- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Transport Secretary Chris GraylingLonger sentences for banned drivers who kill or injure other road users
The government has today announced increased penalties for drivers who kill or seriously injure other road users while banned.
The law will be changed so disqualified drivers will face up to ten years in prison if they cause death, and a new offence of causing serious injury while disqualified will be created, with a maximum penalty of four years in prison.
Justice Secretary Chris Grayling also announced plans to launch a full review of all driving offences and penalties, including reviewing offences committed by uninsured and unlicensed drivers.
In 2012, there were 16 prosecutions and 13 convictions in 2012 for causing death by driving when disqualified, unlicensed or uninsured, according to the government’s own figures.
Announcing the change in the law, Grayling said: “I want to make our roads safer and ensure people who cause harm face tough penalties.
“Disqualified drivers should not be on our roads for good reason. Those who chose to defy a ban imposed by a court and go on to destroy innocent lives must face serious consequences for the terrible impact of their actions.
“Today, we are sending a clear message that anyone who does will face much tougher punishment.”
Two of the highest-profile cyclist deaths of recent years involved drivers who had disregarded driving bans, though in both cases they were found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving.
In May last year, Nicholas Lovell was jailed for ten years and six months and banned from driving for life for killing Ross and Clare Simons. The couple were riding their tandem when he crashed into them as he was trying to get away from a police car.
Initially banned from driving in 1999, Lovell had 11 convictions for driving while disqualified, and he had also been convicted four times on charges of dangerous driving. That case was one of those raised in a parliamentary debate on sentencing in January.
In December, Samuel Kirk was sentenced to six years in prison for killing Jennifer Hossack. Kirk, who was disqualified at the time of the crash and had also been drinking, illegally crossed a double white line to overtake another vehicle and hit Hossack, who was riding in the opposite direction.
Through its Road Justice campaign, cycling charity CTC has been pressing for a review of the law relating to traffic offences that lead to result in the death or serious injury of vulnerable road users.
CTC’s Road Justice coordinator Rhia Weston welcomed the plan to review all driving penalties and offences.
Weston told road.cc: “CTC strongly welcomes the Government’s commitment to a full review of all driving offences and penalties and specifically the announcement to increase custodial sentences for those who cause death and serious injury whilst disqualified.
“CTC has long called for tougher sentences for those who flout driving bans. CTC’s Road Justice campaign also wants to see much greater use of driving bans for those who commit driving offences without wilful risk taking and wider use of non-custodial options such as vehicle confiscation.
“This is in line with our newly published report on sentencing of driving offences, which will be debated by a panel of legal experts in June.”
John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.
He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.
Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.
John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.
He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.
Latest Comments
- mdavidford 7 min 21 sec ago
I'm not really clear the relevance of plastering tips in this context.
- hennahairgel 7 min 34 sec ago
As per the DC Rainmaker article, GDPR means the data stays in the users' ownership, where GDPR applies (EU & UK). How Strava the enhance it is...
- brooksby 19 min 33 sec ago
https://www.bristol247.com/news-and-features/news/car-left-balancing-on-......
- zweiblumen 57 min 48 sec ago
I do try not to jump on the bandwagon, but this is ludicrous. The problem that they identify is illegally modified bikes: how can banning legal...
- anke2 59 min ago
Sure. Like it's interesting to wonder about the driving for driving (track-days), driving for playing golf, driving for a ramble, driving for a pub...
- Jogle 1 hour 23 min ago
And a couple of small plastic bollards will stop the lorries going anywhere near the bridge. ...
- Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells 1 hour 25 min ago
Or completely give up.... and buy a emtb, which will break within 12 months, so you can lounge on the sofa guilt free 👍
- Sredlums 2 hours 20 min ago
That bike is awesome. Always like the Mondriaan-esque style, so bold and recognisable.
- Secret_squirrel 2 hours 33 min ago
Why are they overpaid? They are partly responsible for bringing in hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars of TV revenue money for a very...
- Mr Blackbird 2 hours 34 min ago
Did the driver also claim that he was a member of Led Zeppelin or Deep Purple?
Add new comment
51 comments
Did you see that lamb chops are on offer at Morrisson's this week?
Yeah, it's exactly the same as the after effects of the bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki.
Actually, it is fuck all like that.
A slap on the back or a slap to the head is massively different to slapping a woman on the arse.
I pity you if you can't see that.
It was Helen Pidd, Northern Editor of the Guardian who was slapped and wrote about it.
Hardly a hack.
Quite a useful cyclist.
I'm not sure why she has drawn your ire.
Can I recommend taking a look at google maps and using the cycling directions as this would have steered you on to the cycle paths ?
I am sorry to hear of your experience on Park Lane but sadly it doesn't surprise me.
According to "failing" Grayling:
In 2012, there were 16 prosecutions and 13 convictions in 2012 for causing death by driving when disqualified, unlicensed or uninsured, according to the government’s own figures.
In Mr Grayling's blinkered view this naturally means it is now a whole lot safer to be a cyclist. I don't think so - not for one moment ! ! !
I would venture to suggest it will not make a scrap of difference. What is needed is presumed liability, with the CPS somehow having the balls to actually enforce it, rather than risk upsetting the motoring lobby.
The life and limbs of a cyclist are just as important as those of Mr Grayling - we are citizens just as much as he.
I can't believe that such high-profile personalities as Boris Johnson and David Cameron profess themselves to be "cyclists" and yet seem to do very little positive to try to stop the intimidation and slaughter of two wheeled road users.
I have no issue with a disqual driver who 'causes' a death getting a heavy sentence. Unfortunately many think 'cause' just means by driving a vehicle as opposed to driving a vehicle badly.
Being disqualified cannot cause anything and is a pure, albeit serious and unwanted, admin offence. We don't want people jailed for long sentences for a mere admin offence but for driving dangerously while unlicensed. I am afraid too many will interpret this as 'someone dies so a driver must be jailed no matter if it wasn't their fault and they were perfectly safe'.
Fact is, not having a licence cannot cause anything to happen at all. See http://bit.ly/1qazoM9
*laughs at the last post*
Where to start, where to start.
I am genuinely interested as to why anyone would choose to cycle along Park Lane ? There is a no traffic route in Hyde Park parallel to this road or the back streets of Mayfair which are both preferable to the race track that park lane has become. I know it shouldn't be like this but you are far more likely to encounter fast "I don't give a shit" traffic on Park Lane than any other place in the West End.
Well off the topic of the article, but this is what I usually find - if one has the time and technology to carefully work out a good route before hand (or if its a route one has done a lot and have 'finessed') one can get around by bike without too much trouble.
But if you have to go somewhere for the first time and don't know the route you will either get hopelessly lost on 'quiet side streets' that don't actually join up, or get stuck on a very busy road which turns out to be a bit of a nightmare.
I don't know why the various recommended bike routes in London are so badly signposted. You only get a clue which way to go at about every fourth junction, then you get lost and faff about a bit before accidentally stumbling back onto the route again (or an entirely different route which you decide will do instead). Short of real infrastructure, it would help if they made a bit more of an effort with signposting.
There are some really unlucky riders on this forum going by the regular "this happened" and "that happened" and "i remember when" that get rolled out by certain forum users on a regular basis.
In 40 years of cycling i think i can count on one hand the number of close shaves i've had and i think only once have i had someone gob off at me.
But then again i suppose if i exaggerated it a bit it might sound better........
As for the new legislation it's like a chocolate fireguard, it might initially work but ultimately its of no use whatsoever.
I do wonder, I often think that was a bit close, usually involves on coming traffic and overtakes on blind bends. I have had a bottle thrown at me, a few bits of verbal an arse slap from a woman in a convertible. But to be honest it isn't that common, maybe not living in London is why I don't see the level some seem to????
I wish i had a lass slap my backside ! sorry sidetracked there
Do these new guidelines/sentences have any effect on the arseholes that buzz past your handlebars within millimetres to spare at 40 odd MPH?
Or the ones that have decided that indicating isn't for them, or the left hookers, or the ones that park in cycle lanes, or the ones that stop in ASLs, or the ones that park on pavements, or the ones that run reds, or the ones that decide to turn across you because they can't be bothered to judge your speed properly, or the ones that drive right up your arse, or the ones who allow their passengers to shout, spit and throw things out of the window, or the ones that over take and cut into the kerb to block you off, or the ones that decide not to bother waiting at roundabouts etc etc etc
Then nothing has really changed has it?
Plus ca change...
Only if they cause you an injury and they are already disqualified.
Other laws apply to the circumstances you describe. Get a camera and keep reporting.
This does seem like a step in the right direction, however I'm not convinced that it will really discourage banned drivers from getting behind the wheel.
People who drive whilst banned don't expect to kill or injure anyone; they don't even expect the chances of getting caught driving to be that high. I hate to say it but I don't think people's behaviours will be substantially changed.
Can't see anything changing, there may be allowances for more severe sentencing but it will be down to the judges to determine the sentences and therein lies the problem for us simple people. We will still not be able to get our heads round killers walking free or undue leniency.
No It's not for judges to determine the sentences. It's for judges to apply the appropriate sentences set out in the sentencing guidelines. There is a some judgement required to match the guideline sentence to the individual circumstance but that's a narrow path. They then have to set out in writing why they applied the sentence guidelines in the way that they did. If they go beyond the guidelines or make perverse judgements then they set themselves up for an appeal.
It is a myth often expounded here that judges and magistrates are the problem. I don't think they are. The court procedures are well regulated and in court there's a professional on either side making sure the proceedings are by the book.
The problem exists above and below the court level.
1 The police may not report correctly, may not collect evidence properly.
2 The CPS may not charge correctly or may decide to charge for a definite conviction for a lower offence rather than mess their figures up by pushing for a higher offence and having more acquittals.
3 Parliament sets and defines the laws and the sentences to be applied and the circumstances to be taken into account for sentencing and charging.
Because it's a judge or a magistrate that delivers the decision they tend to be the focus for blame. But all they do is ensure that the trial is fair. That the burden of proof matches the charge laid by the CPS, make sure the evidence collected by the police and others is appropriate according to law and if a conviction is the result then they apply the sentence which was set by Parliament and guidelined by the sentencing council.
Still lame. To choose to drive whilst disqualified is to choose to stick your middle finger up to society and put your own interests ahead of every other road user. Getting disqualified in the first place is incredibly tricky, no traffic police, cameras turned off and apathetic courts accepting all manner of lame excuses.
On top of all that to then get behind the wheel when you're clearly a menace to society is surely akin to roaming the streets with a shotgun taking pot shots at people.
Disqualified means no insurance is covering you, so your victim is also faced if they survive with the farcical and over burdened motors insurance bureau who look to pay out less than the typically menial sum already allocated for serious injury.
Ten years will rarely be given, out in 4 at the most so in reality nothing much will change. Is this really the best we can do after all the lobbying and heart ache?! Poor Mr. Grayling, must try harder.
Grayling is a frickin' idiot if he thinks this tinkering will halt the slaughter of cyclists on the roads. Not only this but he gives me the creeps. The point is drivers who seriously injure or KILL whether licensed insured etc or not should face lengthy driving bans or life bans which begin when they have served their lengthy prison sentences i.e. 10 years, yes 10 years if they kill. Does he think we cyclists are mugs believing that what he is proposing will make our journeys any safer? Of course it won't, not a jot of difference. If he does then he's a bigger fool than he already is. It is business as usual AFAIAC. The government won't lock these dangerous fuckers up for a long time as it costs money and the prisons are already full to bursting. Why not give them a life time driving ban and a bicycle and tell them to get riding preferably on a busy A-road with lots of trucks, WVM and buses on? This should scare the shit out of them, hopefully. They might even get killed which would be a plus. Taste of their own medicine …………..
There's still a twisted logic in our society that assumes that have a driving license is a necessity to earn a living and this prevents the law-makers from applying the full weight of the law to those that kill and maim.
Am I the only one reading this as we have banned you from driving but we know that regardless of that you will drive anyway so you better watch out, because if you kill anyone we will be really cross and lock you up...so just go careful and drive safe (even though you're banned).
I have huge sympathy for any family that has been affected by death or injury resulting from a road accident whilst on a bike.
However, I am of the belief that only those who pose a danger to society should be behind bars. If a driver has killed or seriously injured a person by accident and is truly remorseful, then I believe a long term or lifetime driving ban should be given.
Still those that repeatedly break this ban and do pose a danger on the roads should be locked up.
However, I am of the belief that only those who pose a danger to society should be behind bars
If you're banned from driving you've proven beyond reasonable doubt that you're a dangerous driver.
If you chose to drive while banned, you are a danger to society - and if a driving ban doesn't stop you, surely locking you up will?
Although I do feel we have to be careful how the law sentences drivers who kill others in accidents. I do feel that leniency has to be given to many drivers who cause accidents and kill or badly injure other road users etc. If a genuine accident has happened then I personally wouldn't want someone to be punished for an accident for example skidding on ice and not being able to stop etc.
Where the car driver has been banned but then still continues to drive, I feel that 6 or even 10 years is not enough especially in the high profile cases which have been mentioned.
A ban is a ban break the ban face harsh consequences. !
It is good to see the law slowly but surely starting to wake up to the issues and making sure people are punished for dangerous driving.
Speed limit in towns should be 20mph and cars should be designed so it is easy to drive at that speed in towns.
We should have cars that drive themselves NOW !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShYLRus6RTg
Quite a small step forward, won't make much of a difference, but a good idea in terms of natural justice, I think.
The answer would be to send more people to jail, and for longer periods. In addition make prison a less welcoming place to be. Of course it is cheaper to watch people being killed on the roads everyday than it is to lock up a criminal in HMP The Ritz. Yes, I have seen the inside of one of the newest prisons and its luxurious.
Prison is an expensive option and bear in mind that while in there, people don't earn anything to pay for their families or pay taxes, becoming instead a burden on the state. Some of those in prison may not have been paying taxes anyway, but by no means all.
S'all about the money....for shame
And quite often dont learn anything either. It isnt always the most sensible option but must be there and usable when the case requires it.
Prison is a university for crime. Once people have been in, the likelihood of them reoffending increases and the potential for them being a contributor to society also decreases. This has a financial as well as a social/human cost.
The target is for offences to be avoided in the first place. This reduces the overall cost to society, whether financial or social/human: carrot instead of stick in other words. This is a more productive and efficient way to construct a society.
Pages