Correspondance With an MP

[Adasta]

A while ago I posted a link to this article regarding the pedestrian killed by a cyclist. I emailed the MP and, to my surprise, she replied! I thought I'd post the conversation here to see what people make of it; it begins with my initial email.

Dear Ms Andrea Leadsom MP,

I read with great interest the aforementioned article. As a keen cyclist on London's busy roads, I often see many traffic offences committed on a daily basis: people jumping red lights; operating vehicles without due care and attention; use of inadequate lighting (or using no lighting at all). These offences apply to both cyclists and motorists. While I agree with what I believe lies at the heart of your article - that the Road Traffic Act should be updated - I think your focus is perhaps too narrow and the distinctions you draw too finite.

You mention that '[c]ausing death by dangerous driving carries a penalty of one to 14 years in prison [and] causing death by careless, or inconsiderate, driving carries a penalty of up to five years in prison': how many of these cases result in the maximum sentence? A cursory glance at a few internet pages shows* that it is often the case that dangerous driving goes unpunished; at best the offenders receive an extremely light sentence. In the case of the cyclist you mention in your article, it is clear that he broke the law: cycling on the pavement is illegal. However, this case should be regarded for what it is: a vehicle which, by illegally mounting the pavement, caused the death of a pedestrian. Focus on the road user as a cyclist does little to promote safety on our roads; rather, it further stigmatises cyclists who would be once again regarded as being "other" to motorists.

While I certainly agree that dangerous cyclists should be punished, I would much rather hope that all users of the country's roads were punished for any reckless behaviour. A battle between cyclists and motorists does not exist, but one for the safety of our roads does. With this in mind, I sincerely hope that you will campaign for greater regulation and enforcement of the Road Traffic Acts and that the distinction between road cyclist and motorist is rescinded due to its redundancy.

Yours sincerely,

Her reply:

Thank you for contacting me regarding my 10 Minute Rule Bill, ‘Dangerous and Reckless Cycling (Offences) Bill.’ I have received many comments both in support and against this Bill and I appreciate many of the points that have been raised.



As I have explained before, it is not my intention at all to criminalise cyclists and I realise there are many cyclists being killed or injured each year by motorists. I also share the concerns and outrage of many that have pointed out that so few motorists go to prison for killing or seriously injuring cyclists.



However, in the case of a motorist killing a cyclist the law allows for the possibility of a motorist being severely punished by up to 14 years in prison. This is not the case with cyclists. There is no charge of causing death by dangerous cycling. There is only the charge of dangerous cycling which carries a maximum penalty of a £2,500 fine and the out of date ‘Offences Against The Person Act 1861’ which does carry a maximum penalty of 2 years in prison but is a charge that is unlikely to be successfully upheld in the few cases where a cyclist kills a pedestrian. In other words, the law is not sufficiently up to date in the case of dangerous cycling, and it is this that I seek to change.



In the case of Rhiannon Bennett, her family are constituents of mine and her tragedy highlights the point I wish to make. Whatever way you look at this case, it remains a fact that the Magistrates Court found the defendant guilty of the crime of ‘dangerous cycling’ and although they imposed almost the maximum penalty possible, there was no prison sentence.



It is a disgrace that so few motorists are held to account for their actions against cyclists but our independent judiciary enforce the penalties whilst the role of Parliament is that of creating the laws. Justice for one person should have no bearing on achieving justice for another. I want our courts to have the power to enforce strict punishments against all reckless and dangerous ‘drivers’, whether it is a car, a bicycle, a mobility scooter or a horse.



My heart goes out equally to all whose lives have been damaged or taken away by the careless, dangerous or reckless actions of others on our roads.



Thank you for taking the time to let me know your thoughts.



With best wishes



Andrea

My reply:

Dear Ms Leadsom MP,

First, I would like to thank you for taking the time to reply to my email: I realise I am not a constituent of yours and therefore you have no obligation to respond to my correspondence. I was very pleased that you took the time to address my email individually.

I agree with you that the law should change, but I believe that the entire Road Traffic Act should be thoroughly reviewed and enforced. Indeed, the distinction between motorist and cyclist is unintentionally pernicious and needlessly divisive. Therefore, I would suggest that the Road Traffic Act be changed and the wording altered from "vehicle" to something akin to "mode of transport". All relevant road laws should apply to all modes of transport that use the roads. If a cyclist mounts the pavement and injures/kills a person then it is certainly right that the offender receive the same retribution that a motorist would face for the same act. I am pleased to see you agree with me and regard the punishment given to dangerous drivers to be far too lax. Do you agree that "mode/method of transport" would be more efficacious in that such terminology would apply to a larger group of road users that includes motorists, cyclists, and horses, for example? This change would garner the result we both desire without leading to stigmitisation of one particular group due to the actions of one individual. It would also ensure a parity of sentencing against dangerous users of all modes of transport.

I am hoping to discuss the matter of cycling with my local MP at one of his surgeries in the near future. I would be very interested to hear any further thoughts you may have on this matter. I strongly desire cross-party support in implementing fair and reasonable Road Traffic laws with particular notice given to those classed as "vulnerable road users".

Yours sincerely,

 

[Davidc]

Good stuff.

My only (rather pedantic) comment is that a bicycle is already a vehicle (under international law as well as national) and that the only change needed is to remove the word motor in front of vehicle. Mode of transport would be too vague, it could be taken to include walking or riding a horse among others.

Ms Leadsome also needs to get hold of the fact that although motor vehicle drivers face harsher penalties for causing death by dangerous driving they don't usually get them. Yes, that's down to the courts, but parliament could and should dictate a minimum sentence for the offence.

Keep up the good work on her, she could be an ally if nurtured.

 

[Tommi]

Reading related articles I got the impression laws with more severe penalties exist, were applicable (both for cyclists and car drivers), but CPS chose not to use them because it deemed conviction would've been unlikely - why exactly that was the reason I can't recall.

I'm not convinced it makes any sense whatsoever to treat bicycles (not to mention kick bikes, rollerblades and pedestrians) exactly the same as lorries and semis and tanks just because they're "vehicles" (who decided that anyway, based on what criteria?) To me it seems much more natural - in general - to consider bicycles the same way as pedestrians. Or in other words if you want to divide road users then IMO motor vehicles vs. non-motor vehicles seems to make more sense to me (and no, I don't really know how to categorise electric bicycles.)

I always thought it's common sense for the more powerful and dangerous (heavier, faster, whatever) to be held to higher standard, and that causing injury would be presumed neglecting the duty of looking after the more vulnerable. I find myself slightly at a loss here.

 

[Adasta]

Good stuff.

My only (rather pedantic) comment is that a bicycle is already a vehicle (under international law as well as national) and that the only change needed is to remove the word motor in front of vehicle. Mode of transport would be too vague, it could be taken to include walking or riding a horse among others.

I totally agree with you. However, people like to get wound up about things rather than interpret the law and words the way they're supposed to do!

To me it seems much more natural - in general - to consider bicycles the same way as pedestrians. Or in other words if you want to divide road users then IMO motor vehicles vs. non-motor vehicles seems to make more sense to me (and no, I don't really know how to categorise electric bicycles.)

But bicycles can travel at the same speed as cars so it makes more sense for them to be considered in the same category regardless of their lesser weight.

 

[Tommi]

But bicycles can travel at the same speed as cars so it makes more sense for them to be considered in the same category regardless of their lesser weight.

You can ride 70mph?! Wow!

Just because you could, in theory, travel at high speeds doesn't mean you ever do. Classifying bicycles in general based on something you see in Tour de France makes as much sense as classifying all cars as Formula 1. Vast majority of bicycles/cars don't fit that description in my opinion.

 

[Adasta]

You can ride 70mph?! Wow!

Just because you could, in theory, travel at high speeds doesn't mean you ever do. Classifying bicycles in general based on something you see in Tour de France makes as much sense as classifying all cars as Formula 1. Vast majority of bicycles/cars don't fit that description in my opinion.

I can travel 30 mph and that's enough to kill a person.

 

[John the Monkey]

Some commentary from UK Cycle Rule here;

http://ukcyclerules.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/dangerous-reckless-cycling-bill/

The whole thing is worth reading, but a couple of bits in particular;

(On the approach the law takes to sentencing)
For example, at the moment dangerous driving carries a maximum of 2 years in prison, while the maximum penalty for dangerous cycling is a fine of £2,500.

The current approach to sentences reflects the vastly different levels of risk which cycling and driving pose to others. The number of pedestrian casualties brought about by cyclists each year is tiny, whereas the risk posed by cars is (statistically) much greater. In other words, a bicycle being ridden dangerously isn’t very likely to hurt anyone other than the rider; a car being driven dangerously is, comparatively, a death machine. So much greater deterrents are needed for motorists – it’s much more important for everyone’s safety that motorists are made to think twice before driving dangerously or carelessly.

So if the new offences of causing death by dangerous/reckless cycling are created, the penalties should not be the same for cyclists as they are for motorists, because the risks which the two activities pose to others are vastly different – as the current law recognises.

On whether the new law actually create parity with motorists;

a new offence of causing serious injury by dangerous or reckless cycling wouldn’t make the law the same for cyclists as it is for motorists. Instead it would create a new offence for cyclists which doesn’t exist for motorists, with the potential to make the law harsher for cyclists than it is for motorists.

The existing offence of causing bodily harm by wanton/furious cycling comes from a statute made in 1861, so I’ll call it “the old law”. Ms Leadsom has criticised the old law.

First, Ms Leadsom has said that the old law is “little used”, and that it is “unlikely to be successfully upheld in cases such as the Rhiannon Bennett case”. In fact there have been at least two successful prosecutions for causing injury by wanton/furious cycling since 2008. Interestingly, both cases involved cyclists riding on the pavement and knocking over a pedestrian, who later died.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

To me it seems much more natural - in general - to consider bicycles the same way as pedestrians. Or in other words if you want to divide road users then IMO motor vehicles vs. non-motor vehicles seems to make more sense to me (and no, I don't really know how to categorise electric bicycles.)

No thanks. If I am to be classed as a pedestrian whilst cycling I fear it would only be a matter of time before I was told I can't use the roads as I do now but must, instead, ride other than on the carriageway. And that won't do.

Bicycles as vehicles pre-date motor powered vehicles by quite some margin. We use the roads by right; motorists do so by licence. Long may it remain that way.

 

[henshaw11]

But bicycles can travel at the same speed as cars so it makes more sense for them to be considered in the same category regardless of their lesser weight.

To be pedantic, it's not necessarily the amount of speed that's the issue, but the amount of momentum, how much of it's transferred to the person hit, plus the shape of the object hitting them. A bike hitting a person - they *may* kill them, but it's unlikely from just the impact - in the case of the girl killed she hit her head.
A car hitting a person - the impact's going to do a fair bit of damage, and I expect they'll be thrown further.

 

[benb]

I don't see how what you are driving/controlling is relevant.
If you, by carelessness, neglect, or recklessness, cause the death of another person, you should be locked up.
It doesn't matter to me whether you are in charge of a lorry, car, bicycle, horse, rollerblades, or just jogging.

 

[John the Monkey]

I don't see how what you are driving/controlling is relevant.

Then why is Leadsom not campaigning for some form of strict liability? Heavier, faster road user is presumed liable unless evidence shows otherwise? Why create a false equivalence between the danger posed by motor traffic, and pedal cycles?

 

[benb]

Then why is Leadsom not campaigning for some form of strict liability? Heavier, faster road user is presumed liable unless evidence shows otherwise? Why create a false equivalence between the danger posed by motor traffic, and pedal cycles?

Agreed, but that's presumed liability, not strict liability.
Strict liability says you're guilty no matter what, such as in the case of speeding.

 

[benb]

Maybe she wanted to amend the Road Traffic Act, but 10 minute bills can only introduce new bills not amendments? I have no idea if this is the case, just wondering.

 

[Dan B]

No thanks. If I am to be classed as a pedestrian whilst cycling I fear it would only be a matter of time before I was told I can't use the roads as I do now but must, instead, ride other than on the carriageway. And that won't do.

If I as a pedestrian am ever told that I cannot use the roads (all parts thereof, including the carriageways) I will be very very unhappy. Cyclists' rights to use the carriageway derives from our status as people - just as pedestrians, horse riders and roller skaters are also people - and not from the circumstance that we are astride or inside some kind of vehicle.

 

[Dan B]

But bicycles can travel at the same speed as cars so it makes more sense for them to be considered in the same category regardless of their lesser weight.

And cars can travel at the same speeds as HGVs, but we routinely apply different restrictions to people who wish to use either on public roads