Freewheeling: Closing a legal loophole so cyclists are no longer above the law

From now on cyclists can face prosecution and up to 14 years in prison for causing death or serious injury by dangerous cycling. Causing death by careless cycling is also set to become a criminal offence. 

Hilda Griffiths died in collision with a cyclist in June 2022

These changes to the law will then bring cyclists into line with motorists and motorbikers who do the same. It comes at a time when Gerald Griffiths has had to commemorate the sorrowful two-year anniversary of the death of his mother.

81-year old Hilda died after suffering multiple major injuries when she was struck by a cyclist, Brian Fitzgerald in Regents Park early one morning in June 2022. 

The cyclist was travellng at 29mph at the time of the collision - 9 mph over the speed limit in the royal park

However, Fitzgerald could not be prosecuted under UK law because the speed limit does not apply to non-motorised vehicles. 

In another case in 2017 when a cyclist knocked down and killed a pedestrian the perpetrator, Charlie Alliston was prosecuted under a law from 1861. He was charged with "wanton furious driving" when he rode along Old Street, London, at 20 miles an hour on a track bike, an illegal vehicle as it had no front brake, and collided with Kim Briggs. The 44-year old mother of two later died from catastrophic head injuries she suffered in the collision. Alliston didn't help his case when at the scene of the crash he shouted at the HR manager who had been crossing the road while out on her lunch break, and he later wrote in social media about how it was her fault and this incident would teach her a lesson.

In the case of the accident in Regents Park the cyclist, who was doing training laps on a legal bicycle, there was no evidence of wanton furious riding. This loophole means that the cyclist was beyond prosecution.

I must say, that does not make me feel comfortable to think that in such situations, crudely put, a person can literally get away with murder.

I don't believe that a person riding a bicycle can be above the law, and so I think this law, proposed by the MP Iain Duncan Smith is reasonable and correct, given thatcthe loophole needs closing. It is true that there are infinitely fewer incidents of pedestrians being injured or killed by cyclists than there are pedestrians killed by motorists.

There are also much more cases of cyclists being killed by motorists than pedestrians being killed by cyclists too. But that doesn't mean that there should be nothing in the statute book to deal with those rare occasions when such a tragic incident occurs. The judiciary should not have to be reverting to laws that date back to the 19th century. 

This must have been even more devastating for the family of Hilda Griffiths when dealing with their loss, and then the Crown Prosecution says "Sorry but there's nothing we can do about it."

Certain cyclists give we other bike riders on the road a bad name doing things like running red lights, or riding on the pavements and they are beyond punishment. Folks resent the fact that cyclists can and do escape legal action given that there's no way to identify them or stop them when they jump the lights. There's no wonder that the general public get pretty irate with cyclists. 

So I must say I welcome this proposed new law which will bring cyclists in line with other vehicles on UK roads. Not only does it close that problematic loophole, but it can also make cyclists more wise to the fact that they could be prosecuted. That way they'll ride more responsibly - which will be a positive thing, particularly in the way that we will be perceived by the public, moving forward.

Photo of the day - 16: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods - Are they working?

 

Planters in the low traffic neighbourhood in Wandsworth Town

As a way to help social distancing and encourage sustainable ways of transport around London, councils were given the go-ahead by the government to set up Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs). Basically it means blocking off residential roads (often used as cut-through routes by motorists) with boxes of plants (planters) so that only cyclists and pedestrians can use these roads. In principle, these sound a great idea. I really enjoyed cycling along this road in Wandsworth Town along with other cyclists, and being able to stop and sit at one of the many cafes with outdoor seats. It definitely gave a continental feel to the road. It was also nice to see families with young children cycling, just like you would see in places like Amsterdam or Copenhagen. The problem is that all the motorised traffic has now been displaced onto main roads, so there is horrendous traffic on the roads surrounding these LTNs. On the facebook group for my local area there has been a massive outpouring of outrage and disgust at these LTNs in Crystal Palace. People report spending half an hour to make a car journey that previously took 5 minutes. Then the car haters turn out and advise people to travel by bicycle - which inflames matters even more as folks very sternly retort that it is totally impractical to work as an electrician, builder, ferry children around or provide community care on a bicycle. I had the "pleasure" of experiencing an LTN as a motorist today when driving back to Crystal Palace after buying some gardening items. I must say, as someone who is solidly sold on the matter of travelling by bike, these LTNs have not been helpful. I did so many U-turns to find alternative routes just to get out of the horrendous traffic jam. All routes into Crystal Palace were chock-a-block. In the end, I chose the least worst option - which was still 20 minutes when it would have taken me 3 minutes. I could have got home quicker if I'd run. But then I would have made myself ill with all the thick pollution generated from the traffic jam. So, unfortunately I have to give these LTNs the thumbs down. I have heard that Wandsworth Council and Lewisham Council have decided to remove the LTNs. My local borough, Bromley made a decision not to introduce them. However, Croydon have been so zealous about them that at times it almost looks as though those folks who live within an LTN may never be able to leave their neighbourhood by car ever again! These LTNs were a nice idea, but I think there needs to be a rethink.

Commuting by bicycle - Let's be careful out there!

When cycling around the city, I keep in mind that phrase that was perfectly put by Sergeant Phil Esterhaus from one of my favourite cop shows, Hill Street Blues, "Let's be careful out there!"

Commuter cyclists on Blackfriars Bridge

As someone who regularly cycles around London I am always vigilant about all other road users - just motorists, black cabs, Uber drivers, delivery vans, and of course trucks turning left. The most problematic for me though, are pedestrians - and even more so now with more and more people looking down at their phones instead of watching the road ahead of them.

These "smombies", or smartphone zombies, give cyclists even more reason to be vigilant when cycling in busy urban areas like central London. In fact a recent court ruling, much to the shock of cyclists has shown how we are even more vulnerable on the road, both physically as well as legally.

One day in July 2015, while Robert Hazeldean was riding his bike near London Bridge a pedestrian, Gemma Brushett stepped out into the road while looking at her smart phone. She had not paid any attention to what was going on around her and assumed she had right of way. She didn't, as the traffic lights were green.

Hazeldean sounded the loud air horn that was on his road bike and shouted to warn her he was approaching, at around 15 miles per hour. He swerved to try to avoid her, but at the same time Brushett looked up, and startled to see the cyclist so close to her, ran back towards the traffic island - also in the same direction that the cyclist swerved. Consequently Hazeldean knocked her down, leaving both parties unconscious, and needing hospital treatment.

Sadly, for Hazeldean that was just the beginning of his woes as Brushett sued the cyclist for injuries caused (cuts to her face, cracked teeth, and mental amnesia). The ruling has only just been made, and the case ruled that the cyclist was liable for damages.

Although the judge, Shanti Mauger, recognised that the pedestrian had not been paying attention because Brushett was looking at her phone she still ruled that there was a 50:50 blame for the accident because, in her words "cyclists should be prepared at all times for people to behave in unexpected ways". For that reason the cyclist was ordered to pay 50% of the damages and Brushett's legal bills.

This still represents up to £105,000 - over £4,000 in damages and up to £100,000 in legal fees. Hazeldean risks being left bankrupt. In addition, the case has taken its toll on the mental health of the landscape designer who has since started a new life in the South of France.

A friend of Brushett's launched an on-line crowdfunding appeal, and thanks to the generosity of the public and numerous sympathisers, £46,000 was raised in order to help him pay the legal costs.

This case sets a worrying precedent for cyclists. Effectively, people can walk down the road, taking no responsibility for their own safety, paying no attention to what is happening around them, and if they are hit by a cyclist, the latter could find themselves in hot water legally despite having taken reasonable precautionary steps like having a bell and abiding by the road traffic rules. A poll by The Sun newspaper found that more than three-quarters of the readers who voted believed that the pedestrian was to blame.

Three-quarters of respondents do not agree with the judge's ruling

One other point that this case highlights is the need for cyclists to take out third party insurance. As someone who has been a member of different cycling clubs for over 20 years, I have always had third party insurance through British Cycling (insurance from other cycling organisations like Cycling UK and London Cycling Campaign are also available). Cycling clubs generally make it a condition of joining, that cyclists have insurance, and people can explain why it is necessary.

However, ordinary cycle commuters and  leisure bike riders may not be aware of this, so are inadvertently exposing themselves to potential problems. If Hazeldean had had third party insurance the case would have cost him £6,000 and he could have had legal support to make a counter claim. Things could have been less stressful in the process.


What the public say:








Cyclists - be careful out there!


Related posts
Wanton furious cycling

Should cyclists be banned from dual carriageways?