked car on their side for example - forcing me to hit the...
- bobbinogs 59 min 49 sec ago
I always think that the Pearson font is such a dreadful choice, it's almost impossible to read.
- HoarseMann 1 hour 10 min ago
Actually, 'going too fast' is listed as an example of dangerous driving. The law certainly would allow for this offence to be charged as dangerous...
- David9694 4 hours 53 min ago
A bit of light rain is all it was on Friday ...
- David9694 4 hours 59 min ago
Yep, laugh it up at the Tesla owners eco hippies, but the danger is that it gets caught up in the wider EV / petrol forever hate. Not sure why...
- parcours 5 hours 12 min ago
Hi Tony, given that this is a proprietary designed rim (as are all of our wheels), you wouldn't be able to source this elsewhere. Thanks for your...
- belugabob 5 hours 49 min ago
Legal advice is just as likely given so that the client can circumvent the law, as it is to advise them of their legal position.
- mark1a 6 hours 2 min ago
If there's no scheme in place, and your finance controller agrees, you could use Instant GCI - no need for employer to sign up, simply fill in the...
Add new comment
64 comments
Some people on here need to get a serious grip of their own projected prejudice and do some self-education. https://waywordradio.org/monging/
Yes indeed, "monging" certainly is slang for being hungover/dull/sluggish/drugged as your link says, and the etymology of that derives from the offensive implication that a person in one of those states speaks/acts like a person with Down's syndrome. If you wish to indulge in the little self education yourself, this would be a good place to start: https://www.theguardian.com/society/joepublic/2011/oct/19/ricky-gervais-...
From OED.
British colloquial. offensive.
1980–
A person with Down's syndrome (cf. Mongol n. A.2); (more usually as a vague term of abuse) a person considered to be stupid or foolish.
1980
Two popular words..in current use are ‘spazz’ (or spastic), and..‘mong’ (i.e., mongol).
New Society 31 January 225/3 [Citation details for New Society]
I was intrigued as to what, if any, connection the term has to Mongolia. According to, ahem, Wikipedia, Down himself (namesake of the syndrome) coined the term mongoloid due to perceived similarities of facial characteristics between those with Down's syndrome and the "Mongolian race". It seems it has been abandoned because it incorrectly suggested the genetics derived from Asian populations. (To be clear - still not ok in colloquial usage, just interested in the etymology)
Can Death by Dangerous Driving be upgraded to just 'Manslaughter' as well please? Oh wait, Tory speaking against the car-lobby... never ever gonna happen.
From what I understood from lawyers, there's nothing preventing a charge of manslaughter being applied in addition to death by dangerous driving charges.
The CPS choose not to do it, apparently because they feel juries would be confused and it would lead to less convictions overall.
Utterly stupid idea. Have a bell if you want one for sure. They can be useful, but a voice is perfectly adequate - and in fact a substantial proportion of pedestrians object to being "dinged" at and prefer to hear a human voice.
If you can't hear me call out a cheery (loud) "excuse me" as I approach them you're not going to hear the pathetic "ting" from a tiny bell.
Especially if you've got your noise reduction earpods in, listening to an audiobook whilst browsing social media on your phone.
There should be an offence of "being a pedestrian without due care and attention"
Bells? Seriously
so, instead of having both hands on your brakes controling your steering and being ready to avoid a collision, you now are required to imperil yourself and others to ring a bell when your voice can be far more effective providing guidance (eg. "I am passing you on your left")....perhaps we cyclists should seek to gain representation and enact similar stupid laws for the unfit to contend with
A few points to consider :
Will cyclists be required to ring the bell whenever they pass a pedestrian, while riding on the road? Just in case the pedestrian steps out without looking?
Will electric car drivers be required to honk the horn in a similar situation?
When riding on a path,shared with pedestrians, is it it a good idea to brake with one hand, while using the other to ring a bell?
Isn't it better to shout a warning, rather than ride one handed?
Hasn't Ian Duncan Smith got anything more important to do? Will he campaign for bells to be fitted to Russian & North Korean tanks, prior to invading Britain?
Seems fair enough. I'll do more bellwork when people stop monging around with their faces 4" from a phone screen with a noise-filled wastepaper bin sized can over each ear.
I absolutely agree with your point, but please don't use "monging" as an insult, it derives from "mongoloid" which was the old term for Down's syndrome (called at one time "Mongolian idiocy") and is deeply offensive to those who have the condition.
Get over yourself. This isn't 1980, so stop projecting your prejudices onto others.
What has the year got to do with it? Using a term for people with Down's syndrome as an insult was deeply offensive then and is deeply offensive now. Stop it.
Sorry, but Rendel is right. Please don't use such offensive terms. As you say, it's not 1980, when maybe we were a little less aware of prejudice against disabled people.
“The main point I was making was we have had deaths on the street where cyclists cannot be prosecuted for having killed someone,” the Chingford and Woodford Green MP said.
Is that actually true?
Nope. Otherwise Mr Charlie Alliston (the t**t who killed Kim Briggs) would not have been prosecuted. Which is of course the case that really ignited this stupid debate.
Do you really have to ask?
Pick either "yes":
- because "ah but we can only prosecute them for 'wanton and furious driving' ergo they are not being prosecuted for killing". (Ignoring that in practice cyclists who have killed people in crashes have been convicted AND got comparable penalites to drivers who do so)
- because in particular cases it was considered there was not sufficient evidence to prosecute - exactly the same as in cases where vulnerable road users have been killed in collisions involving drivers. (So nothing to do with the particularity of specific cycling offenses I suspect - I'm not a lawer...)
Or "no":
- because in fact cyclists have been prosecuted and convicted as above, so really he's talking nonsense (or at least needs to present some evidence other than "the police couldn't be bothered - just another RTA to them" which also applies to motor vehicles...)
- because in fact cyclists have been prosecuted and convicted as above, so really he's talking nonsense (or at least needs to present some evidence other than "the police couldn't be bothered - just another RT
AC to them" which also applies to motor vehicles...)There, fixed that........
I think the complaint - if it is in good faith (which is a question...) - may stem from:
a) People are accustomed to cars, but less to cyclists - so this worries them. Disproportionately perhaps - but people do get genuinely startled when a cyclist "came out of nowhere" - because much quieter than a car.
b) "In our space" - we've allocated the lion's share of carriageway space to motor traffic. We've also learned that while the main lanes are "for motor traffic" the little that's left should a) be for pedestrians and b) be "safe for pedestrians". (Though in fact every year more people are killed on the pavement by drivers than are killed by cyclists in total...)
c) Cyclist-pedestrian collisions are so rare they're highly salient. A "road traffic accident" (now collision) involving a motor vehicle is something we're inured to.
d) The tiny numbers perhaps focus us on the personal / trigger our intuitions about fairness and personal choice e.g. "they chose to cycle". And "someone must be held accountable". However our intuitions about baseline rates for prosecutions never mind criminal convictions in many types of crime are way too high.
Specifically in the case of motor vehicles the motor industry has done an incredible PR job of flipping our feelings on this from "why did they choose to drive when that immediately increases the chances of someone being killed / injured" through "sad but accidents happen" to "why didn't the victim take more care / stay out of the road / wear hi-viz / wear a helmet?"
100 years of big auto propaganda will do that so it's time for #VisionZero to fight back as No death or serious injury is acceptable.
I think the argument is that the maximum penalty for wanton or furious driving is 2 years, which may be insufficient in some cases. Although that ignores the fact that a cyclist who kills someone could be charged with manslaughter which has a maximum penalty of life in prison.
Yes, drivers are killing people on the street all the time and the CPS doesn't seem to want to prosecute cyclists for these deaths!
IIRC his most recent public campaigning on this topic had been around Regents Park following the death of Mrs Griffiths, and that I believe is the example he keeps citing where he states cyclists couldnt be prosecuted for having killed someone.
so it is true, but from a certain point of view.
But they could have been prosecuted; it was just that there was no realistic prospect of a conviction. That's not the same as can't be prosecuted.
Which is the point of view I refer to, Duncan Smiths view is simply they weren't prosecuted, therefore there is a failing in the current law that must be corrected through more legislation introduced by MPs, which he either sees as his job, calling or legacy to the nation.
The quote is cannot not were not.
As already posted by tom_77 they could be charged with manslaughter
".. there were no criminal acts which would allow prosecution”
That particular death was reported as someone stepping out from a pedestrian refuge 2 meters away from a group of cyclists, the cyclist reported no reaction time travelling 25/29 mph. I'd suggest rules for all vehicles would need to be changed if that was to be prosecuted. If this is the case they are referring too and they did manage to change the law just for cyclist, they would be held to a higher standard than drivers are currently, which seems odd when you look at the figures for deaths on the road and where most occur.
Fwiw I've always believed they could have been prosecuted under careless cycling, and certainly would have been under any presumed liability laws
But no ones ever been able to state why they weren't, or why the CPS/police decided not to this time, and instead we pointlessly waste our time going round in circles debating reaction times and all the kind of stuff we cant possibly know, because we werent there.
And none of which changes the fact the likes of Duncan Smith will continue to cite this case as an example on his crusade for more laws for cyclists.
Feel free to take that debate up with Duncan Smith or your local MP.
Except that presumed liability is usually a matter of civil liability, so you wouldn't be prosecuted as a result of it (though you may be held liable for damages). And stepping out right in front of someone would likely be pretty substantial contributory negligence which would reduce, if not negate, the liability anyway.
Pages