Why is Andrea Leadsom MP getting it wrong about cyclists?

Dangerous and Reckless Cycling 10 Minute Rule Bill

Yesterday I presented a 10 Minute Rule Bill in the House of Commons called 'Dangerous and Reckless Cycling (Offences)' Bill. A 10 Minute Rule Bill gives backbench MPs an opportunity to introduce a piece of legislation that the Government may not have time to introduce itself. 10 Minute Rule Bills do not usually make it onto the Statute book, simply because there is not enough time to see them all the way through the legislative process but they are a great way of raising an important issue with the Government.

The aim of my Bill is to update the law and to make sure that all road users are equally protected and take responsibility for their actions. The vast majority of people killed or seriously injured on our roads are pedestrians and cyclists hit by motorists and the penalties for dangerous or careless driving are severe and rightly so. However, very occasionally it is a cyclist that causes death or serious injury to a pedestrian and yet in this case sufficient punishment does not follow.

In 2007 Rhiannon Bennett was walking with friends on a pavement when a cyclist approached at speed yelling, 'Move because I'm not stopping!' He hit Rhiannon who fell and smashed her head on the kerb. She was rushed to hospital but died 6 days later. The cyclist was found guilty of the crime of 'Dangerous Cycling'. This charge carries a maximum penalty of £2,500 but no prison sentence. There are other charges including the 'Offences Against the Persons Act 1861,' but this charge was designed to deal with horse drawn carriages and carts and therefore, for obvious reasons, it is rarely used, so the cyclist who killed Rhiannon was given a £2,200 fine but did not go to prison.

I have not met anyone who considers a fine of £2,200 to be sufficient punishment for taking the life of a young girl. If Rhiannon had been killed by a car which had mounted the pavement, the driver would have faced a sentence of up to 14 years in prison. If he had only received a fine there would have been a national outcry. The aim of my Bill is to update the law and to make sure that in the few cases where a cyclist kills or seriously injures a pedestrian, families like Rhiannon's can receive justice.

Yesterday in the Chamber Members on all sides of the House listened respectfully as I told Rhiannon's story and the Bill was passed without opposition. Afterwards the Transport Minister, Mike Penning MP, who had listened to my speech, briefly met with me and Mr and Mrs Bennett, Rhiannon's parents who had watched from the gallery. Mike promised to do all he could to help and suggested that in legislation that is due to be brought in next year, he may be able to include provisions to update the law so that this situation could not arise again. He offered to meet with us soon to discuss this further.

Often the public only see the bad side of politics, shouting across the Chamber, political point scoring, MPs expenses but often a real difference can be made. Yesterday there was no party politics or point scoring just the desire of all involved to right a wrong. If, for a moment, I have ever forgotten why I wanted to be an MP, I was reminded yesterday.

http://www.andrealeadsom.com/home/dangerous-and-reckless-cycling-10-minute-rule-bill/265

Andrea Leadsom has had three years to research Rhiannon's terrible death and she still gets it wrong. The police evidence was that Rhiannon was in the road. The girl had been drinking Stella in the park. I'm not sure what I would do if a gang of youths blocked my way. The cyclist was the one who stopped and put Rhiannon in the recovery position as her friends did nothing. Leadsom is lying about a tragic death in order to whip up anti-cyclists sentiments. Leadsom is dishonest and irresponsible, as well as being plain wrong when she claims a number of pedestrians are killed by cyclists every year, this is factually inaccurate.

At a time when cyclists are subject to aggressive, violent behaviour on the roads Leadsom's self-promotion by lying about a young girl's death is despicable, and recklessly stupid.

I always heard it as the MP described it. I will take your word for it that it is not. However as for cyclists, any who mount the pavement or jump lights should have their bike confiscated and sold or crushed.

I always heard it as the MP described it. I will take your word for it that it is not. However as for cyclists, any who mount the pavement or jump lights should have their bike confiscated and sold or crushed.

There was a lot of misreporting of the incident.

I think it unlikely that this matter got to the stage of submitting a bill without the facts being checked about Rhiannon's death. It is beyond belief that nobody in the MP's office checked to find out what happened that day. Andrea Leadsom is either staggeringly incompetent or is knowingly issuing dishonest statements about cyclists that could very easily inspire more violent assaults on cyclists, drivers using their vehicle as a weapon, objects thrown at cyclists, the sort of aggressive hostility toward cyclists that helmet cams are beginning to record.

Leadsom got a fair bit of publicity by issuing the lies printed above, it would be seemly if she retracted and apologised, there could be very unpleasant consequences if she lets her dishonest claims stand.

An MP should really check before trying to change the law:

Howard was cycling on the road when he approached the group but the court heard conflicting evidence about whether he mounted the kerb at any point during the incident.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/7496370.stm

That Leadsom based her whole misguided campaign on a lie is depressing. That, after a period of review, she still trots out the exact same lie is astonishing, she is a paid representative and she didn't even make cursory checks on the story.

She'll be secure in the knowledge that most people will never check the mainstream view. Most just read a tabloid and leave it at that.

She'll be secure in the knowledge that most people will never check the mainstream view. Most just read a tabloid and leave it at that.

I'm careful about checking facts when I send an email. That an MP, after three years, with a paid office staff, can still get up in Parliament and utter a string of lies about a girl's death is beyond incompetence.

The police evidence was that she was probably in the road not an absolute fact. I think maybe your priorities are slightly wrong here when a cyclist riding a bike that didn't comply with the highway code makes no attempt to slow down or swerve for a pedestrian (just yells out "move, because I'm not stopping") and then hits that pedestrian killing her to moan at whether she got one bit of disputed evidence right shows a very warped set of ethics.

You can post on Leadsom's homepage, someone's written:

This bill rests on only a single instance of a cyclist killing someone by dangerous cycling.

And it seems that the facts of this one case are not as you tell them. The cyclist was not cycling on the pavement. Apparently the girl was on the road and would not get out of the cyclist's path, hence his warning. I have encountered this behaviour from groups of teenagers and I can understand the cyclist's actions as I would not want to stop and be accosted by a group of drunken teenagers.

Cyclists have enough to worry about without the threat of imprisonment for hitting people who move into their path when they are cycling legitimately on the road or on cycle paths.

Cycling on the pavement is already illegal and instances of cyclists causing death or serious injury are very rare. There is no need for a new law.

Please retract this bill and issue an apology for misleading the public.

I think you're missing the point. Whether she got her facts right concerning that particular case isn't really relevant. She was proposing a bill that says that the penalty for causing a death on the road should not depend on the vehicle, but on the circumstances. If in this case he had been driving a motor vehicle the penalty would probably have been much more severe.

The bill she proposed won't affect the outcome of this case, but in a future case the circumstances might be different. If so, would it be right that the cyclist could not be penalised because he was on a cycle and not driving a car?

I think you're missing the point. Whether she got her facts right concerning that particular case isn't really relevant. She was proposing a bill that says that the penalty for causing a death on the road should not depend on the vehicle, but on the circumstances. If in this case he had been driving a motor vehicle the penalty would probably have been much more severe.

Really?

The full force of the law, eh?

Just like John Ashbrook felt the full force of the law after he hit Adrianna Skryzypiec off her bicycle and dragged her for 140m, killing her.

No further action taken.

Just like Joao Lopes, the lorry driver who felt the full force of the law after he crushed cyclist Eilidh Cairns to death.

Fined £200.

Just like Robert Harris, who felt the full force of the law after he skidded into the Rhyl cycling club on three bald tyres, killing four of them.

Fined £180.

Just like Keith Wilson, full force of the law again for careless driving in which a cyclist was killed.

£150 fine.

Just like Michael Thorn, who crushed Emma Foa with his lorry. £300 fine.

Yeah. Like the MP says, just imagine if that had been a motorist.

He wouldn't have been fined nearly so much as £2,200.

http://ladyjulian.livejournal.com/85094.html

Average sentence for causing death by dangerous driving = 33 months:

http://yourdemocracy.newstatesman.com/parliament/dangerous-driving-sentences/HAN15003968

Sorry but that doesn't change the argument. The cases you quote were decisions made by judges. They could have imposed custodial sentences if they wished but chose not to. Your argument is about how they chose to apply the law.

The point of the bill is that had these cases involved a cyclist that choice would not have been available, no matter how severe the case.

So are you saying that cyclists should be above the law and treated more leniently than others? As road users don't they have the same responsibility for the safety of others? In which case why should they not be liable to the same penalties?

(Incidentally, why cut and paste all those cases then provide a link? just curious to know.)