Cyclists who kill could face life sentence in proposed law change
Cyclists who kill pedestrians by acting dangerously on the road could face life imprisonment under a proposed change to the law.Currently, cycling offenders can be imprisoned for no more than two years under an 1861 law originally intended for drivers of horse-drawn carriages.A government amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill - which is currently going through Parliament - would see cycling offences brought in line with driving offences, the Department for Transport (DfT) said.The changes would also mean serious injury caused by dangerous cycling - or death by careless or inconsiderate cycling - could incur punishments of five years in jail, fines, or both.
A serious injury caused by careless or inconsiderate cycling would result in a two-year sentence, a fine or both under the proposed changes.The government estimates that of 1,600 deaths on UK roads last year, four were caused by cyclists.A DfT spokesperson said updating the more than 160-year-old legislation would "ensure that the tiny minority who recklessly disregard others face the full force of the law".They added: "Dangerous cycling is completely unacceptable, and the safety of our roads is a key priority for this government."The amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill - which is currently at the committee stage - will be debated by Parliament in "due course", the spokesperson said.
Under the previous government, Conservative MP Sir Iain Duncan Smith campaigned to amend another bill - the Criminal Justice Bill - to hold cyclists accountable for reckless behaviour.He cited campaigning by Matthew Briggs, whose wife, Kim, died from head injuries after a collision with a cyclist in 2016.Charlie Alliston - who was riding a fixed-gear bike with no front brakes - was cleared of manslaughter and found guilty of causing bodily harm by "wanton or furious driving". Mr Briggs told BBC Radio 4's Today programme last year that he wanted to "try and stop another family having to go through what we have had to go through".His campaign welcomed Friday's news, writing on X: "After nine years of campaigning and a few false starts, it looks like we might finally be there!"A government source close to Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander told the BBC that changing the law "at the first opportunity" was "definitely personal" to her as she was Mr Briggs' MP when his wife was killed.They said: "While this is an important victory for those families, 1,600 people were killed on our roads last year and just four caused by cyclists. "We need to address that too and will be bringing forward a road safety strategy before the end of the year."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Nigel Farage has yet to prove he can work with others
Two days after quitting after a very public dispute with one of the party's five MPs, former Reform chairman Zia Yusuf is returning to the party to take up a new role, with his exact job title yet to be settled on. On Thursday, helping Nigel Farage's party continue its remarkable rise was no longer a 'good use' of Mr Yusuf's time; today, it once again appears to be his primary objective. This will be welcome news for Mr Farage, who was reported to have felt dejected by Mr Yusuf's sudden departure. It is a positive sign, too, that the personality clashes within the party appear to have been put to one side for now. Peace has broken out over the spat that led to his departure, with Mr Yusuf attributing his decision to a combination of 'exhaustion' and feeling blindsided by the sudden raising of a potential burka ban as a policy issue in Parliament. The last two days of drama point,however, to a wider issue: Reform is not yet a professional operation on par with the established rivals it seeks to displace. While the party has made considerable electoral progress in the past year, Reform's institutional structures have lagged behind with repeated embarrassing stories over previous statements made by candidates highlighting in sharp and unforgiving fashion the importance of building back office capabilities to identify, screen and vet candidates to a satisfactory standard. There is, however, only so much staff can do. The concern for Reform will be that the sudden changes in personnel that have unfolded over the last year – the departure of Rupert Lowe MP, the resignation and return of Mr Yusuf – are mirroring a pattern observed in previous episodes in Mr Farage's political career. The former UKIP and Brexit party leader is no stranger to clashes with colleagues, and while apparently not directly at fault in this instance there will still be concerns that some elements of the drama around Reform may be integral to his leadership style. This, rather than the political skill of Sir Keir Starmer or Kemi Badenoch, may prove the greatest obstacle to Reform's ambitions in the years ahead. While Mr Farage has succeeded in capturing the votes of a large proportion of this country disaffected with Westminster and the traditional parties of government, there is little appetite to return to the squabbling and briefing that marked the dying years of the last Conservative government, or the worst days of New Labour. It is now for Reform to prove it can steer a calmer course.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Britain's debt is a threat to national security
Our sky high debt is a threat to our national security. This year, the cost of servicing our debt will be almost double what we are spending on defence. And in today's turbulent world, the fiscal buffer to cushion us from shocks is paper thin. The smallest tap could shatter our economic credibility. The Prime Minister has made defence and security the organising principle of his government. Given that, putting our debt on a downward path should be his government's priority. It isn't. Debt will be higher at the end of the Parliament than today. And with global government debt already around $100 trillion, and Donald Trump about to increase that by a further $2.4 trillion, who will buy our debt – and at what price? Last year, the cross-party House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee raised a red flag that UK debt risks becoming unsustainable unless tough decisions are taken in this Parliament. We set out a choice: taxes would have to rise, or the state would have to do less. Being cross-party, we did not opine on which option was best. The Government has taken tough decisions – but in my mind the wrong ones. Taxes are rising to record highs. The Chancellor said last year that her strategy would deliver growth, and that she would not come back for more tax. But the growth forecast has been halved, and further tax hikes are on the cards. Meanwhile, pressure to spend more on defence is going to increase. At the upcoming Nato summit, nations are likely to be asked to commit to spending 5 per cent of GDP on defence – double Labour's current commitment. So what is to be done? We need to confront the other option: the state should do less. The Government rightly says that the relentless rise in welfare spending is 'unsustainable'. Spending on disability and incapacity benefits alone is more than on defence. But having announced that action would be taken to curb the growth in the welfare budget, the Prime Minister is now blinking in the face of opposition. The Government – and the nation – cannot afford ministers losing their nerve to keep a lid on spending. The bond vigilantes have saddled up and are on the prowl. Nor can the Chancellor tax her way out of the debt quagmire: to do so would risk us entering into a doom loop of ever lower growth and ever higher debt. If defence and security is the organising principle of government, the Chancellor must set out a credible plan to stop debt's relentless rise and bring it down from today's giddying heights. Not doing so risks economic catastrophe – and our national security.
Powys County Times
4 hours ago
- Powys County Times
Home Office plans to spend £2.2bn of foreign aid on asylum support this year
The Home Office plans to spend about £2.2 billion of foreign aid to support asylum seekers this financial year, according to new figures. The amount of overseas development assistance (ODA) budgeted by the Home Office – which is largely used to cover accommodation costs such as hotels for asylum seekers – is slightly less than the £2.3 billion it spent in 2024/25. International rules allow countries to count first-year costs of supporting refugees as overseas development assistance (ODA). The figures, first reported by the BBC, were published in recent days on the Home Office website. The Home Office said it is 'urgently taking action to restore order and reduce costs' which will cut the amount spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. It also said it was expected to have saved £500 million in asylum support costs in the last financial year, and that this had saved £200 million in ODA which had been passed back to the Treasury. A total of 32,345 asylum seekers were being housed temporarily in UK hotels at the end of March this year. This figure is down 15% from the end of December, when the total was 38,079, and 6% lower than the 34,530 at the same point a year earlier. Asylum seekers and their families are housed in temporary accommodation if they are waiting for the outcome of a claim or an appeal and have been assessed as not being able to support themselves independently. They are housed in hotels if there is not enough space in accommodation provided by local authorities or other organisations. Labour has previously said it is 'committed to end the use of asylum hotels over time', adding that under the previous Conservative government at one stage 'more than 400 hotels were in use and almost £9 million per day was being spent'. Jo White, chairwoman of the Red Wall group of Labour MPs, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Saturday: 'We need to be looking at things like ECHR article eight. I don't think anything's off the table … including looking at new options such as processing abroad. 'So, we have to be open to see how we can move move that backlog as quickly as possible. I'm getting impatient. 'I know my colleagues in parliament are getting impatient and we're pressing the Government as hard as we can on this.' A Home Office spokesperson said: 'We inherited an asylum system under exceptional pressure and are urgently taking action to restore order and reduce costs. 'This will ultimately reduce the amount of official development assistance spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. 'We are immediately speeding up decisions and increasing returns so that we can end the use of hotels and save the taxpayer £4 billion by 2026. 'The Rwanda scheme also wasted £700 million to remove just four volunteers – instead, we have surged removals to nearly 30,000 since the election, are giving law enforcement new counter-terror style powers, and increasing intelligence sharing through our Border Security Command to tackle the heart of the issue, vile people-smuggling gangs.'
