Wayward cyclists watch out: Keir Starmer is coming for you. The government has announced a crackdown against bikers who kill pedestrians. The offence of ‘careless cycling’ is to be punished with a potential two years’ imprisonment if someone is injured, five if they are killed. With ‘dangerous cycling’, the punishment could be up to five years for injury, or imprisonment for life – yes, life – in the case of death. Much of Middle England, especially motorists exasperated by cyclists often behaving as if they own the road (not to mention the pavement), will cheer. But the case for this crackdown is not as strong as it looks.
For one thing, there is some slightly doubtful morality here. Careless and dangerous cycling are already crimes carrying fairly substantial fines (£1,000 and £2,500 respectively). There is also an antique Victorian law giving up to two years inside for ‘wanton and furious’ cycling, which is sometimes wheeled out for the more egregious cases. These punishments seem proportionate. By contrast, enormously upping the penalty for exactly the same offence is something we need to think very carefully about.
It is said that this shake-up is no big deal: it’s merely bringing cyclists into line with drivers. But the cases are not the same. Cars and trucks are large and lethal enough to justify special rules. Bicycles are not. On best estimates, the number of pedestrians killed in cycle accidents annually is half-a-dozen or less; those seriously injured, something over 100: and these figures include cases where the cyclist was neither negligent nor dangerous. Compared with motor-based casualties, the numbers are miniscule. True, any accident is devastating to casualties and their relatives; but this does not necessarily justify using an enormous legal sledgehammer to crack a fairly small nut.
That’s assuming that the new offence will actually work to seriously reduce casualties. Will it? Cars are identifiable: if a driver hits a pedestrian and drives off, someone will probably note his number and even if he doesn’t stop he is likely to be caught and prosecuted. Bicycles are different. Imagine a cyclist hurts someone. If instead of staying to help the victim, he simply pedals away at speed, or abandons his damaged machine and skedaddles on foot (which, incidentally, the prospect of possible arrest and imprisonment gives him every incentive to do), the chances of a conviction seem small.
Quite apart from the need to think twice before encouraging our courts to cram more people into overcrowded and stinking jails, especially for mere negligence, there are also likely to be substantial unintended consequences if we do change the law.
One is that it may deter cycling. One of the present attractions of choosing your bike over your road-choking and atmospherically toxic car is precisely the lack of regulation: you just go, without worrying about the burdensome requirements attaching to motoring. Chris Boardman, the veteran proponent of cycling for the masses, is surely right to say that anything that reduces this advantage by threatening serious legal consequences in the event of error probably needs to be avoided.
Secondly, imagine parents thinking of encouraging their children to cycle, whether on their own adventures or simply to school. There is worry enough that their child may end up as one of the injury statistics (think the roughly 90 pedal cyclists killed and 13,000 injured every year). But children are naturally carefree and at times careless. Do we really want to threaten these parents with the prospect of seeing their offspring in front of a juvenile court if they are involved in an accident where someone else is hurt? If we do, more children will end up as couch potatoes, driven to school every day and denied the ability to explore the area without their parents.
There’s also a more general point: once we change the law to put heavy penalties on cyclists who cause death or injury, this won’t be the end. Someone, somewhere, will point out a further so-called loophole: what about careless pedestrians who cause accidents? Currently they escape scot-free (technically they could face a charge of manslaughter if grossly negligent, but this is in practice a dead letter). The logic is impeccable: the injury and the anguish are, after all, just the same whether an accident was caused by a negligent cyclist rather than someone who stepped into the road without looking. On the other hand, it is actually rather an attractive feature of life in England that you don’t face a knock on the door from the police simply because you have negligently injured someone else.
In short, however much you’d love to do something about misguided cyclists, be very careful what you wish for. This is a strong case here for letting sleeping dogs lie and leaving the law as it is. Killer cyclists aren’t the menace you think they are.
Comments