The dangerous cycle: what's the deal with the government's cycle law review?

Jul 26, 2018

Written By Becky Kells, Editor, AllAboutLaw

Earlier this year, the government moved closer to making death by dangerous cycling a criminal offence. New legislation would mean serious consequences for cyclists who cause death, akin to those in place for death by dangerous driving. The response from the cycling community, however, has been mixed…

Whether you’re not wearing a helmet, having to compete with rush-hour motorists or braving a cycle hire for the first time, cycling can be a daunting way to travel. It’s also increasingly popular – following the lead of cities like Amsterdam, more people than ever are choosing to get to work on two wheels. Cycle use has risen almost every year since 2008, and with 69% of all cycle traffic recorded on urban roads, it’s clear that more cyclists than ever are sharing public thoroughfares with vehicles and pedestrians.

Given the dense population and heavy traffic in London, Cambridge and York – three cities which share a significant percentage of British cyclists – one of the most important qualities a cyclist can have is self-awareness.

Yet a recent case offers a different perspective on cycling – one where the cyclist is not in danger, but a danger to those around them. Two years ago, 20-year-old Charlie Alliston rode a fixed-gear bike with no front brakes in a busy area of central London. He collided with Kim Briggs, who had stepped out for her lunch break. Mrs Briggs later died from her injuries. Mr Alliston was sentenced to 18 months in a young offenders’ institution for “wanton or furious driving”; a legislative phrase which lacks any reference to cycling, and which seems strange and archaic in the context of this 21st century case. That’s because the law under which Alliston was convicted is from the Victorian era, and was originally introduced in relation to horse-drawn carriages. This legislation is only used when offenders cannot be prosecuted under the Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which excludes death or injury caused by cycling, but the fact it is used at all exposes a devastating lapse in the updates made to cycling legislation.

The case has prompted a review to establish if a new law is needed to protect pedestrians, and prevent deaths such as Mrs Briggs’. In March of this year the government moved one step closer to introducing new cycling legislation. A comparable law, death by dangerous driving, is due to have its maximum penalty increased from 14 years to life, which makes Alliston’s 18-month sentence seem relatively light. In fact, the archaic law under which he was convicted only allows for custodial sentences “not exceeding two years”. Meanwhile, “Dangerous Cycling” – which falls under the Road Traffic act 1988 – is punishable only by a fine of £2,500.

Alliston’s case shares similarities with a dangerous driving scenario: a person in control of a vehicle acts irresponsibly, and as a result someone dies. The only difference, some would argue, is that he was riding a bike rather than driving a car. Although a bike is not motorised and a fraction of the weight of a car, the consequences can be just as tragic if a collision occurs. And while rarer than fatal incidents caused by motorists, there is a history of cases where cyclists have caused death. In 2009, 20-year-old Darren Hall killed an elderly man while cycling too fast, and in 2015 Darryl Gittoes hit and killed a 73-year-old woman while riding a defective bike with no brakes and a flat tire. Both men were convicted under the “wanton and furious driving” legislation, and both received sentences of 12 months or less. The tragic results of such incidents only make the sentences seem more disproportionate in relation to dangerous driving charges. It also detracts from the seriousness of cycling – a mode of transport which must be treated as responsibly as any other vehicle operation, by cyclists and the law alike.

Yet there has been backlash from legislators and cyclist groups, who are arguing that the number of incidents like those aforementioned are rare. The number of people killed by dangerous cycling is certainly disproportionate to those who have died due to dangerous drivers: there are around 400 pedestrians killed on the roads per year, and just one or two of these are struck by cyclists.

To properly address the need for legislative change, the bigger picture should perhaps be explored. In 2015, there were two deaths and 96 serious injuries caused by bicycles. Every year, over 100 cyclists are killed and more than 3,000 seriously injured. That’s not to say that every person involved in these incidents was cycling dangerously, but more to highlight that, when it comes to roads being shared by different modes of transport, there is a significant element of risk for everyone. If laws are updated to protect cyclists, who are themselves suffering injury and death, then by extension, pedestrians will enjoy the same legal protection.

Following the widespread press coverage of Alliston’s case, and a campaign by Mrs Briggs’ widower for stricter penalties for cyclist offences, the government is in the process of conducting a review of cycling legislation. Part one of the review will look into the creation of new criminal offences for dangerous and careless cycling. The second phase will examine the wider safety contexts, considering cyclists, pedestrians and motorists alike.

In the meantime, cyclists within the capital are aware of the risks, with individuals and groups alike promoting a culture of safety. Kate, 21, from Dalston, said: “It’s got to the point where if I’m cycling around other cyclists, and I’ve forgotten my helmet for whatever reason, I feel ashamed”. Owen, 40, agrees – “I took risks all the time until I had an accident – it was minor, luckily, but it shocked me. Thinking about it though, it shouldn’t take a close shave like that to make you follow the rules”.

Commercial Insights