Councillors and concerned residents have condemned government proposals to impose life sentences on cyclists who kill pedestrians, calling the move reactionary, disproportionate and dangerously one-sided.
The amendment, reportedly being fast-tracked into the Crime and Policing Bill, would introduce life imprisonment for “dangerous cycling” that results in death, and up to five years for serious injury — despite the fact that such offences can already be prosecuted under existing legislation. Critics say the government is responding not to evidence, but to media hysteria and a singular high-profile case.
“It’s not accountability we oppose, it’s hypocrisy,” said leader of the Greens in B&NES Council, Cllr Joanna Wright, “Drivers who kill often receive suspended sentences or no custodial time at all. Yet cyclists, who cause a tiny fraction of road deaths, are being singled out for the harshest possible penalties. This is not justice — it’s scapegoating.”
Statistically, around four pedestrians die in collisions with cyclists annually — a tragedy, but a fraction compared to the hundreds killed by motor vehicles. In most cases involving drivers, the courts issue far more lenient sentences, even when serious negligence is involved. Some drivers who have killed multiple people have received only fines or community service.
Green Cllr Saskia Heijltjes added: “Five people die on UK roads every day, most of these are caused by drivers. All road users should obey the law, but the focus on people cycling is distracting from the real issue of ineffective road traffic laws and not enough safe spaces for walking, wheeling and cycling.
A series of court cases in recent years have laid bare the inconsistency. Drivers who killed while speeding, texting, or driving on bald tyres have walked free — some even receiving the court’s sympathy. By contrast, the cyclist in the Charlie Alliston case was prosecuted, jailed, and subjected to a months-long media campaign demanding harsher laws.
Now, reports suggest the proposed amendment is being pushed personally by the Transport Secretary, who was the MP for the husband of the victim in the Alliston case — raising serious concerns about impartiality in law-making.
Legislation should be based on broad evidence and public interest, not individual tragedies or media pressure. We call on the Justice Secretary to revive their predecessor’s commitment to a full review of all driving offences and penalties — one that includes drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians alike.
To legislate in haste, under the weight of sensational headlines, would only further entrench an unjust and unbalanced system.