- 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
Big Ben © Simon MacMichaelTory MP urges government to bring in ‘death by dangerous cycling’ law
A Conservative MP has urged the government to bring in a law relating to causing death by dangerous cycling, something ministers have been promising for several years now but which has not yet entered the statute books.
In a question put to Mark Spencer, the Tory MP for Sherwood and Leader of the House of Commons, Devizes MP Danny Kruger cited the case of Diana Walker, who was killed on Pewsey High Street in May 2016 in a crash involving a cyclist. No charges have ever been brought against the rider.
“The following year the Government announced a consultation on a new offence of causing death by dangerous cycling,” Mr Kruger noted. “The year after that, in 2018, my predecessor Claire Perry was assured by the Government that the response to the consultation would be issued shortly.
“Four years on, we still have no response. Since 2019, I have written to the Government four times to ask for a date for when it will happen,” he added, urging Mr Spencer to speak to the Department for Transport (DfT) to draw up a timetable for the drafting and implementation of the legislation.
In response, Mr Spencer said that Secretary of State for Transport Grant Shapps “is planning to publish our response to the consultation as soon as we can and has already announced that we are considering bringing forward legislation to introduce new offences around dangerous cycling.
“We will do that as part of a suite of measures to improve the safety of all road and pavement users.”
Currently, cyclists involved in a crash in which a pedestrian is killed can face charges of manslaughter and of causing bodily harm through wanton and furious driving – the latter falling under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
Calls for a specific offence of causing death by dangerous cycling intensified in 2017 after cyclist Charlie Alliston was convicted of causing bodily harm through wanton and furious driving following a crash in London’s Old Street in which pedestrian Kim Briggs lost her life. Alliston was acquitted by an Old Bailey jury of manslaughter, however.
In the wake of the case the victim’s widower, Matthew Briggs, has been campaigning for a specific law to be drawn up relating to causing death or serious injury while cycling, saying that bike riders should be subjected to similar laws to motorists.
In January this year, Shapps confirmed that legislation would be brought in to create a new offence of causing death by dangerous cycling.
> Grant Shapps calls for new ‘death by dangerous cycling’ law
Speaking to LBC’s Nick Ferrari about the changes to the Highway Code that were due to take effect towards the end of that month, he 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,” Shapps added.
At the time, Duncan Dollimore, head of campaigns at the charity Cycling UK, 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,” he added.
During 2020, 346 pedestrians lost their lives in road traffic collisions in Great Britain, but cyclists were involved in only four of those fatal crashes, and it should also be noted that those figures, which come from the DfT, do not seek to apportion blame.
Due to their comparative rarity, however, crashes that result in a cyclist being prosecuted following the death of a pedestrian do tend to attract a disproportionate amount of coverage in the national press – typically accompanied by calls for the law to be updated.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Hirsute 1 sec ago
No mention of how not to turn up sweaty as the end of the journey. Tsk, tsk Emily.
- ChasP 22 min 52 sec ago
The Baent tubes (also from aliexpress) have threaded metal valves reinforced where they join the tube. A little heavier than the ride now but I...
- bobbinogs 30 min 7 sec ago
Yepp, I would much rather be looking at large car parks right in front of a beach, filled with oversized cars, which is the usual alternative. ...
- cyclisto 1 hour 11 min ago
The truth is than in the Netherlands that I saw them, they were indeed a bit huge for cycle infra. However they were rather rare.
- Secret_squirrel 1 hour 41 min ago
Those calipers arent the prettiest. Makes them look like Post-mount.
- Dnnnnnn 2 hours 24 min ago
I'm all for a much more socialist approach to the sorts of things you mention, where there are clear market failures and a need for decent...
- David9694 2 hours 25 min ago
Zorbing balls - if it saves just one life
- 11waterloo 2 hours 31 min ago
12 corners in just over 2km is a terrifying prospect if it rains!
- chrisonabike 2 hours 58 min ago
I think it's:...
- NeilBedwin 3 hours 17 min ago
As it's often said -'the way to justify the building of a bridge is not too count the number of people swimming the crocodile infested river!'
Add new comment
61 comments
Given the depressing lack of punishment drivers tend to face for offences committed while behind the wheel, such legislation doesn't feel all that urgent, especially considering the small numbers involved. I am not completely against the idea but I'd want to see a pretty comprehensive overhaul of the way driving offences are handled.
It's likely to be a very rare scenario but I'd also like to know how this proposed law would be applied in the event of a death caused by a cyclist in a race. Obviously you can't race cars on the open road (so far as I am aware) but cycling races like TTs and road races are permitted. What if a rider hit a pedestrian who stepped out in front of them in the course of an official event like this and killed them? Will the law consider things like this I wonder?
This is probably why nothing has happened after 4 years. Anyone pushing this will be attacked for pandering to the mob and targeting cyclists, unnecessarily. It's also a very low priority based on the maximum of 4 people they'll hit with this law in a normal year - and then of those >4 people the charges will unlikely stand up in court for most of them anyway - making this a large white elephant, and a waste of time for all involved while motorists continue to kill hundreds each year and rack up more than 12 points on their licences.
Hoping that the Honourable Gentleman of Devizes puts as much effort into seeking justice for the 67 daily KSI's
As we know you can leave someone for dead claiming you hit a bollard, fail to stop, fail to report and have no insurance and still have a light sentence (and no jail after appeal).
And there's no charge of serious injury by careless driving. Seems a far more important thing to focus on.
The charge of Serious Injury through Careless Driving is supposedly being brought in. However I'm concerned that they want to bring in Dangerous Cycling charges but no Careless Cycling charges. I mean IF the cyclist in this case was doing over 30mph (and it is a big if being as the Strava Segment KOM is just about that speed along it), why would that be Dangerous Cycling when a driver only gets charged with Careless even though they were doing 40mph in a 30 zone.
He wasn't, he was doing 18mph according to the statement he gave police.
It's not clear whether he repeated that statement at the inquest, where as I understand it he'd have been under oath, but his use of a Garmin is mentioned in the context of the inquest, so if there'd been reason to doubt that figure he could have been asked to produce his ride data.
I know he wasn't, but as this is a case being stated on why we need a Death by Dangerous Cycling, where is the in between of Death by Careless Cycling that would be the equivalent that drivers seem to get when they go faster then the speed limit and kill a pedestrian.
Gotcha; hadn't realised you were posing a theoretical, sorry.
You're right, in principle dangerous cycling should be even harder to prove than dangerous driving, since an 80kg rider and bike inherently presents far less danger than two tonnes of metal and glass.
In practice, Jo DailyMailReader thinks cycling is itself extremely dangerous; you can bet they'll convict on the flimsiest of premises.
So basically because one of their constituents was killed by a cyclist, who wasn't charged with any offences, they wan't to introduce a charge of causing death by dangerous cycling.
If the cyclist in question had done anything wrong they would have been charged under the wanton and furious cycling surely.
But as @Oldfatgit says if they bring it in it should be treated in the same way as causing death by dangerous driving.... used only for the most serious case where there are multiple aggrevating factors.
I suppose the question comes down to 'Is Wanton and Furious cycling' an appropriate charge in all circumstances?
If it's not, and I don't think it is, then there is a need for more appropriate legislation.
It wouldn't necessarily need to take up any additional parliamentary time, could just be incorporated into the imminent overhaul of road traffic offences...
Hopefully within that overhaul is a redefinition of what constitutes Dangerous Driving and Careless Driving rather then the really weak definitions at the moment. And consequently a definition on what accounts for Dangerous Cycling and for Careless Cycling (not that they seem to be bringing the latter in).
I'd imagine the two could have basically the same definitions.
Hopefully a serious injury charge and an automatic lifetime ban for death or serious injury by dangerous driving too.
This has been picked up by the tabloid sites which all go with headlines along the lines of cracking down on killer cyclists (cos there are so many of them, aren't there...).
Reading some of the stories about the Diana Walker incident shows her widower as going full Matthew Briggs - for example, complaining because he had to do too much digging to find out the name of the killer cyclist who had not been questioned under oath or actually charged with anything
Bring the new charge in, but make it as onerous to prove as Death by Dangerous Driving.
To be frank ....if you kill someone by doing something dangerous, then you should be able to be prosecuted. It shouldn't matter if you are on a scooter, bike, mbike, car or truck.
A few years ago, a jogger pushed a woman into the bus lane and she narrowly avoided dying. I believe he was never traced. I wonder if they would bring in a charge of Death by Dangerous Jogging if she hadn't have been so lucky.
If only a PBU were here to tell us that a top lawyer was advocating bibs with an id on for all citizens. Then the bloke would have been caught.
Maybe ... But more likely to be manslaughter, or if they can prove pre-meditation, murder.
I know you *probably* had your tongue planted firmly in your check with your comment, but I stand by mine.
No-one should escape prosecution for killing someone through their actions.
That's just silly. Let's assume in this case that poor Diana Walker did step into the rider's path such that he could not possibly avoid a collision. What are you going to prosecute him *for*?
But in your scenario it is not the actions of the cyclist that killed her, it was her own actions. Had it been the cyclists actions then the cyclist ought to be accountable.
Depends on what you mean by an action. He was riding bike down the street. In the eyes of some people, that's action enough to make it his fault.
Agreed - with the caveat that drivers or their lawyers say the exact same thing when their vehicles hit people. Which - when further facts emerge - often turns out to be "I wasn't looking / paying attention".
Also I'd hope the wide-ranging road safety review coming real soon will also consider contributions from bloody stupid design (of carriageway / infra) like "let's have this footpath crossing the cycle path at the bottom of a hill just after a sharp bend", or "route the cycle lane round the outside of the parked cars".
It's worse than that though, isn't it? The momentary lapse of concentration defence is usually a winner. In a car it is seen as quite acceptable that a reasonable and careful driver hasn't got a clue what is happening 10' in front of their bonnet.
Indeed, careless driving, which we know can have fatal consequences, is considered a minor thing by the public without them realising it encompasses just about every serious driving offence because the dangerous driving law is so poorly enacted.
What about dangerous pedestrianing? I was hospitalised when I crashed into someone who ran into the road without looking, and I had no time to avoid them. If I'd been seriously injured, or killed, would they have been charged with anything?
Probably not. This pedestrian was bang to rights and never faced justice:
https://road.cc/content/news/219729-reading-cyclist-dies-following-colli...
Left pub...crossing road to get sweets...police unable to determine if traffic light green or amber...
https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/cheltenham-news/keen-accompli...
Time CyclingUK updated this data...https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/pedestrians
I can excuse the Fb etc ignorance but so called Journalists and MP's should look at facts...talking about facts I currently live in Aus' and looked at similar data and 15% of vehicle / pedestrian collisions are hit and run....in the UK?
Having been knocked off three times by pedestrians who ran into me, I could hardly disagree.
You would of course have to set the burden of proof at simialr levels to due care and attention and dangerous driving. One might, for example, consider the kinetic energy involved in a collision, in which case I think one would rapidly establish that comparatively speaking there's no such thing as dangerous cycling....
^^This.^^
Cyclist 'misbehaviour' is extremely self-limiting because the person you're most likely to harm in a crash is yourself.
And even worse, you might damage your bike.
this is quite intents (especially for the proof readers)
Well spotted, thanks - fixed.
Pages