- 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
Cyclist and Palace of Westminster (copyright Simon MacMichael)Iain Duncan Smith calls for creation of “causing death by dangerous, careless, or inconsiderate cycling” law
Proposals to ensure that cyclists found guilty of causing death or serious injury through “dangerous, careless, or inconsiderate cycling” will face harsher prison sentences have been introduced in the House of Commons by senior Conservative MP Iain Duncan Smith, eight months after the government said it was still considering legislation to tackle “dangerous cycling”.
The former Tory party leader has tabled a series of amendments to Home Secretary James Cleverly’s Criminal Justice Bill, which would lead to tougher penalties for those who kill or injure while riding bikes, e-bikes, electric scooters, unicycles, and “personal transporters”.
The proposed update to the legislation concerning dangerous cycling, which can currently see a cyclist who kills while riding recklessly jailed for a maximum of two years under the 1861 ‘wanton or furious driving’ law, would see the creation of an “offence of causing death or serious injury by dangerous, careless, or inconsiderate cycling”, along with an offence of killing through “inconsiderate” cycling.
According to Duncan Smith’s amendments, bikes would also be legally required to be “equipped and maintained” to standards set out in the Act.
The MP’s amendments, the success of which is reliant up on the Speaker selecting them for debate in the House of Commons, comes days after no charges were brought against a cyclist who crashed into a pensioner, causing fatal injuries, while riding laps of London’s Regent’s Park.
The cyclist, Brian Fitzgerald, was riding in a group at a speed of between 25mph and 29mph at the time of the fatal crash. The speed limit in the park is 20mph, but the Metropolitan Police confirmed that it does not apply to people riding bicycles (as is the case throughout the country), and that the case had been closed because there was “insufficient evidence for a real prospect of conviction”.
Duncan Smith’s amendments have been welcomed by Matthew Briggs, whose wife Kim was hit and killed by a cyclist riding with no front brakes in London in 2016, with the cyclist Charlie Alliston later being jailed for 18 months after being found guilty of causing bodily harm by “wanton and furious riding”.
“After seven years of campaigning alongside other families who have lost loved ones, I’m delighted and very grateful to Sir Iain Duncan Smith for his support,” Briggs, a longstanding campaigner for a dangerous cycling law, told the Telegraph.
“It finally seems we are making some progress. This amendment could bring a degree of comfort for families in knowing that they may not have to face the same legal trauma that my family – and others – have had to face after cyclists have caused fatal injuries.
“It would also act as a much-needed deterrent to ensure cyclists obey the rules of the road in the same way motorists are required to do.”
> Conservative minister says government still considering new "dangerous cycling" law
The prospect of a new dangerous cycling law has lingered around parliament over the past few years, since former Transport Secretary Grant Shapps raised the issue in January 2022, before declaring his intention to introduce the law again later that year during his infamous summer of backpedalling and U-turns that saw him suggest – and almost immediately retract – that cyclists should have licences, number plates, be insured, and subject to speed limits.
In June 2023, however, it was reported that the Department for Transport had admitted to campaigners that there is a lack of parliamentary time to implement such a law before the next general election, with attention then being turned to a private member’s bill as the primary hope of securing legislative success for the initiative.
But in September, Justice Minister Edward Argar confirmed to parliament that the government is still considering legislation to tackle “dangerous cycling”, after former Leader of the House Andrea Leadsom asked what work was being done to “make sure that the sentencing for those convicted of dangerous cycling is equalised with the sentencing guidelines for those convicted of dangerous driving.”
“The safety of our roads is a key objective for the government. Protecting all road users is a priority," Argar replied in the House of Commons. “Like all road users, cyclists have a duty to behave in a safe and responsible manner. While laws are in place for cyclists, the current laws are old and it can be difficult to successfully prosecute offences.
“That’s why DfT colleagues are considering bringing forward legislation to introduce new offences concerning dangerous cycling to tackle those rare instances where victims have been killed or seriously injured by irresponsible cycling behaviour.”
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
- kingleo 5 hours 16 min ago
How would numberplates on cycles stop dangerous pedestrians who cause accidents by walking out onto the road without first looking carefully to...
- john_smith 5 hours 28 min ago
And don't forget the speed limits.
- Clem Fandango 6 hours 29 min ago
No. Not it doesn't https://anthonyjones.com/single-vehicle-accident-liability/
- chrisonabike 6 hours 39 min ago
The times I was visiting hospitals in Edinburgh a common sight was a group just outside the hospital doors, smoking in the cold, with one or more...
- wtjs 7 hours 51 sec ago
the UK's head of roads policing has spoken at-length about the need for stricter sentences to deter dangerous and anti-social driving...
- David W 10 hours 26 min ago
WELFARE CLAIMING LYCRA LOUT ON DELIBERATE 'GO SLOW'...
- Boopop 11 hours 30 min ago
Decathlon are great. My 2012 Triban 3 is still going, rode it in the sun today following a wireless electronic groupset upgrade
- Andrewbanshee 16 hours 44 min ago
A bit of mental gymnastics here https://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/24325747.betters-laws-cycling-stop-...
- lonpfrb 16 hours 59 min ago
Huge conflict conflict missed opportunity:...
- roadeo_123 18 hours 6 min ago
Exactly this. But you need to be fiurther. If my wheels are 50 cm from the kerb then 2m from the kerb is 1.5m from my wheels, which cannot be 1.5m...
Add new comment
58 comments
"After seven years of campaigning alongside other families who have lost loved ones"
If all the families of people killed by cyclists since 2016 were brought together in one place, they might just fill a school hall.
If all the families of people killed by drivers since 2016 were brought together in one place, they would struggle to fit in Wembley Arena.
There's none so blind as those who will not see.
Will this get prosecuted do the same degree of dangerous driving, pleas of extreme hardship accepted and pro rata to the actual unfortunate events etc. If so that'll be 1 cyclist sent to jail every 100 years and that's definitely worth spending millions on
If this was ever brought in it woul dbe simple to avoid jail time, just plead guilty to causing death by careless riding and you get a fine. Except of course yur bike would need four wheels and to weigh at least a tonne and a half for that to work. It would, however, show the howling bias in british juries
IDS is overwhelmingly likely to get his marching orders at the Election, so he's trying to create a monument to put on his political grave.
Chingford and Woodford Green is in the top 10 Labour targets.
At least we will know where to go when we want to have a piss.
A thoroughly unpleasant, un-decent individual not fit for public office.
The sound of one man furiously kneejerking himself off.
I for one am glad to see that our government are finally getting away from tackling the trivia in society, you know, the cost of living crisis, a disfunctional NHS, and the totally inconsequential matter of climate change, and starting to focus on important priorities such as the carnage caused on our roads every year by cyclists. The election can't come soon enough!
Hmm, climate change is orders of magnitude more impactful than all the others, so by your logic that's all the government should focus on. That's not how it works. There may be good reasons not to tighten the law on cyclists - climate change and the NHS are not amongst them.
Whoosh.
Well done, you've just provided a textbook example of a straw man! I didn't reduce politics to a single policy, you did that all by yourself. Note my careful choice of the word "priorities", plural. I merely said IDS should re-assess his priorities. (eg picking up on your own highlighted issue, after describing net zero as "a new religion" and "an arbitrary date plucked out of nowhere and lobbed on the agenda", maybe some time reading some science books should be higher up his agenda than worrying about bicycles.
)
Almost all instances of "cyclists" breaking the law are technically illegal ebikes also known as mopeds. I'm not sure we need any new laws but we do need the media and politicians to stop referring to unlicensed mopeds as bicycles.
What, this Iain Duncan Smith? What a surprise!
says Duncan Smith
Perhaps because he realises that his choices affect the safety of other people.
Yesterday in response to the Regents Park incident in which a Cyclist escaped prosecution after collision with a 90yr old pedestrian I said
"The Register and Bang Up brigade is usually made up of people who have lost loved ones to cyclist collisions such as Mathew Briggs (which is understandable), cyclist haters and rabid right, wing politicians looking for a bandwaggon to jump onto."
I don't 'arf feel smug
I support the intent. I cycle most days, sometimes to commute, sometimes for sport and exercise. I see far too many cyclists who believe there are no 'rules of the road' that apply to them. The law needs updating beyond 'furious cycling', which must be done before someone starts questioning the sense of speed-unlimited 'chain gang' cycling on open roads. It should also be looked at in conjunction with greater enforcement of existing motoring rules and by highlighting a pedestrian's responsibility in the greater scheme of shared spaces and a straightforward act of crossing the road!
Well...
I haven't yet read the detail(Edit - thanks to thereverent it's here). And presumably there's always a drive to seek opportunities to attach stuff which doesn't normally get a look-in to bigger bills. (Or ... a rush of "get some personal deckchairs rearranged before the ship goes down" for the Conservatives here?)I don't object to their being some unification of penalties e.g. for driving and cycling. As you allude to - while pedestrians are at the top of the hierarchy of vulnerable road users I'd also suggest that cyclists are on about the same level - with both a long distance from motor vehicles of all kinds.
You'll look for that in vain though.
This really isn't what's needed. The sane (not knee-jerk) way to do this would be to leap into action 10 years after the starting gun fired and actually do a review of road law. That would make sense - but is not what's on offer.
You mention "greater enforcement of existing rules" - which is also not on the cards here. Indeed what do they think this will actually do apart from provide a soundbite, given we can barely police the "trained, licenced, insured" drivers with "taxed and tested cars, with unique number plates"?
While IDS's amendments seem to mention non-type-approved currently-over-powered e-things in passing AFAIKS they don't address properly regulating the sale and use*. Also sorting out the very grey world of the food delivery app industries with their "definitely not employees" to dodge tax and work / social responsibilities would also be a great "bigger picture" item. Sadly that horse seems to have bolted.
* IMHO we should decide that - except for the lower powered scooters maybe - they're more of a liability than an asset. Then discourage sale / provide for confiscation and other penalties where ridden illegally and dangerously - which is "almost everywhere - especially for the higher powered things".
Are they cyclists on bicycles/ legal ebikes or are you referring to unlicensed mopeds that masquerade as bikes with throttles?
All these people doing 20+mph with assistance or using throttles are not cyclists, they're people on the road / pavement without license or insurance.
Yes it does, but it needs to be done by a process of thought, not one narrowminded, ignorant bigot trying to save his backside .. er .. seat.
Utterly pointless outside of the 10 year old review of road traffic offences.
They love to go after any group to out them.
Equipped and maintained to what standard?
And how will you measure it - tyres to be 100 psi?
Yeah but my tyre only goes up to 60 and anyway I can't physically pump it that high.
More bullshit. General Election Now.
Anything the Government annouces from now on is just posturing before the election. Trumpian politics - find someone to blame, Mexicans, Immegrants, cyclists.......
If you actualy want to read the full detail of Iain Duncan Smiths amendment it is here: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3511/stages/18470/amendments/10014573
What caught my eye was "what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist includes that their cycle is equipped and maintained in accordance with regulations made under section 81 of this Act."
Where section 81 doesn't seem to have any detail that are relevent (it seems to be concerned with responses to complaints about anti-social behaviour).
I also noted the sponsors of the amendment are exactly who you would expect to be supporting more regulation on cyclists.
Thanks. You're looking at s.81 of the Bill, whereas the reference is to regulations made under s.81 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Don't know what regulations have been made under that provision, but e.g. the earlier Pedal Cycles (Construction and Use) Regs 1983 are not exactly demanding - it amounts to having a working brake. There will be others re: e.g. reflectors though - honoured in the breach by many cyclists (me included).
I'd love to know if "inconsiderate" appears in any other analogous legislation, and if so how it has been defined through case law.
It's one thing to introduce a new law, but quite another to invent a new legal concept.
Not a new concept - there is already inconsiderate driving and I assume that's the perceived injustice IDS wants to right - that there is no direct equivalent "inconsiderate cycling". CPS has examples of what may be inconsiderate.
EDIT - for accuracy, there *is* already inconsiderate cycling - s.29 RTA 1988. What there isn't is death by inconsiderate cycling, whereas there is a death by inconsiderate driving.
Huh, interesting, thanks. I'd never heard of that!
Is Mr Duncan-Smith standing for re-election by any chance? If he is he'd be better advised to concentrate his meagre talents on tackling child poverty, the breakdown of the climate or wage stagnation.
Iain Duncan Smith and Matthew Briggs make much that the charge of " causing bodily harm by wanton or furious driving" dates from the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, but so do 37 section which are still in force in England and Wales today.
Was it 10 years ago that Chris Grayling promised to review road laws. Cycling could have easily been included as part of a proper review. 10 years of opportunity lost by the ineptitude of Tory government. General Election now!
Yep. And 7 years since he doored a cyclist.
he then also stated publicly that "cyclists don't count as road users" IIRC
Got to love that war on motorists!
dooring unlikely to be included in any review
Pages