- 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
- slc 48 min 52 sec ago
TBH the west (Barton Hill) part of the scheme looks like a much larger change than the east (Beaufort Rd) part. Some drivers living in the west...
- Rendel Harris 24 min 50 sec ago
If you bothered looking at the link you would see that it is not one of their reflective jackets, it is fluorescent with only a small number of...
- Owd Big 'Ead 7 hours 32 min ago
You need to get out of Derby then. Go somewhere else, because while not perfect, Derby is streets ahead of the vast majority of places I've lived...
- HoarseMann 9 hours 48 min ago
Driver injured after car flips onto its roof https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0g9rpp8x9o
- mark1a 10 hours 5 min ago
I don't think he wants to talk about it...
- Rendel Harris 10 hours 35 min ago
Ach, dinnae fret...
- Matt Page 10 hours 43 min ago
The Prevelo Alpha Three on the main feature image is 20".
- eburtthebike 10 hours 54 min ago
£100 bonus.
- chrisonabike 11 hours 3 min ago
To be fair if this is our usual revenant they've got form in rewriting history...
- chrisonabike 11 hours 4 min ago
"At the going down of the sun, and in the morning, we will remember them ... we have to because some numpty destroyed the roll of names"....
Add new comment
61 comments
It doesn't seem like the most pressing piece of legislation, given the vanishingly small number of people that would be prosecuted under it. On the other hand, given the vanishingly small number of people who would be prosecuted under it, I can't say I really care whether they bring it in or not.
As long as we can have deaths caused by a poor Tory government too!
There are vastly more cases of DBD Driving that need more appropriate sentences.
Please take a moment to read my petition for cyclist safety, both online and onroad. Please share far and wide, with not only cyclists but those who love you. Thank you 🚲
https://www.change.org/StopCyclistHate
Tory MPs Are Thick As Pigshit, part 4,065.
No charges have ever been brought against the rider who hit Diana Walker.
Had Wilts police been able to make a criminal case, they would surely have had the CPS bring a charge against the rider. But they didn't and in fact said "Our enquiries found that no crime had been committed."
As far as I can tell from local paper reports, Diana Walker stepped out in front of the rider, who said at the inquest into her death that he was doing 18mph at the time of the collision. It's implied that figure came from his Garmin.
So, exactly what does Danny Dunning-Kruger MP think would be different in this case if the offence he wants to see introduced had existed? Instead of not being charged with causing bodily harm by "wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect", he would not have been charged with causing death by dangerous cycling.
Big woop.
Dunning-Kruger also said "action should have been taken much faster to prevent similar tragedies". [my emphasis] Because of course the existence of various offences of causing death by driving completely prevents drivers from killing anyone, ever.
It's the job of an MP to raise matters like this, via questions to the government, that a constituent has brought to their attention. That's just representative democracy in action.
The government announced & ran a 3 month consultation on this specific issue in 2018 https://road.cc/content/news/246592-government-opens-dangerous-and-carel...
Is it really that unreasonable for any MP to ask 4 years later when the DfT intend publishing the outcome of that consultation ?
Especially when the current secretary of state for transport is on record this year as stating he intends to introduce harsher penalties for bike riders who cause death/injury by dangerous cycling, a response which was reiterated in the answer to this MPs direct question, so the DfTs position is already very clear this will happen and this isnt some lone rabid anti cycling MP, this is government policy, the only question is when it will happen, it's no longer if.
Or, Dunning-Kruger could look at the ridiculous lengths a bereaved constituent has gone to in order to persecute an innocent man and find him some grief counselling.
But no, it's easier to score cheap tabloid points going after cyclists.
As long as it doesn't happen before they've dealt with other things ahead of it in the queue.
Like the comprehensive road safety review.
It was a "business of the house" debate with the leader of the house of commons, MPs get to ask all kind of things, there was a question on speed cameras, a question about sheep shows, a question on youth sporting clubs & to congratulate a constituent on a boxing victory. Not everything they debate in the chamber is as cutting edge top priority as you might think
I don't think anyone doubts that they do waste a lot of time on trivial things (often in government-sponsored business, never mind what private members raise) - the question is whether they should.
This probably has nothing to do with an MP representing his constituents. As you say the SoS has already said he is favour of this so it is more an example of a junior backbencher nobody has heard of sucking up to more senior members to try and get noticed/ get a job. Compare and contrast with the abject failure of Tory MPs (such as mine) to support the very reasonable and well thought through proposals from Cycling UK to make roads safer.
Well he's already been a political advisor to the PM I dont think he needs to ask a question, thats critical of the government handling of this consultation, and do read the actual hansard not the tabloid interpretation of it, to get noticed much
Certainly it isn't unreasonable. Neither would it be unreasonable for him and any other MP interested in road safety to ask when the comprehensive review of road laws, announced all those centuries ago, is going to report; but they don't.
I wonder if that review's been kicked into the long grass because it's impossible for it to conclude anything but that reducing road danger will involve restrictions on driver behaviour.
So contact your MP to ask them to raise a question to the DfT about it ?
Would be nice to know the full details of this case to comment further. But to use an incident where the Police decided no charges, including the ones that could have been used to be the reason to bring in a new law does seem strange.
Not sure if this helps but does provide some background details
https://expressdigest.com/police-fail-to-probe-cyclist-who-hit-gran-in-f...
That article is filled with speculation and a lot of bias.... quoting his average speed of 23mph, "At one stage he added that he had hit 30mph when travelling ‘downhill within the national speed limit’."
Could you imagine an article in a newspaper involving a pedestrian killed by a motorist in a 30 zone stating "their dashcam showed the average speed of their journey was 50mph, and at one point they reached speeds of up to 70mph on a motorway on that journey". What relevance is an average speed of a journey or the maximum speed that someone got to on that same journey if they were doing less than that at the point of impact.
That would be covered by the "not sure if this helps..." part
Yes I had read that and also seen the BBC article from last year as well. However the report of the accident had the local councillors etc only complaining about the initial emergency service reponses to get there, nothing about cyclists being too fast which for a local village council, is normally a go to. It is only after that the husband "gathered evidence"* that started this thing about being too fast. But even then, the main clout seemed to be the Police not investigating properly and not there wasn't an appropriate law. Which is why I don't get why this one is being used to push it.
* The second fastest on local sectors. I wonder if they mean second overall out of everyone which would be good going being as the TdB did that exact segment in 2014. I suspect it meant his second fastest personal time.
It sounds like a case of a pedestrian stepping into the road without looking. But there is evidence that some cyclists come down that section at the 30mph limit. There's a strava segment that I'm amazed isn't flagged after this.
This is not the 'way over 30mph' that her husband claims to have witnessed, but too quick for a road like this if pedestrians are about.
I think he would be better off campaigning for a 20mph limit, removal of the car parking spaces on the bend, traffic calming measures and a zebra crossing. Three years prior, a woman cyclist was injured at exactly the same spot.
Muggles are always completely hopeless at estimating cyclist speed, part 156,843.
Or just pedestrianise the whole street.
I tend to agree with you that it was a case of the pedestrian stepping into the road without looking.
And as for this 'Eyewitness Janet Bailey told the inquest Mr Albery’s bike had come ‘out of nowhere’ again it is dubious at best. Just looking at the various reports on the accident, and the alleged speed of the cyclist I reckon the cyclist should have been visible for at least 4 or 5 seconds.
But as is the case cyclists always "appear out of nowhere" when you are only listening for traffic instead of looking for it.
Colours to the mast: we don't need a new offence, for all the reasons given, especially the de minimis aspect.
But the principle here is right: something happened that the MP thinks should not, and after investigation, the police, CPS etc, say that no crime was committed. It's not illogical for the MP to argue that a new crime is needed, even though I know he's wrong about it.
I would argue that the same applies to driving offences as currently set up and (mostly not) enforced. Bad things (in my view) happen that are not prosecuted, and we have insufficient deterrence as a result. The effect of the laws needs to change: for instance the definitions of "careless" or "dangerous", the efforts made to enforce, etc.
This kind of parliamentary intervention is sometimes how such things begin, even though in this area we need far wider ranging and more coordinated action such as the mythical review.
Clearly this MP has a vacuum for a brain. How many people do vehicle drivers kill a year? How many people do cyclists kill a year (in his example obviously criminal blame wasn't attached to the cyclist)? He - and the government - should do his homework before spouting nonsense. Oh, he's an MP, silly me...
He is a tory, so by definition.........
Perhaps they ought to consider actually carrying out that comprehensive road safety review, and then decide about 'death by bicycle' once they've checked the statistics...
I think they're quite busy running around and trying to distract everyone from how badly the Tories are now doing.
True. I presume Johnson is currently trying to establish a reliable supply of dead cats...
Fixed that for you
Fantastic, we can all start getting our excuses ready.
"Sorry mate didn't see you"
"I thought I hit a bollard"
"You shouldn't have been in the road, you don't pay road tax"
"You were in the blindspot of my glasses"
"Grow up and get a car to cross the road"
"Why were you in the road, theres a pavement right next to the road"
I could go on
Pages