Cyclists who kill pedestrians could be jailed for life under new law in England and Wales

What about dangerous drinking and driving?

I can’t wait for “dangerous cycling” to be defined as existing near cars under this new law.

I have a morbid curiosity for UK law, as the progenitor of the common law adopted by California, the federal government, and 48.5 other US States (Louisiana is special). On one hand, the proposed bill would amend (see page 43) the Road Traffic Act 1988 (England and Wales) to be consistent between motorists and cyclists. On the other hand, as a matter of public policy, it is equating offenses by cyclists to be of the same order as offenses by motorists. This is logically and logically incongruent.

For reference, driving a motor vehicle in England/Wales means to operate a multi-tonne vehicle safely amidst a population of 61 million people on a small island off of mainland Europe, at speeds of some 30 MPH (48 km/h) in built-up areas but the speed cameras might have a tolerance of +10%.

Whereas cycling in England/Wales is similar to many parts of the USA, where a fragmented system of routes mean that only some parts of the population participate in the activity, where motorists and infrastructure are often actively hostile to cyclists, and where scores of cyclists (87 in the whole UK in 2023) are killed and tens of thousands maimed (>14,000 in the whole UK in 2023) per year. Bicycles simply do not have the mass, the speed, or quite frankly, the space to be anywhere as lethal as motor vehicles.

Of the road death total of about 1600 people in 2024, only four were caused by cyclists. The notion that motorist laws should be level with cyclist laws is to throw all the above considerations out the window, in a "spherical cow" notion of "simplifying the laws" or some such nonsense.

I compare this proposal with how California law -- as written and as charged -- treats the same. Over here, our Vehicle Code spells out that bicyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as vehicles "except those provisions which by their very nature can have no application". This spares the Vehicle Code from having to duplicate every law about stop signs or overtaking, and it's also very pragmatic: sections related to the aiming of high beams are simply inapplicable to bicycles, and we don't even need to go to trial to prove that's the case. The law is fairly easy to interpret.

That said, some sections are explicitly written for bicycles, such as the Bicycling Under the Influence (BUI) statute, which is a misdemeanor with no jail time and a $250 fine, and is the analog to the DUI law that would apply to motorists, which can be either a misdemeanor or a felony and almost always ends up being a 5 figure financial penalty. This distinction is sensible because, as a matter of public policy, it is far, far preferable to deal with drunk bicyclists than to deal with drunk motorists. The latter regularly cause death, mayhem, and sorrow. Whereas there is no recorded case of a bicyclist anywhere somehow drunkenly killing a family of five on the roads. Most often, drunk bicyclists are only noticed because they keep falling off their bike; bicycles don't just keep barreling forward when the rider is asleep at the handlebars.

For the few times that bicyclists cause death, prosecutors in San Francisco set the example, where a bicyclist who killed a woman was charged with vehicle manslaughter (the same felony as it would be for a motorist) but did not ask for prison time. The stigma of a felony conviction will follow that man for the rest of his life, as well as a total alienation from any bicycling community he was ever part of. That 2013 case was so rare and bizarre that now in 2025, eleven year later, it's still the reference case on how to deal with death caused by a bicyclist in this state.

Public policy should be the guidestar for legislating, and legal parity -- a nebulous notion that throws out the maxim of fitting the punishment to the crime -- should take a backseat.