Proposed new offences

I see they're not bringing in a requirement to pay road tax.

*Rolls eyes

Failure to stop at a school crossing patrol.

Is this on a bike?  I'm assuming that there is some technical loopholes for bikes not being motorised vehicles at the moment if they feel that is necessary?  Difficult to find any credible objection.  I'm surprised it would not fall within s29 of the RTA(1998).

Cyclist holding on to a vehicle while in motion on a road for the purpose of being drawn along.

I'm surprised it would not fall within s28 or 29 of the RTA(1998).

Cycling on a road dangerously.

That is the offence in s28 of the RTA

Cycling on a road without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road.

That is the offence in s29 of the RTA

Offences under Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989:
Using a pedal cycle without lights between sunset and sunrise.
Using lamps so as to cause undue dazzle or discomfort to other persons using the road.
Using a non-motor vehicle with any lamp so as to cause undue dazzle or discomfort.

I've not checked, surprised that the pedal cycle line is not already an offence.

Offences under Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997:
Failure to comply with any direction given by a constable or by a notice exhibited by order of the Secretary of State regarding the use of a pedal cycle in a Royal Park or other specified land.
Using a pedal cycle in manner that endangers or is likely to endanger any person in a Royal Park or other specified land.
Using a vehicle or pedal cycle between sunset and sunrise, or in seriously reduced visibility between sunrise and sunset, with no lights in a Royal Park or other specified land.

I don't understand why Royal parks are special.  Would be more logical to make all parks!

London. Strange world of its own. Royal Parks aren’t public parks, and have rules of their own. One of my relatives works for them.

Given that they can’t do anything about the estimated 1m+ drivers on the road with no license or insurance, I suspect this is largely performative.

No point in new rules if they can’t enforce the ones we’ve got…

See comments to the original article:

I think the article could be clearer that these are not new cycling offences - they're just changing how these offences can be handled, by allowing them to be enforced with a fixed penalty or education, rather than prosecution. The article makes it sound like there's a whole host of new things we can be slapped with, but in fact there's a whole host of things we no longer have to go to court for.

I fail to see a problem tbh.  Assuming they're applied correctly. Of course in practise they'll be completely unenforceable, beyond a few forces holding some token crackdowns.

Using lamps so as to cause undue dazzle or discomfort to other persons using the road.
Using a non-motor vehicle with any lamp so as to cause undue dazzle or discomfort.

The first part I assume applies to motor vehicles? Dunno why this one needs to be separate for motors & cycles

Now there's a vaguely worded and subjective offense. Define "undue discomfort". Didn't we have a thread a few weeks ago with a somewhat heated discussion about brake lights while waiting at traffic lights?

Edit:

See comments to the original article

Ok, great. Even less to get worked up about then.

Using lamps so as to cause undue dazzle or discomfort to other persons using the road.

Seems vague and ultimately unenforceable. See also: modern car headlights

EDIT: beaten to it by @ossify!

Apologies, I didn't read the comments just the article.
I wonder if the Police are more likely to hand out FPNs now they longer have to go through prosecution/court?

London. Strange world of its own. Royal Parks aren’t public parks, and have rules of their own.

Not just London. Holyrood Park in Edinburgh is also subject to its own legislation. For instance, the Land Reform (Scotland) Act doesn't apply there.

As per Birky, it looks like they have lowered the bar, which of course opens it up to more personal and whimsical levels of enforcement.

At least they haven't 'upgraded' the lack of pedal reflectors/rear reflectors offence to an FPN matter, given that pretty much all of us would be falling foul of that between sunrise and sun-up.

AKA "the Sticky Bottle Act"

I think the article could be clearer that these are not new cycling offences – they’re just changing how these offences can be handled, by allowing them to be enforced with a fixed penalty or education, rather than prosecution. The article makes it sound like there’s a whole host of new things we can be slapped with, but in fact there’s a whole host of things we no longer have to go to court for.

This - all it's done is clarify some existing offences, the problem is the "don't have to go to court for" bit and the fact that much of it is very subjective, eg:

Cycling on a road dangerously.
Cycling on a road without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road.

Since the courts already find it difficult to get anyone for Dangerous Driving (usually downgrading to the less serious, but easier to convict, Careless Driving), I can't see that as being anything other than the whim of whichever police officer happens to pull you over. Except that this time, there's no defence in court, it's simply a case of them saying "you'll be fined for Dangerous Cycling".

The Royal Parks have long been an anomaly; a bunch of feudal-era laws / regulations, unaccountable "managing bodies", wealthy NIMBYs and a generally anti-cycling attitude. See also: The New Forest.

the problem is the “don’t have to go to court for” bit

the whim of whichever police officer happens to pull you over

Still don't see the problem... the simple solution would appear to be "don't cycle dangerously" *shrug*

Ah I see. Username checks out 😀

I recall an episode of the PM programme during the Blair government. There was a hosepipe ban in force at the time. There was fuss about the Rose Garden at Number 10 being watered with a hosepipe. Someone from there came on to explain that it wasn't a proper hosepipe as it was from a tank and anyway the rules didn't apply because the Number 10 Rose Garden is a Royal Park.

Later on they said that a listener had been in touch to say that he had been down there and had been refused entry to fly his kite, despite the fact that it was a Royal Park.

Still don’t see the problem… the simple solution would appear to be “don’t cycle dangerously” *shrug*

Ah I see. Username checks out ?

Define "dangerous".

Even the courts can't do this for driving offences. If I descend a hill (let's assume dry road, good visibility) at 40mph - well within the limits of me and my bike - is that dangerous? Some people would look at that and define it as absolutely terrifying. Some (experienced cyclists) might look at it and wonder why I'm going so slowly.

Now add in a couple of weaves from side to side as I avoid potholes, manhole covers etc. Am I being safe by avoiding those things or dangerous by weaving?

It's not a definition, it's a subjective opinion (which is why the whole "dangerous / careless driving" thing also needs a complete overhaul).

the problem is the “don’t have to go to court for”

One can refuse the fixed penalty notice and get summonsed to court. Given that the legal system is fubar’ed this isn’t really any surprise (a cps lawyer said the other day that if you were charged today and wanted a jury trial you could be looking t 2028 before your case would come up).

Witnessing daily the increasingly dreadful standards of driving that an ever growing amount of drivers display I would say they can produce any laws they want. They will be ignored and not enforced anyway...

Yes, I am a grumpy old sod.

I can see;

Cycling on a road without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road.

Potentially being misused to try and bully bicycle users, a fine and a course to provide a bit of schadenfreude for mugs stuck in queuing tin boxes, when someone is actually caught RLJing.

How far do we think the 'reasonable consideration' bit will get stretched?

TBH it's a big bag of nothing, car-****ers can triumphantly claim that "Rogue cyclists" are being clamped down on, NIMBYs can shout at strangers on bikes about their own interpretation of the laws and Police will still lack the resources to do anything new.

I still predict the demise of the car, mostly because they're so bloody expensive to own/run/insure and people will eventually start dusting off those COVID bought bikes from the back of the shed and work out that they can get to the shops/school/work essentially for free...

I still predict the demise of the car, mostly because they’re so bloody expensive to own/run/insure

This won't happen.

There is already a massive number of people who in reality cannot afford a car. However they just saddle themselves with increasing amounts of debt to keep going...
I also see a large number of vehicles that are not fit to be on the road, but there are places where you can get a hooky MOT, or some just don't bother at all...

It's just performative legislation to  placate some gammons IMHO. And if you are doing enough that a copper sees you and thinks it's worth his while acting on the way you're riding, that'll be well into Rule One territory so you probably deserve what you get.

I still predict the demise of the car, mostly because they’re so bloody expensive to own/run/insure and people will eventually start dusting off those COVID bought bikes from the back of the shed and work out that they can get to the shops/school/work essentially for free…

How far into the future are you predicting? I'm going at two generations minimum the way my mid-twenties daughter and her mates attitudes to active travel are. Petrol legs, (although of course it'll be electric legs in a few years) all of them.

The anti-cycling bod at my current job placement is loving this.  Well, he was until I pointed out that it was all legislated for anyway and that it just allows them to issue a FPN instead of court.  I really poked him though when I pointed out that it means they will find it easier to deal with all the idiotic Deliveroo riders, of which he uses a lot of, so there will be less of them around.  He's currently having a 'think' before he brings up the conversation again.

Much ado about nothing.   As said above if you are stupid enough to jump red lights etc when the police are in view you deserve to get done. Anything reported by a third party - good luck tracing a random cyclist with no reg plates.

In any case, aside from careless/reckless cycling on footpaths or pedestrian precincts etc the person at risk from bad cycling is the cyclist.  Unlike cars where the danger is primarily to those other than the driver.

It makes sense to allow Fixed Penalties as an option where there is a prosecution. I don't expect they will be used much. The most common cycling conviction is careless or inconsiderate cycling. In 2023 there was 39 convictions. The chance of even very poor cyclists being convicted is for practical purposes zero.

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/cyclists-and-the-law/#heading-2

I pointed out that it means they will find it easier to deal with all the idiotic Deliveroo riders, of which he uses a lot of, so there will be less of them around.

I wouldn’t count on that as presumably riding an illegal electric moped without license or insurance is probably beyond the FPN stage if they get popped for something else.

On a tangent the Streets Ahead podcast yesterday is really good on the problems with the delivery platforms.

I wouldn’t count on that as presumably riding an illegal electric moped without license or insurance is probably beyond the FPN stage if they get popped for something else.

The police often avoid doing anything too obvious as they know full well that pulling one of those guys over will often lead to a whole host of further issues potentially up to and including immigration, right to work, even trying to get a confirmed ID in the first place. *

The problem is just allowed to exist in plain sight because ultimately, while many of them are probably breaking a host of laws, they're also providing a service and at worst, they're usually just an irritant rather than actively dangerous - it's not like they're committing armed robbery. Dealing with them would be more effectively done via the "employers" themselves.

It's created further services like this:
https://manchestermill.co.uk/f1-pit-stops-for-deliveroo-riders-our-convenience-obsession-has-created-a-new-kind-of-bike-shop/

Where do you stop with this? Is the shop itself potentially liable because some of the bikes they're servicing and maintaining are illegal?

*this comes up routinely at Neighbourhood Watch type meetings - a host of retired biddies all haranguing the police community liaison about "why aren't you pulling over RLJing cyclists, e-scooters, things we don't like and pavement cyclists?" and the police simply say they don't have the resources to deal with what is little more than a nuisance, they'd rather deal with the "real" crimes and how would the retired biddy feel if the police didn't turn up when her house was burgled cos they were busy dealing with someone riding an e-scooter to the shops.

The anti-cycling bod at my current job placement is loving this.  Well, he was until I pointed out that it was all legislated for anyway and that it just allows them to issue a FPN instead of court.  I really poked him though when I pointed out that it means they will find it easier to deal with all the idiotic Deliveroo riders, of which he uses a lot of, so there will be less of them around.  He’s currently having a ‘think’ before he brings up the conversation again.

If he starts again you could also point out that you just wont stop, no number plate, tax or insurance renders you pretty much untraceable. That should keep him frothing for days.

It’s just performative legislation to  placate some gammons IMHO

Agree completetely, there aren't enough police to follow up on real things so I cant see them suddently employing a load more to deal with a relatively small number of dangerous cyclists.

I would also suggest that if you asked the vast majority of non cyclists what riding without due care or reasonable consideration is, they would suggest riding 2 abreast or being in their way on the roads.

I think the article could be clearer that these are not new cycling offences – they’re just changing how these offences can be handled, by allowing them to be enforced with a fixed penalty or education, rather than prosecution. The article makes it sound like there’s a whole host of new things we can be slapped with, but in fact there’s a whole host of things we no longer have to go to court for.

Ah that makes much more sense.

Define “dangerous”.

Even the courts can’t do this for driving offences.

It’s not a definition, it’s a subjective opinion (which is why the whole “dangerous / careless driving” thing also needs a complete overhaul).

Actually the court will tell you its not a subjective test but an objective one - although I appreciate that is lawerly pedantry.  The reality is they DO define that every day and juries and magistrates do make that decision frequently.  The fact you might not like the outcome doesn't mean they can't do it.

It makes sense to allow Fixed Penalties as an option where there is a prosecution. I don’t expect they will be used much. The most common cycling conviction is careless or inconsiderate cycling. In 2023 there was 39 convictions. The chance of even very poor cyclists being convicted is for practical purposes zero.

Although if the cops no longer are likely to spend a day (or more!) sitting around a court waiting to give their 30 minutes of evidence, have to prepare statements, deal with prosecutors wondering why they have some minor cycling offence in their in tray etc... they might actually be keener to issue tickets to idiots on 2 wheels.

Since the courts already find it difficult to get anyone for Dangerous Driving (usually downgrading to the less serious, but easier to convict, Careless Driving),

Courts dont find it difficult to "get anyone for" anything.  Its not the court's job to achieve a conviction, its the courts job to ensure a fair trial.  Even prosecutors shouldn't really be starting a case with the mission to "get someone for" an offence - that's how you end up with Post Office Scandal situations.  People are successfully prosecuted for Dangerous Driving all the time.  Indeed often that can be negotiated down to Careless - but that usually means the Crown weren't convinced they had a strong case for Dangerous (but could be they are just busy and getting one more case out the system without a trial is a win).

I can’t see that as being anything other than the whim of whichever police officer happens to pull you over. Except that this time, there’s no defence in court, it’s simply a case of them saying “you’ll be fined for Dangerous Cycling”.

Of course there is a defence in court - just as there is for every other fixed penalty offence.

We bang on about dangerous cyclists getting us all tarred with the same brush, and then complain that it will be too subjective to enforce changes such as this?

Rule#1 - don't cycle like a dick. We know what a dick cyclist is like. The vast majority of coppers know what a dick cyclist is like. If a copper pulls you over and you disagree on the definition of riding like a dick, don't accept the FPN and have your day in court. Either you or the copper will learn something.

Yes, I know cars being driven dangerously are a greater risk.  Murderers are more dangerous than burglars but I don't think we should ignore burglars.

Let's be honest, the occasional blitz in a hot-spot is all the Police gave resources for.

You can hear the non-cyclists now "YEAH! Their lights are so bright! Nearly made me crash!" Whereas being dazzled by car LEDs is a daily thing

I even read a review of a Proviz jacket where a motorist claims to have been confused by "how bright" someone's jacket was.

It's what we're dealing with. Morons.

It’s what we’re dealing with. Morons.

Dont be so silly.

I saw a bike courrier go through a red light in London a week ago. Cyclists: morons?

This is the that really puzzled me.

Cyclist holding on to a vehicle while in motion on a road for the purpose of being drawn along.

Now back in my youth I did this a few times but it’s pretty scary as you’ve one hand off the bars. The bar on the back of routemaster buses was good, as was the fuel filler on an old London taxi. Modern vehicles don’t have anything to hang on to though (except scaffold Lorries). I ride in London all the time and I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone going this - why the hell did it justify a specific law?

You can hear the non-cyclists now “YEAH! Their lights are so bright! Nearly made me crash!” Whereas being dazzled by car LEDs is a daily thing

Could definitely do with some legislation on car headlight brightness. I find I'm having to cycle with brighter and brighter lights because cars are doing the same. Result is neither cyclist nor driver can see passed each other. When I turn my lights down or off for a driver there's guaranteed to be a huge pothole at that exact spot waiting to wreck the bike or send me over the bars. A quick google reveals car headlights were 700-1200 lumens for halogen and are now 3000-6000 for LED. Complete with automatic full beams that don't recognise cyclists, or drivers that don't care.

There have been moves to change the regs on car headlights, so if that comes in, expect MaxxDs to go the same way