Labour is Cracking Down On Dangerous Cyclists - Here's Why they're Missing the Big Picture

Words by Liam Pritchett

The UK Government has confirmed plans to bring cycling legislation in-line with driving laws, which could see cyclists who kill pedestrians serve longer prison sentences. On paper, this might seem like a logical step to improve safety, but the reality is far more complicated.

First announced by the Conservative government in May of 2024, Keir Starmer’s Labour party has since adopted this latest piece of legislation. Confirming the resurfaced proposal earlier this week, the Department for Transport called road safety a ‘key priority.’

Reckless cycling currently falls under 1860s legislation with a maximum two-year prison sentence. The update proposed by the DfT could potentially see dangerous cyclists who kill pedestrians imprisoned for life, just like the dangerous drivers of motor vehicles.

Cycling UK, the country’s largest cycling charity, criticised the ‘copy-and-paste’ nature of the proposed legislation, highlighting the urgent need for a broad road safety review, which the charity has long advocated for. Head of campaigns Duncan Dollimore noted that the previous government promised to carry out such a review over a decade ago.

Each year, around 30,000 people are killed or injured on UK roads, with more than 400 pedestrians killed by cars. In the last few weeks alone, there have been several incidents involving cars and either pedestrians or cyclists, resulting in critical injuries and deaths. In addition, some experts believe a significant number of dangerous car drivers – including those involved in deadly hit-and-runs – receive over-lenient sentences, while lifetime driving bans continue to be conspicuously rare. 

In contrast, just three people are killed per year in bike-and-pedestrian incidents and no records are kept about who was at fault or which party died, implying that at least some of those are blameless accidents. While any avoidable death on the UK’s roads is a tragedy, statistics and anecdotal evidence confirm that cars are the biggest danger by far.

As reported by Road CC, cycling charity Brake’s CEO Ross Moorlock previously said, ‘If the aviation or rail industry had the safety record that roads do, planes would be grounded, and trains would be stopped,’ calling the new dangerous cycling legislation ‘disproportionate.’

In the UK, nearly 70 percent of drivers admit to road rage. Growing levels of congestion, rapidly deteriorating roads, and a record number of vehicles – many much larger and more deadly than ever before – amplify the potential risk.

Cycling, wheeling, walking, and other forms of active travel are proven to positively impact people's wellbeing, reducing the risk of mortality and disease, and supporting mental health. Cycling, in particular, significantly reduces carbon emissions, while targeted outreach programs can help to tackle cycling inequality and promote mobility.

In addition, investment in walking and cycling has three times the return of road building, making it an ideal opportunity for cost-effective growth with huge benefits for those who live here. Last September, the newly elected Labour party pledged ‘unprecedented levels of funding in cycling and walking to improve health, fight inequality, and mitigate climate change.

In the UK though, according to Sustrans, only 15 percent of people cycle once a week currently. Approximately 66 percent of the population thinks British roads are not safe enough for cycling, while 35 percent would switch to cycle commuting if it were less dangerous.

Ultimately, a cultural shift towards active travel is what encourages people to participate. In the Netherlands, which has more than 35,000km of cycle paths, 64 percent of people cycle at least once a week. A combination of highly usable infrastructure, education, and community-led support makes cycling inclusive, accessible, and desirable.

Several cycling and sustainability groups have highlighted that the proposed clampdown on dangerous cycling in the UK could put people off active travel, something that knee-jerk legal measures – whether compulsory helmets or city centre bans – are likely to do. Such interventions also frequently fail to deliver the desired results, making them a net loss.

This recycled ‘safety’ proposal exists against a backdrop of scrapped environmental protections, an unprecedented attack on disabled people, anti-immigration rhetoric, and the attempted erasure of trans people from society. Much of this work has been carried out against the explicit advice of experts and affected people themselves. To compare these issues directly is reductive and, frankly, dangerous. But observed together, they paint a worrying picture of the UK’s government embracing anti-expertise talking points, with a very real human cost.

We know that the way issues are talked about ultimately impacts people’s attitudes, meaning that rhetoric from politicians and the media can end up warping national opinions. Like so many other innocuous topics and activities, bikes, it seems, have been absorbed into the so-called culture wars. Media coverage of cycling and cyclists themselves remains overwhelmingly negative, as is any mention of new bike paths or low traffic neighbourhoods. 

Speaking on BBC Breakfast in 2024, shortly after the proposed update was first introduced, former professional racing cyclist and Commissioner of Active Travel Chris Boardman noted that more people are killed each year by lightning or cows than by cyclists. He added that ‘everybody should obey the laws of the road,’ but also expressed frustration that ‘something that’s so good for society and so joyous, is getting so much focus in a negative way.’

Anti-cycling sentiment has unfortunately become yet another cultural mainstay, and one Labour would do well to leave alone if they want to support the country’s health and wellbeing. Of course making UK roads safer is important, but blanket legislation that discourages active travel is almost certainly not the most efficient, logical, or equitable way to achieve it.