Thomas Mitchell

Readers may remember the much-publicised case of Charlie Alliston who collided with Kim Briggs as she crossed Old Street in London. Charlie was riding a fixed gear bike with no front brake at the time and because of the collision, Kim Briggs sadly lost her life. Charlie was given an 18-month prison sentence, but there were several difficulties with the legal basis upon which Charlie could be prosecuted including the use of an Act of Parliament dating back to 1861.

Kim Briggs’ widower, Matt Briggs, mounted a campaign to change the law in this area, to bring in new cycling offences to ensure that reckless riders who killed or injured others on the road would face lengthy prison sentences if they committed an offence. The result of Mr Briggs campaigning comes in the form of an amendment to the new Crime and Policing Bill that is currently at Committee stage in the House of Lords. The relevant clauses in the Bill seek to amend the Road Traffic Act 1988 to add in offences of causing death or serious injury by careless or dangerous cycling.

However, will these new offences have any real impact on road safety? We like to think of successful road safety policies in terms of lives saved or collisions avoided. So, the question must be asked, what problem do these new cycling offences seek to solve?

The number of people killed by a cyclist in the six years up to 2022 is nine. Will adding these offences have any measurable impact on that number, or, are they simply a distraction from the real issue at hand where 30,000 people are being killed or seriously injured on UK roads every year?

Singling out the cyclist as a scapegoat for the public’s anger and frustration at the rising death toll on our roads is not, in my view, the right way to go. Supporters of the new offences, such as Conservative MP, Sir Iain Duncan Smith, argue that these offences would create a “parity” with existing offences for drivers. I believe that is fundamentally wrong.

We shouldn’t be seeking to create parity between a vulnerable road user group and a powerful one. The law needs to protect the vulnerable and be a safety net to account for the inequity that exists when a vehicle and bicycle collide.

One could point out that the same needs to be true of pedestrian vs cycling incidents, but the collision statistics simply don’t support that argument. We already have offences of careless and dangerous cycling. Adding these harsher offences and punishments may deter people from cycling, which is not what the government, local or national, want.

Whilst it is not in vogue to criticise the motorist, the simple fact remains that people who drive cars kill far more pedestrians and cyclists than any other road user group; nearly 2,500 between 2019-2023, which is over 200 times the number of deaths involving a cyclist. Why aren’t the government focusing on cutting down the number of these deaths, rather than aiming at the low hanging fruit and chastising the humble cyclist?

From a road safety standpoint, I believe that these new offences will do virtually nothing to contribute to less deaths on our roads and therefore, their introduction remains largely pointless.

Thomas Mitchell is a partner at Cycle Law Scotland