The Mall packed with cyclists enjoying the opportunity to ride close roads in central London

Initially, changing the law to add “death by dangerous cycling” or “death by careless cycling” sounds like a good idea to protect pedestrians and make penalties for road users fairer.

Thinking about this more however, I conclude that it isn’t.

The whole reason why the Government is looking at this, a sad but incredibly rare case of a pedestrian dying in a collision with a cyclist prompting a media campaign for tighter laws, itself is a worrying sign. The Government’s efforts to improve road safety should be based on the significant available evidence not simply be a reaction to pressure to be seen to be doing something.

Ultimately though, whether an offence can really be fair is down to whether an individual charged with that offence can get a fair trial. Sadly, it is clear that there is both a great deal of ignorance of the various forms of cycling and often simply hatred towards anyone on a bike. This can be seen from comments in response to any post about cycling on social media, including local Facebook groups here in Deeping.

If you pick a jury of twelve people then the chances are you will find plenty who are familiar with driving and are drivers themselves. The same can’t be said for cycling. How can you be tried by a jury of your peers if you can’t find twelve of them?

Another difficulty is that whilst there are clear standards for driving; a test that must be passed and quite comprehensive guidance in the form of the Highway Code, the same cannot be said for cycling. That in many ways isn’t an omission that needs to be corrected. It simply reflects the fact that risks are significantly different between driving and cycling and so the level of regulation required is different.

With driving, drivers and their passengers have significant safety features to protect them in the event of a collision. That may mean drivers subconsciously take greater risks knowing that the consequences of a collision may not be high for themselves. The situation for cyclists is completely different. The significant risk to the cyclist in any collision is a great motivation for them to ride in a way that reduces risks of collisions.

A frequent complaint from non-cyclists is the decision by some cyclists to not use cycle paths that are provided. There is often a wide range of reasons for this. Some cycle paths are shared with pedestrians so are unsuitable for cyclists wanting to make quick and safe progress, for example.

Bad laws often have unintended consequences.

One consequence of these proposed changes would seem to be to discourage cyclists from using facilities that are shared with pedestrians.

If you, as a cyclist, know you risk facing a trial with a jury ignorant or hateful of the activity you are doing should a collision occur then are you going to put yourself in positions by using shared paths which increase the risk of such collisions?

This is unlikely to be in the broader public interest. As previously mentioned, cyclists not using such facilities is a big complaint of many. It could either see cyclists opting to use the road, with a much greater risk of death/serious injury than sharing paths with pedestrians, or simply not cycling, increasing car use and with less people seeing the health benefits that come from cycling.

We need a much broader review of the laws for all road users,  with a risk-based approach to determining the laws we should have to maximise safety. There are much greater risks for pedestrians from motor vehicles but sadly no changes are proposed to address this.