- 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
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
David Cameron (copyright World Economic Forum:Wikimedia Commons).jpgPrime Minister to meet fiancées of two cyclists killed in drink drive collision
The Prime Minister is to meet the partners of two men who were killed by a dangerous driver to discuss sentencing next week, following a prolonged campaign for justice.
Tracey Fidler and Hayley Lindsay will meet David Cameron to talk about the work they have done on sentencing since their fiancés John Morland and Kris Jarvis were killed by drink-driver Alexander Walter, who was in a stolen car, just over a year ago.
The collision left seven children fatherless.
A petition the partners created calling for a change in the law, “so if a driver receives a sentence for causing death by dangerous driving, the driver receives the maximum sentence, of 14 years, per person that has been killed”, now has nearly 70,000 signatures.
Walter had 67 previous convictions and was still on a four-year driving ban when he stole his partner’s car.
In April last year he was jailed for 10 years and three months at Reading Crown Court, and as we reported in October, he subsequently lost his appeal to have the sentence shortened, with a judge saying his actions had a "devasting" effect on the victims' families.
Miss Fidler told Get Reading: "It is absolutely fantastic that we have got a private meeting with the Prime Minister, it is pretty overwhelming. We want to thank everyone who has supported our campaign so far, the help we have received has been amazing and I just hope our petition gets to 100,000 signatures.
"Hopefully the Prime Minister will give his support too after the meeting."
Reading West MP Alok Sharma said: "I am very pleased the Prime Minister has agreed to meet Tracey and Hayley, giving them an opportunity to make their case for tougher sentencing for dangerous drivers and to further influence the Government’s policy on dangerous driving.
"The Ministry of Justice is engaged in ongoing discussions with victims as part of its review into driving related offences and I hope it will publish its proposals for any changes to the law as soon as possible. I will continue to work with Tracey and Hayley to ensure their voices are heard at the very top of Government."
Road safety charities have long campaigned for heavier sentencing in motoring crimes, believing that they attract low sentences that do not act as a deterrent.
In 2013 the government confirmed it has ordered a review of sentencing in traffic cases where a cyclist or pedestrian is the victim.
The review of current sentencing guidelines, which is accompanied by a consultation, is being carried out by the Sentencing Council, which is an independent non- departmental public body of the Ministry of Justice, and will cover the offences of causing death by careless driving and causing death or serious injury by dangerous driving. Proposals will be subject to a formal consultation.
Latest Comments
- ktache 7 min 35 sec ago
The proximity to the Transport Research Labs at Crowthorne means that the area often gets weird new stuff.
- chrisonabike 13 min 39 sec ago
No great mystery in either case, surely? Both US politician and the motor trade say "choose us and your life will be better and easier!" And other...
- stonojnr 2 hours 17 min ago
but in cases where you report other cyclists close passes, you literally are the witness to it, not the victim ?...
- S.E. 2 hours 20 min ago
1. It's obviously more aerodynamic, even a small backpack or hydration pack can help, there are studies about this....
- stonojnr 2 hours 25 min ago
theres an attitude I encounter alot locally, and demonstrated in bucket loads by drivers on my commute home tonight, that cyclists shouldnt be on...
- Keesvant 3 hours 45 min ago
If the chains snap that is lack of build quality or material.....
- Hirsute 4 hours 41 min ago
"Wisdom is better than weapons of war, but one sinner destroys much good."
- Jaijai 5 hours 5 min ago
His life was only worth shy of 7 years ,that's too lenient in every book .Let alone drugged up and leaving him to die
- webbierwrex 5 hours 10 min ago
I came here to basically write the same thing, the floating bus stop near me has a very narrow cycling lane between a very narrow pavement and a...
Add new comment
37 comments
@Gif77, I really don't know if roads are more or less safe, I am just very wary of kill stats taken in isolation of the other known facts, we don't have numbers for the number of collisions where no damage is done for instance.
We know cycling and walking is down longterm with a short term up trend in the last few years. Miles driven has been falling for a while, cars are definitely safer for both the occupant and anyone who gets hit, medicine is also better. We also know that there appears to be an upward trend for cyclists being killed, but without knowing how many were injured, is this just people being unlucky, and there are less accidents, or are there more accidents and more deaths?
I certainly don't believe the risks are that great, and no one should not walk or cycle because they are afraid, but how do you get parents to let their kids cycle and walk? How do you convince in the face of media coverage?
As you point out 24hr news is a curse and a blessing, do we really need to know about all the accidents, but then again unless people realise the problem how do they know there is a problem and 1700 people dying, mostly through someone's stupidity, is a problem.
As for drivers, very few are dangerous, most are just stupid, impatient, miscalculate the risks, that sort of thing.
mrmo. I think that the roads are in general pretty much safer due to all the things that ooz has mentioned. Yes, you do get a handful of pillocks. And it is just that. A handful. They're the ones that stick in our minds. I come across them regularly. The punishment pass because they're scared of the White Line, the cut up because they can't judge speed. Fortunately they are few and far between and that's me cycling 10k plus miles each year. I'll get days where it feels that the world and its granny is totally inept at driving. And then I will have hardly any encounters for weeks.
What we need to bear in mind is the way information is now instantaneous and incredibly global. Thirty years ago I would have been unaware of cycling fatalities say in London or their frequency. you would only hear of local instances and even then it would be a few paragraphs in the local rag. It would never make the nationals.
Now you just need to spark up your phone and there's notifications from various feeds that you subscribe to and it seems like carnage.
Yes we still need to see huge inroads in driver behaviour towards vulnerable road users. To see appropriate and consistent sentencing. To see more indepth testing of new drivers (psyc evaluations would be good)
All in all though it is generally much safer than back in the 70's and 80's.
@Oozaveared, but are the roads actually safer?
If you remove the vulnerable groups are things really safer? Cars are more robust, so the chance of surviving an accident is far greater, medicine is far better, so again the chance of surviving a serious accident is also greater. However walking and cycling distance is down?
How much of the improvement in road casualty stats. is real, ie the roads are actually safer, drivers better behaved etc, and how much because there are simply less people in a position to get hurt?
Well the stats say they are safer for all road users and despite the increase in vehicles. The figures for the rate per billion miles is the clue. My experience is that it is much safer than when I was a teenager and has been improving all the time. Slowly, these things take time. But improving.
The roads are better, the vehicles are better and safer, the drivers are better trained and the enforcement and monitoring is better. It's purely idelogical and rose tinted to look back at the golden age of cycling where it was much safer. It's a myth. On every measure it's safer.
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/road-accidents-and-safety-stat...
It's a bit like the fact that there in no discernably greater risks to children being abducted now than there has ever been but some parents are paranoid about it. I think people see the latest casualty and believe these things never happened before now. We have had a bit of a spate (in January) but only time will tell if that's a blip or a trend. It is quite encouraging that with so many new cyclists joining us that the figures haven't been much higher.
Yes cycling is safe. Some types of road and environments with some kinds of traffic and vehicles are less safe than others but on the whole it's safe. Noticeably so for anyone that remembers what it was like back in the day.
I hope road.cc does a follow-up article on the outcome of the meeting, because:
I believe it is only huge support for the victims and their loved ones that has twisted the PM's arm, forcing him into this meeting.
I believe he does not personally nor professionally give a shit that these people died, and will not take any action at all that the electorate might mistake for being "anti-driving".
I believe that he will have a ready-made speech or diatribe making himself sound sympathetic, but "carefully explaining" why he is going to do nothing.
I believe the people meeting him are about to be greatly disappointed and feel that they wasted their time meeting the PM.
I will be very interested, and indeed surprised, to be able to read a follow-up article that expresses any other outcome.
Can Rich71 prove that Cameron's mates and colleagues are paedophiles?
If not I would suggest that it is possibly defamatory. They also probably have deeper pockets than he does!
I hope that they have more luck with him doing something about it than the family of that guy being held 'ready for release' from Guantanamo Bay...
He will say something, then do nothing. The number of cyclists & pedestrians that die each year are not as important as preserving the 'rights' of motorists to do as they please!
In essence the guy that killed these two men would have been tried for a minimum of manslaughter had he NOT been driving a car when it happened.
In reference to comments above about Rich71's posts, I'm not entirely sure that they are defamatory! Profanity filled, yes; but the evidence of his (party's) actions during the last 5 years would suggest that they are true...
So perhaps we should look at techniques for splitting people like this away from the support of mainstream motorists.
For example we could instead petition on removing the ability to use careless and or dangerous motoring offenses (that afford a modicum of protection from good upstanding motorists) from people who are unqualified and / or banned from driving at the time. So we can say, this is not a motorist, this is someone incompetent who got in this fine vehicle and made it dangerous. They deserve the vilification of true motorists - and they should be tried for murder since the act of driving this vehicle was premeditated, with foreseeable consequences.
So perhaps we should look at techniques for splitting people like this away from the support of mainstream motorists.
For example we could instead petition on removing the ability to use careless and or dangerous motoring offenses (that afford a modicum of protection from good upstanding motorists) from people who are unqualified and / or banned from driving at the time. So we can say, this is not a motorist, this is someone incompetent who got in this fine vehicle and made it dangerous. They deserve the vilification of true motorists - and they should be tried for murder since the act of driving this vehicle was premeditated, with foreseeable consequences.
Walters 10 year jail time should have ran a long side a 25 year suspended sentence. The licence of which would be breached if he ever attempted to drive again.
I'm not a lawyer, but you can have that one.
Driving tests must be tougher, they must be every 5 years, and repeat / multiple / serious / deliberate offenders should lose the privelege for life.
Its the CPS that needs overhauling, they need a kick up the ass and stop downgrading charges to careless driving leaving the criminal with less of a sentence than they would get for abusing a dog.
Introduce presumed liability and watch how more careful drivers are around cyclists.
Cameron do anything?!
Or ban some of these idiots from posting comments.
One cannot condone the right honorable member Rich71's language, but one can understand his sentiment
Someone mentioned lifetime bans for people that commit such crimes. Well that's not going to work. Crimes like this are often committed whilst on driving bans. If it was a member of your own family, I guess people would take a different view.
Ultimately if the people that 'make' these laws cannot sympathize with the victims and their family's, then they are doing a disservice to those that have to live with the consequences.
Report post button might be handy.
Road.cc needs community guidelines.
The problem is that rants like the two above make it less likely that anyone with the power to do something will do anything.
Lets face it who would most of you rather listen to?
I would also suggest that Rich71 consults a lawyer pronto as some of his comments are possibly defamatory.
edit - can't be bothered with this sub-argument, come to think of it.
Well they are definitely defamatory. And in addition they are actionable. But on the basis that he is so over the top it's unlikely anyone will want to do anything. If his purpose was to put the boot into Cameron then It's probably backfired. It's such a flurry of wild untargeted punches he hasn't landed any of them and has made himself look very silly. Napoleon had a quote for this. Something like: if your enemy is making a fool of himself then don't interrupt him.
We should be campaigning for lifetime bans on drivers who kill, not custodial sentences. This case is extreme in it's circumstances, and not typical of what threatens vulnerable road-users every day.
I'm not sure how that would help nowasps. This guy was already banned from driving so that obviously wasn't a deterrent. If people ignore driving bans, what's the alternative if not prison?
That's what I meant... This case is unrepresentative. This guy should be behind bars. Locking up the careless killers isn't a solution.
I think bendertherobot was trying to suggest the disparity in sentencing between inciting killing (but actually causing no physical harm) with knowingly causing harm to others.
I'd say that it is driven my media, who in turn drive the public, who in turn drive the government. If all the papers decided that dangerous drivers had to be dealt with them change would occur, instead they play upon fears of ethnic minoritys/weather/cancer/house price fluctuation
I don't think I was.
No, I was making two points really. The first is that the entire system of how vehicular offences are sentenced needs addressing from the ground up. And within that there are two separate points. The first is that sentencing is poor across the board. The second is that too many vehicle users are either spared prosecution or a sympathetic car driving jury (or judge) acquits because it believes that "accidents happen."
The second point is that there must be some synergy with other offences in which harm is caused. Whilst I believe that those who go out pissed and high on drugs in a stolen car should have the book thrown at them it would be quite unusual if a driver who killed 4 occupants of another car could spend longer in prison than Ian Watkins (for example).
I understand why bereaved families start petitions like this, but increasing someone's sentence after they've already killed twice is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, broken a leg and been shot.
And the thing that really makes me angry is that it gives the government the pretext to say they're doing something. The same government that still hasn't fixed a date for a sentencing review of driving offences, despite promising to do so last autumn, and couldn't even be bothered to bring legislation into force that would have started driving bans when offenders leave prison, instead of letting them run out early. The same government whose roads minister has ruled out driving bans for life, on the grounds that it might threaten an offender's employment prospects.
Why can't we keep banned, dangerous drivers off the road in the first place?
The cunt is in the pockets of the petrochemical racket ie-the motor industry ie-cars
meeting 'the fiancees' on the back of a paltry petition will end in fuckall,just a PR stunt for this hedge fund cunt and his paedophile colleagues
if the cunt was intent on changing the law,he'd have done it long ago
The man and his public school bullingdon racket are nothing but cunts of humanity,total and utter fucking CUNTS
Fuck Camoron and Fuck his party
Dont forget this cunt has presided over the deaths of thousands of vulnerable ill people through his cuts in support of his buddies in the banking embezzlement racket
Fuck this PR bullshit stunt,he and his paedophile mates should be behind bars where they all belong
Fucking scumbags
Calm down mate, you may be overlooking the fact that "The banking embezzlement racket" happened on Gordon Browns watch while he was at number 11 and 10 Downing street for more than a decade!
LOL. Was wondering how long it would take for an unhinged rant that completely misses the point of the story.
How old are you?
I started road cycling properly in a cycling club in 1973. We've had lots of governments since then but the roads have become safer. In 1973 there were 7400 people killed on the roads in the UK. Last year it was 1700. That's despite the huge increase in traffic.
I only have figures from 1979 for road cycling deaths.
In 1979 it was 320 cyclists killed on the roads. The rate describes the deaths per billion vehicle miles ie in relation to traffic
1979 - 320 cyclists killed at a rate of 112 per billion vehicle miles
1989 - 294 cyclists killed at a rate of 91per billion vehicle miles
1999 - 172 cyclists killed at a rate of 68 per billion vehicle miles
2009 - 104 cyclists killed at a rate of 35 per billion vehicle miles
2014 - 109 cyclists killed. Can't find the rate
The trend is downwards and has been since the 1940s when there were a staggering 9100 deaths on the roads
I have to say that the figures don't correlate with your idea that cycling was safe in Britain until 2010 and that since then it's become highly dangerous due to some government policy that is particularly anti-cyclist.
Seems to me like improvements in road design (lighting, surfaces, markings, visibility and sight lines etc) driver training and licensing, enforcement, safety legislation (not even a specified drink drive limit until 1967 no evidential breath test until 1981) improved vehicle design and a huge number of other factors.
Cycling is safe. It's getting safer generally as roads are getting safer. Safety is improved the more cyclists are on the road and become more expected and drivers more experienced in their encounters. Attempts to make cycling seem like a huge and dangerous battle don't actually help.
I cannot imagine any government sitting in cabinet deciding to make roads less safe or cycling more dangerous on purpose or making decisions that they knowingly understand will make roads and cycling less safe. None of them.
Pages