This bill inserts new criminal offences into the Road Traffic Act 1988 for causing death or serious injury by 'dangerous' cycling and for causing death by careless or inconsiderate cycling. It adds a compulsory insurance requirement for use of cycles on roads and public places, and expressly brings electrically assisted pedal cycles and mechanically propelled personal transporters (for example, e‑scooters and self‑balancing devices) within the Act’s definition of "cycle."
The measure also imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to review private e‑scooter use and to produce annual statistics on cycling offences. Taken together, the bill treats severe cycling collisions and many micromobility vehicles as matters for criminal law, insurance rules, and secondary regulation — changing the legal landscape for riders, insurers, enforcement agencies and rental operators.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill creates three new offence heads (death by dangerous cycling; serious injury by dangerous cycling; death by careless or inconsiderate cycling), adds a summary offence for using a cycle without insurance, and requires cycles to be equipped and maintained to standards set by regulation. It gives the Secretary of State regulation‑making power to define mechanically propelled personal transporters and to prescribe maintenance standards.
Who It Affects
Individual cyclists and riders of e‑scooters/other personal transporters, insurers and insurance intermediaries, police and prosecutors, rental operators, and regulators tasked with drafting maintenance and vehicle‑definition regulations. Courts and coroners will also see new case types and sentencing decisions.
Why It Matters
The bill criminalises a subset of cycling collisions that previously sat mainly in civil or existing traffic offence regimes, imposes a motor‑style insurance duty on a broad set of micromobility devices, and centralises important definitional and technical standards in secondary legislation — shifting practical burdens onto riders, insurers and enforcement agencies.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill works by inserting new offences into the Road Traffic Act 1988 and by amending related sentencing schedules. It adds a new pair of offences tied to the concept of "dangerous cycling": one that captures causing death and one for causing serious injury.
A separate offence targets causing death by cycling that falls below the "dangerous" threshold but reaches careless or inconsiderate conduct. The text imports the existing statutory standard of dangerous cycling and then expands what a court may expect of a competent rider by saying that a properly equipped and maintained cycle — to be specified in regulation — is part of that standard.
On the vehicle side, the bill defines "cycle" expansively. Alongside pedal cycles and electrically assisted pedal cycles it expressly includes mechanically propelled personal transporters such as electric scooters and self‑balancing devices, and gives the Secretary of State power to extend that list by regulation.
This definition is the hinge for both the new criminal offences and the insurance requirement the bill introduces: if a device meets the statutory definition it becomes subject to the Act’s obligations and penalties.The compulsory‑insurance provision is modelled into the Road Traffic Act framework: a person must not use a covered vehicle on a road or public place without an insurance policy complying with the new Part. The bill sets out statutory defences to a prosecution for using an uninsured vehicle — for example, where the rider can show they were not the owner or were using the vehicle in the course of employment, or genuinely did not know there was no insurance.
The law also carves out "invalid carriages" from the insurance Part.To support policy and oversight, the Secretary of State must carry out a focused review of electric scooter misuse (drawing on the lessons of trials), and must consult as appropriate; that review must be laid before Parliament within a year. Separately, the Secretary of State must publish annual statistics on prosecutions for dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling and for cycling without insurance, including the proportion of cases that proceeded to court; the first report is due within 18 months of enactment and then annually.
The Act extends to England, Wales and Scotland and starts six months after passage.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds three new substantive offences into the Road Traffic Act 1988: causing death by dangerous cycling (indictable), causing serious injury by dangerous cycling (summary and indictable options), and causing death by careless or inconsiderate cycling (summary and indictable options).
Causing death by dangerous cycling attracts a maximum custodial sentence of 14 years when tried on indictment (the sentencing entries are added to the Road Traffic Offenders Act schedule).
The insurance offence is a summary offence with the penalty set at level 5 on the standard scale for an uninsured cycle; the statute contains three narrowly phrased statutory defences (not owner, acting in course of employment, and lack of knowledge that no insurance was in force).
Section 32A explicitly treats mechanically propelled personal transporters (including e‑scooters and self‑balancing devices) as cycles for the purposes of the new offences and insurance rule, and authorises the Secretary of State to add further categories by regulation.
The Secretary of State must complete a review of private e‑scooter misuse within 12 months and publish an annual statistics report (first report due within 18 months) that must be laid before Parliament and include the proportion of offences that went to court.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
New criminal offence headings inserted near dangerous cycling
The bill inserts new offence provisions immediately before the existing dangerous cycling section. Placing the offences here ties them to the established statutory framework for cycling behaviour and makes clear that the new offences are to be read alongside the dangerous‑cycling standard already in section 28.
Offences for death and serious injury caused by cycling
Section 27A creates an offence for causing death by dangerous cycling. Section 27B criminalises causing serious injury by dangerous cycling and defines 'serious injury' differently across jurisdictions (grievous bodily harm for England and Wales; severe physical injury in Scotland). Section 27C criminalises causing death by careless or inconsiderate cycling. The provisions separate culpability tiers (dangerous vs careless) and provide for both summary and indictable proceedings where specified.
Maintenance and equipment become part of the competent‑cyclist standard
The bill adds a subsection to section 28 so that what is expected of a competent and careful cyclist includes equipment and maintenance in line with regulations made under section 81. Practically, that imports technical and equipment standards into assessments of culpability — a defect or lack of maintenance could be used as evidence that a rider fell below the statutory standard.
Expanded definition of 'cycle' to include e‑scooters and similar devices
A new definition provision expands 'cycle' to explicitly cover pedal cycles, electrically assisted pedal cycles and mechanically propelled personal transporters, including electric scooters and self‑balancing devices. The Secretary of State is given specific power to add further device types by regulation; the definition therefore relies on secondary legislation for technical scope and future coverage.
Compulsory insurance for use of cycles on roads and public places
The bill adds a Part requiring persons not to use a covered cycle on a road or public place unless there is an insurance policy meeting the Part’s requirements, and creates an offence for breach. It also builds in three statutory defences (not owner/not hired or loaned; using in course of employment; genuine lack of knowledge that no insurance was in force) and excludes invalid carriages from the insurance obligation.
Sentencing and mode of trial entries
The bill amends the sentencing table to specify maximum penalties and mode of trial for the new offences: causing death by dangerous cycling is listed as indictable with a 14‑year maximum; causing serious injury by dangerous cycling and causing death by careless/inconsiderate cycling are set with summary and indictable options and associated maxima; using a cycle while uninsured is added as a summary offence with a fine at level 5 on the standard scale.
Secretary of State review of e‑scooters and annual offence statistics
The Secretary of State must review electric scooter misuse (including lessons from trials, public-safety impacts, and whether to legalise privately owned e‑scooters with compulsory insurance) and lay that review before Parliament within 12 months. Separately, an annual report must set out numbers charged under the new cycling offences and uninsured cycling, state the proportion sent to court, be published within 18 months after enactment and annually thereafter, and be laid before Parliament.
Geographic reach and commencement timing
The Act extends to England and Wales and Scotland only and comes into force six months after enactment. That delayed commencement provides a short implementation window for regulators, enforcement agencies and the insurance market to prepare.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Pedestrians and motorists: Gains clearer criminal pathways and statutory recognition that severe harm caused by cyclists can attract prison sentences and formal prosecution, improving legal remedy and deterrence for serious collisions.
- Bereaved families and seriously injured victims: Obtain an expanded set of criminal offences that enable homicide‑style or GBH‑style prosecutions in high‑harm cases arising from cycling collisions.
- Insurers and intermediaries: Stand to access a new market for cycle‑ and micromobility‑specific insurance products if compulsory cover is implemented and demand follows; regulation sets out the commercial opportunity for tailored policies.
- Local authorities and data analysts: Will get mandated annual statistics on cycling charges and court progression, improving the empirical basis for local road‑safety interventions and resource planning.
Who Bears the Cost
- Individual riders (including e‑scooter users): Face new criminal exposure for serious collisions, ongoing costs if compulsory insurance is required, and potential technical compliance burdens if maintenance regulations require upgrades.
- Small micromobility operators and private owners: Must navigate new definitional and insurance regimes; rental fleets may need to adjust contractual and insurance arrangements, while private owners could face novel licensing or insurance costs.
- Police, Crown Prosecution Service and courts: Will need to investigate, prosecute and adjudicate a broadened set of cycling offences, increasing caseloads and evidential demands (including technical vehicle condition and maintenance records).
- Regulatory bodies and the Department for Transport: Must draft secondary regulations (vehicle definitions and maintenance standards), run the statutory review, and publish annual reports — all administrative tasks that require time and budget.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether to treat serious cycling collisions like motor‑vehicle offending — using criminal sanctions and compulsory insurance to deter and compensate — at the cost of imposing motor‑style regulatory and financial burdens on micromobility users and operators, and increasing enforcement and evidential complexity for police and courts.
Two implementation bottlenecks stand out. First, the bill delegates crucial scope and technical detail to secondary legislation: both the maintenance/equipment standards and the precise categories of mechanically propelled personal transporters are left to the Secretary of State.
That approach allows agility but creates transitional uncertainty for riders and manufacturers until regulations are made. Second, the insurance obligation hinges on enforceability.
Policing low‑value, short‑trip micromobility devices for valid insurance cover is administratively difficult: roadside stop powers, proof of cover, and the design of affordable policies will determine whether the duty is meaningful or merely symbolic.
There are also evidential and definitional tensions. Proving causation and culpability in a collision between a cyclist and a vulnerable road user can be complex: the bill relies on existing dangerous‑cycling standards but adds maintenance as a factor, which may shift prosecutions toward technical inquiries about vehicle condition and regulatory compliance.
Differences in the statutory definition of "serious injury" between England & Wales (GBH) and Scotland (severe physical injury) risk divergent charging and sentencing outcomes for similar factual scenarios across jurisdictions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.