Dangerous cyclists are a lawless menace

[libraryguy]

Parliament must act, or I fear the growing number of electric bikes will only see more pedestrians killed.

Iain Duncan Smith

On Monday morning, I was listening to the BBC Today programme, and happened to hear the interview with Matthew Briggs, who told the sad story of his wife Kim. A cyclist had crashed into her, knocking her to the ground. She suffered a severe head injury and later died.

Mr Briggs’s attempt to get the cyclist prosecuted was, as he said on the radio, an astonishing and appalling tale. His explanation of the torturous legal process that ensued, which involved relying on a Victorian law based on “wanton and furious driving” – originally meant to apply to horse riders – was compelling. One barrister likened it to trying to put a “round peg in a square hole”.

At the heart of the issue is that the current law does not allow for a range of offences or penalties to tackle the problem of death caused by dangerous cycling. The gap between manslaughter and the historic offence of wanton and furious driving is too wide.

As far back as the 1950s, it was recognised that juries are slow to convict in “motor manslaughter” cases, which led to major changes in the law for drivers. The case for a change in the law concerning cyclists is now urgent.

One of the problems is that, under the complex current 1861 law, even if someone on a bike has killed a pedestrian, they can only be jailed for a maximum of two years. This creates a clear discrepancy between different forms of dangerous behaviour on the roads, and many will agree that the punishment does not always fit the severity of the crime or achieve justice for the victims’ families.

There have been calls for legislative change for some time. In one case concerning dangerous cycling heard at the Court of Appeal, Mr Justice Mitting pointed out that “If the vehicle ridden by [the suspect] had been motorised he would have had no defence to a charge of causing death by dangerous driving, an offence which carries a maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment.”

pedestrians killed
Iain Duncan Smith
8 May 2024 • 8:43pm
Iain Duncan Smith
Related Topics

Road cycling, Roads, Road safety

736
Matthew Briggs and wife Kim Briggs: Kim, 44, an HR consultant, was hit by Charlie Alliston, then 18, at 18mph while she was crossing the road during her lunch break.
Kim Briggs was killed in 2016 when a speeding cyclist crashed into her. Her widower Matthew is campaigning to change the law so dangerous cyclists can more easily be brought to justice

On Monday morning, I was listening to the BBC Today programme, and happened to hear the interview with Matthew Briggs, who told the sad story of his wife Kim. A cyclist had crashed into her, knocking her to the ground. She suffered a severe head injury and later died.

Mr Briggs’s attempt to get the cyclist prosecuted was, as he said on the radio, an astonishing and appalling tale. His explanation of the torturous legal process that ensued, which involved relying on a Victorian law based on “wanton and furious driving” – originally meant to apply to horse riders – was compelling. One barrister likened it to trying to put a “round peg in a square hole”.

At the heart of the issue is that the current law does not allow for a range of offences or penalties to tackle the problem of death caused by dangerous cycling. The gap between manslaughter and the historic offence of wanton and furious driving is too wide.

As far back as the 1950s, it was recognised that juries are slow to convict in “motor manslaughter” cases, which led to major changes in the law for drivers. The case for a change in the law concerning cyclists is now urgent.

One of the problems is that, under the complex current 1861 law, even if someone on a bike has killed a pedestrian, they can only be jailed for a maximum of two years. This creates a clear discrepancy between different forms of dangerous behaviour on the roads, and many will agree that the punishment does not always fit the severity of the crime or achieve justice for the victims’ families.

There have been calls for legislative change for some time. In one case concerning dangerous cycling heard at the Court of Appeal, Mr Justice Mitting pointed out that “If the vehicle ridden by [the suspect] had been motorised he would have had no defence to a charge of causing death by dangerous driving, an offence which carries a maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment.”
Advertisement

I spoke to Mr Briggs at length after the interview. He explained that ministers and civil servants were sympathetic to his plight, and they did finally undertake an independent inquiry. This came down firmly in favour of significant legislative change, but following that there has been nothing.

And Mr Briggs’s case is far from isolated. In July 2020, Peter McCombie, 72, was killed by cyclist Ermir Loka, 23, who had jumped a red light. In June 2022, Stewart McGinn, 29, was jailed for a year after he sped on his bike around a corner in Monmouth, South Wales, hitting Jane Stone, 79, who died four days later.

In 2016, Diana Walker, 76, died when a cyclist hit her in Pewsey, Wiltshire and, worse, the cyclist was not prosecuted. In June 2020, Ian Gunn, 56, died in south Manchester, yet the cyclist was cleared of wanton and furious driving.

I wonder how many more pedestrians need to die before the laws are updated to prosecute dangerous cycling.

So, clearly the problem exists and it appears to be getting worse. The number of pedestrians hit by cyclists has increased by a third since 2020. In 2022, the most recent year for which figures are available, there were 462 collisions between cyclists and pedestrians that were recorded by police.

One of the factors that particularly concerns me is the growing number of electric bikes on the roads. Yesterday, outside a school with young pupils milling around, a cyclist on an electric bike sped past the children, dangerously fast, which emphasised the fact that there are reports that some bikes are adapted so that they can go faster than the legal speed limits for those vehicles.

So when Mr Briggs explained to me that he was getting nowhere, I decided to see whether or not I could help in bringing this issue to the fore. I know that Mr Briggs is also not alone and has been campaigning alongside other families who have also lost loved ones, and who are desperate to see change.

It is for that reason that I decided to see if we could end this peculiar mess. I and other colleagues have laid an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill, to create an offence of causing death or serious injury by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling.

The principle is simple. As MPs, we must do what we can to break through the bureaucratic inertia and ensure that law-abiding people get the justice they deserve.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...awless-menace/

[The PNP]

In a word: overreaction.

Compare the handful of deadly bike incidents on the one hand, to the shocking three-figures of death by car and you will begin to see things in perspective......Those sobering stats on death by car, show no sign of reducing, despite the threat of a dangerous driving prosecution. So why would such a law make a difference when it comes to the bike?

If you genuinely want to see a reduction in death/serious injury to vulnerable road-users as I do (peds and riders alike), then look to the infra. Engineered solutions, as we can see elsewhere, are the only sure way to move towards that goal.

Specifically, put each group onto its own dedicated tarmac. Pavements for peds, bike-paths for bikes and roadways for cars. That way, interaction between groups is minimised. The present hotchpotch of shared pavements and/or riding amongst traffic, not surprisingly has it's safety issues.

[Toodles McGinty]

The law needs to change.

If you cause death by any vehicle, you should be charged accordingly. Two wheels or four.

[Stuartli]

In a word: overreaction.

Yet again your delusional one item agenda mentality that attaches no blame to cyclists, no matter how serious their misdemeanours, truly beggars belief.

No wonder you are treated with such disdain, even more so because so many cyclists still ignore or abuse the so-called infrastructure already in place.

[Alikado]

The law needs to change.

If you cause death by any vehicle, you should be charged accordingly. Two wheels or four.

Laws are already in place but never enforced, it needs to start from the bottom with minor offences no matter how trivial, the discipline has to start somewhere.

How many deaths caused by vehicles actually result in a prosecution for causing that death?

[The PNP]

Yet again your delusional one item agenda mentality that attaches no blame to cyclists, no matter how serious their misdemeanours, truly beggars belief.

No wonder you are treated with such disdain, even more so because so many cyclists still ignore or abuse the so-called infrastructure already in place.

The 'delusion', if there is one, is that harsher penalties will remedy things. However, as I've already pointed out, harsher penalties don't seem to have the desired effect on motorists, so why would you expect them to work on cyclists?

Answer me this: Do we see many ped deaths on motorways? Of course not, because peds are segregated out. Likewise, it's pretty rare for a cyclist to meet their end on a motorway, for the same reason. These are clear examples, of the benefit of keeping different classes of road-user away from each other....Do same in our public spaces, i.e. separate the peds from the bikes and bikes from the cars - casualty figures will fall right across the board!

[libraryguy]

You have been provided with numerous instances of "infra" across Southport, but many times I have seen cyclists riding on the road next to a cycle lane.

Of course, your next point will be that it's a personal choice whether to use them or not.

I take it, by your deluded comments, you're happy for a cyclist to walk free from any accident they cause, even if it results in the pedestrian's death.

[The PNP]

You have been provided with numerous instances of "infra" across Southport, but many times I have seen cyclists riding on the road next to a cycle lane.

Of course, your next point will be that it's a personal choice whether to use them or not.

Mate, peds sometimes walk in the road when they shouldn't, not to mention cars driven onto pavements when they shouldn't. Why we've even had one drive in the Botanical Gardens, that one unsurprisingly ended up stuck! So are we to scrap pavements, because peds sometimes don't use them? Or tear up roads because motorists sometimes don't use them?

I take it, by your deluded comments, you're happy for a cyclist to walk free from any accident they cause, even if it results in the pedestrian's death.

I'd be happier if there were fewer deaths on our roads altogether, that way less road-users would end up behind bars in the first place!

[libraryguy]

Mate, peds sometimes walk in the road when they shouldn't, not to mention cars driven onto pavements when they shouldn't. Why we've even had one drive in the Botanical Gardens, that one unsurprisingly ended up stuck! So are we to scrap pavements, because peds sometimes don't use them? Or tear up roads because motorists sometimes don't use them?

I'd be happier if there were fewer deaths on our roads altogether, that way less road-users would end up behind bars in the first place!

So you're crying out for all this infra to keep cyclists segregated, but are quite happy if they choose not to use it. Idiot!

I don't see peds walking in the road for long distances when there are pavements available. Idiot!

So if it's optional... you're quite happy for a motor vehicle to use your cycle lane? After all - "It's optional"

You haven't answered my original question - "I take it, by your deluded comments, you're happy for a cyclist to walk free from any accident they cause, even if it results in the pedestrian's death."

[The PNP]

So you're crying out for all this infra to keep cyclists segregated, but are quite happy if they choose not to use it. Idiot!

I don't see peds walking in the road for long distances when there are pavements available. Idiot!

So if it's optional... you're quite happy for a motor vehicle to use your cycle lane? After all - "It's optional"

Peds don't have to walk in the road for long distances to lose their lives...Sometimes just a few ill-chosen steps is all it takes.

You haven't answered my original question - "I take it, by your deluded comments, you're happy for a cyclist to walk free from any accident they cause, even if it results in the pedestrian's death."

Depends...E.g. there are cases where the ped tried to cross without looking, and stepped in front of something that was moving at speed. Which is more common than you might think, as I've had it happen to me on occasion. In which case it's obviously the peds fault, whatever comes along, be it a bus, a bike, or a car. Peds have even been known to step in front of a train from time to time - yet that's hardly the drivers fault when they do

[libraryguy]

Peds don't have to walk in the road for long distances to lose their lives...Sometimes just a few ill-chosen steps is all it takes.

Depends...E.g. there are cases where the ped tried to cross without looking, and stepped in front of something that was moving at speed. Which is more common than you might think, as I've had it happen to me on occasion. In which case it's obviously the peds fault, whatever comes along be it a bus, a bike, or a car.

Still not answered the question - but as usual, it's everyone's fault but the cyclist!

[The PNP]

Still not answered the question - but as usual, it's everyone's fault but the cyclist!

I have answered, but you are ignoring it....My answer again is: it depends.

Btw, I take it from the tone of your posts, that you are keen to jail more cyclists. Yet have little-or-no interest, in creating a safer environment for all road-users?

[Stuartli]

Answer me this: Do we see many ped deaths on motorways? Of course not, because peds are segregated out. Likewise, it's pretty rare for a cyclist to meet their end on a motorway, for the same reason. These are clear examples, of the benefit of keeping different classes of road-user away from each other....Do same in our public spaces, i.e. separate the peds from the bikes and bikes from the cars - casualty figures will fall right across the board!

Your beggars belief level of stupidity is very much to the fore in those sentences.

[libraryguy]

I have answered, but you are ignoring it....My answer again is: it depends.

Btw, I take it from the tone of your posts, that you are keen to jail more cyclists. Yet have little-or-no interest, in creating a safer environment for all road-users?

Your mind is so damn twisted.

"It Depends" is not an answer from a person who is of sound mind. If a cyclist kills a pedestrian your answer to them being prosecuted would be "It depends"

Me, having little or no interest in creating a safer environment? Here your delusions are ever present. I am ALL FOR a safer environment for everyone. It would be a lot safer if EVERYONE followed the rules of the highway code, especially cyclists who run red lights as they are putting themselves in more danger than stopping.

You need medical help!

[The PNP]

Your mind is so damn twisted.

"It Depends" is not an answer from a person who is of sound mind. If a cyclist kills a pedestrian your answer to them being prosecuted would be "It depends"

All depends who is in the wrong, for one thing. If a cyclist runs a red light and kills as a result for example, then of course there should be consequences. Just as when a motorist guns-it through a red and finishes off a ped.

On the other hand, when a ped steps unexpectedly into your path, whatever you're riding or driving, then it's the ped who is to blame. Other than those two types of scenario, there are many cases where both parties have to shoulder their respective share of the blame. I.e. when both have slipped-up and collided as a result.

Me, having little or no interest in creating a safer environment? Here your delusions are ever present. I am ALL FOR a safer environment for everyone. It would be a lot safer if EVERYONE followed the rules of the highway code, especially cyclists who run red lights as they are putting themselves in more danger than stopping.

You need medical help!

Yes we all should follow the rules, but few actually do. Only sure way to reduce road deaths, is by engineering the problems out. Anyway, why do you say 'especially cyclists', when cars are way more massive, capable of incredible speeds and are obviously far more lethal to peds when they smack into them?