For those interested in the many benefits that come from getting more people cycling, there’s some bad news and good news today – and in another minor compensation, at least the bad news was widely expected.

This is the confirmation from the Department for Transport (DfT) that, as widely trailed at the weekend, a review it commissioned has recommended there should be a new law about causing death or injury by dangerous cycling, as for driving.

The review followed the death of Kim Briggs, who was killed in 2016 after she was struck by a bike ridden by Charlie Alliston. It transpired that his bike was not legal for road use – it had no front brake – and he was jailed for 18 months.



He was eventually convicted of the old and arcane offence of “wanton and furious driving”, prompting Briggs’ widower, Matt, to campaign for the new law. Ministers will consider the proposal, but it’s fair to assume the change will be made given the scale of media coverage of the case.

Others have detailed why this change is of questionable merit, and Laura Laker eloquently explains why the media narrative of cyclist-as-menace is simply not backed up by any facts.

It’s depressing if unsurprising that the government was bounced by media pressure into taking on this idea. When it was first raised, the DfT said it would also launch a review into cycling safety, amid loud (if probably inaccurate) reports that this could herald a law for mandatory helmet use for cyclists.

The consultation for this review has arrived at the same time as the proposed law change and this is where the good news comes in: overall it makes about as much sense about cycling as any central government document on the subject as I’ve seen.

This is, I suspect, down to the influence of Jesse Norman, the transport minister, whose brief includes cycling. When Laura and I interviewed him in October, he clearly understood the complexities of this brief, and was deeply interested in it.

The usual health warnings apply here: junior transport ministers don’t generally shape policy and they also tend to get moved to new jobs fairly regularly.

But for those feeling a bit gloomy about the ”killer cyclists” media headlines, here are a few elements of the consultation document I thought were interesting for central government to expound so openly.

It takes in both cycling and walking

The document says that as the process of engaging with outside groups went on, it became clear that what makes cycling safer also benefits pedestrians. This might sound obvious, but it cannot be said often enough when talking about cycling: it’s not just about making streets, towns and cities safer and more pleasant for people on two wheels, but about reshaping them around human beings.

It stresses the wider societal benefits of more cycling

Amid near-daily headlines about the pressures on the NHS and social care, the consultation notes the benefits cycling can bring in everything from cardiovascular disease to cancer, mental health and dementia.

It mentions how safer cycling can help many people with disabilities get about, and – pertinent, given the complaints of some shop owners when nearby bike lanes are suggested – how it tends to boost economies. This is the key section:

We know that in towns and cities where cycling and walking are normal everyday activities, the effect is to make their economies stronger and wealthier, their people fitter and healthier, and their environment more pleasant, less congested and less polluted. They have become more attractive and vibrant places.

If that is not enough, the consultation points out how more walking and cycling helps combat climate change and the public health emergency from pollution.

It points out that perceived safety is as important as actual safety

As the document mentions, even though cycling is more dangerous than being in a car, in 2016 there were five cyclist casualties per million miles travelled, so actual peril is very rare. But it adds:

Perceptions of safety can influence the decision to walk or cycle or use another mode, and fear is a major reason given for not cycling.

It notes the common misconceptions and prejudices about cyclists

This is sufficiently well put to just quote:

There are many different types of cyclist – from the experienced, fast-moving cycle courier to a child riding to school, a disabled person who finds it easier to ride a bike than to walk, someone enjoying a leisure pursuit, or a worker simply on their way home from the office. Many of them will also be drivers. All of them will be pedestrians. Some may also ride a motorcycle or a horse. Different types of cyclist are likely to ride in different ways, but research on different road user attitudes has shown that drivers have a tendency to stereotype cyclists negatively; characterised by supposed failures of attitude and competence, even while recognising that cyclists are a diverse population …

As with all road users, some cyclists behave lawfully and considerately and others do not. Some behaviour which is not only legal but also good practice for safer cycling is misunderstood by some motorists. Strong opinions may come about from different groups not understanding the intention of the other, or becoming frustrated by the other’s behaviour.



To some who read this blog, all the above might seem obvious, and an some ways it is. But – with all the caveats stated earlier – it strikes me as refreshing for the DfT to point it all out so openly.

The copy of the consultation document I saw didn’t yet give an idea of how long it will last, but this will all be on the DfT website.

There are six consultation questions, asking for input on how to improve safety through changes to road infrastructure; the law; road user training; education; equipment; and understanding and awareness.

Anyone can submit whatever ideas they want, so expect the equipment and training questions to prompt some calls for mandatory bike helmets, bike licensing and similar irrelevancies. The fact that the review is based on evidence should mean that these are safely ignored.

Equally, it might seem obvious to many what is needed: a massive programme to build good cycling infrastructure and tame motor traffic, plus better enforcement of the laws and improved training, to begin with.

But it cannot do any harm for this to be pointed out to the DfT again and again. Past experience suggests little will change in the short or even medium term. But at least the consultation feels like something drawn up with an understanding of the issues at hand.