Cycling Laws to be subject of debate?

A prominent recent case involving the tragic death of a pedestrian knocked down by a cyclist has led to an increase in public and governmental scrutiny in cycling laws with the issue being raised in Prime Ministers Questions recently.

The case in question saw Kim Briggs knocked over and killed by a cyclist who was riding a fixed gear bike with no front brake.  The speed at which the cyclist was travelling was cited as a factor in the incident.

Upon determining the outcome of the case, the judge cleared the cyclist Charlie Alliston of manslaughter but convicted him of a 19th century charge of "wanton or furious driving" as it was the most logical charge.  He has now been sentenced to 18 months in a young offenders institute.

Calls have been made to update cycling laws as a result of this case perhaps unsurprisingly.  Most of the cycling laws still in force today came into force when there were very few cars on the road and do seem at times to be archaic.  If a serious review of cycling laws is to come into play then, in my opinion, they need to be used to protect both cyclists and pedestrians.

This article is not a protest by a cyclist on behalf of cyclists. I believe Kim Briggs tragic death was avoidable and I feel desperately sad for her family. I also have admiration for the way her husband has campaigned with great dignity.

The BBC Breakfast news headlines were "Tougher punishments for cyclists" whereas the aim of Matt Briggs' campaign is to address the gap in the law to find a more appropriate punishment and ultimately resolve the case in a more timely and less harrowing manner.  Such headlines are sensationalist and promote divisive opinions.  The aim of this article is to consider, with sensitivity, all sides of the issues and subsequent implications of the case.

From my brief experience of cycling in central London it is a melting pot of all types of transport and pedestrians trying to achieve their journeys in a very restricted and busy space - just like many towns and cities across the U.K.

There are clearly lessons to learn.  Although not a factor in the case mentioned, there are far too many people cycling on pavements in built up areas.  A 10 year old child on a pavement cycling slowly is very much different to an adult cycling down a narrow pavement at much more than walking pace.  Some do it because of lack of confidence and knowledge and fear of being on busy roads, often in areas where infrastructure is poor.

Due to the increase in traffic over recent decades and some poorly designed and often incomplete infrastructure, this does put cyclists and pedestrians in some positions which have the potential to increase the likelihood of issues.  Again, this was not a particular factor in this case.

The above points lead into a counter argument in the debate and cyclists do need to be considered in the law making process.  There were many good points made prior to the judgement by those angered that a cyclist was facing manslaughter charges at all.  Several cases of cyclists being killed by cars were referred to on a number of social media posts and comment made regarding the subsequent punishments for the drivers which were not as severe as manslaughter charges.

Cyclists can be an easy group to target as can be seen in the tweet below in Greater Manchester.  Cycling Tsar and Olympic Gold Medallist Chris Boardman recently responded as below to a tweet by Greater Manchester Police:

If there is a serious issue with "anti-social cycling" then the police are to be applauded for their approach but as Chris suggests there are more important issues to address and he, in particular, has good reason for his stance.

Chris Boardman's mother Carol was an extremely competent and experienced cyclist who was killed when knocked off her bike by a vehicle - another very personal and tragic side to the debate and why cyclists need to be protected. It took over a year for prosecutions to be made subsequent to this article.  A person was only recently charged with causing death by dangerous driving and perverting the course of justice.

In cases of bad driving / speeding this initiative is falling more to the community.  A recent blog item on 20mph zones and monitoring speeding vehicles can be found by clicking this link.  This shows that considerable effort needs to be made in order to combat speeding / bad driving.

In the case of Charlie Alliston the media focused on the fact that the cyclist had insufficient means to stop as he was riding a fixed gear bike with no brake.  In theory a bike without brakes should not be on the road but imagine a scenario where a cyclist (child or adult) is involved in a collision and is found to have defective brakes.  What would the court decision be in this case and what are the implications?  Would poor infrastructure be considered?

Such questions and scenarios can be debated over and over.  The deaths of victims including Kim Briggs and Carol Boardman must not be in vain.  In both cases there were unsavoury actions in the aftermath - comments on social media in one case and perversion of the course of justice in the other.

Whatever Parliament decides to do going forward needs to consider all sides but there needs to be understanding that the relationship between drivers, cyclists and pedestrians must be one of courtesy and tolerance and not of confrontation and anger.