- 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
Big Ben © Simon MacMichaelRoad safety debate: "Grave sense of injustice" in sentencing of dangerous driving
MPs have spoken out against a "grave sense of injustice" in the sentencing of road crime, and have called for tougher maximum jail sentences for dangerous driving, which currently stands at 14 years.
Debating dangerous driving sentencing in Westminster, including hit-and-run crimes, MPs said the law and sentencing too often treat motoring offences as "minor infringements", even when fatal.
The review of dangerous driving, announced last week, is one CTC and British Cycling have long called for and, one David Cameron promised in March.
- Government review of dangerous driving sentencing currently underway
Chris Skidmore is the MP for Kingswood. In 2013 two of his constituents, Ross and Clare Simons, were killed on a tandem by a disqualified driver with 70 previous convictions, many for dangerous driving, who was travelling at 70mph in a 30mph zone when he hit them, and then fled the scene.
"We see the justice system throw back at [families] this insult that someone can kill their relative, get just a couple of years in prison and end up back on the streets and, potentially, back in a car. That is just too horrendous to imagine," said Skidmore.
Craig Tracey, MP for North Warwickshire, said weak penalties and lenient sentencing send the message motoring offences are "minor infringements" rather than serious offences. He said fleeing the scene of an accident should imply guilt under the law.
He said: "During my previous career as an insurance broker, all too often I saw the aftermath of avoidable dangerous and careless driving offences. I was frequently left amazed by the lenient sentences handed out to the offenders and by an apparent reluctance to apply the law fully.
Tracey cited Brake statistics that show only three of five people convicted for killing someone by "risky" driving are jailed, with an average sentence of just four years.
He said: "First, we need an appropriate sentence for drivers who hit a person and leave them to die. Presently, the charge is the same as it would be for knocking off someone’s wing mirror."
- PM calls for "in-depth" review of sentences for causing death by dangerous driving
He highlighted the case of Sean Morley, who was killed crossing the A444 near Bedworth in 2012. Although the car was badly damaged the driver fled the scene, and Sean's body was found the next morning.
Tracey said:
"Had the driver stayed and reported the accident and either drugs or alcohol had been found in their system, they could have been prosecuted for the higher offence of dangerous driving, which carries the greater sentence of 14 years—hardly an incentive to hang around and do the right thing."
“The worst thing is that in the eyes of the law Sean’s death was not important. If you kill someone in a car it’s not deemed as serious as punching someone, and I think that’s wrong.
"What I, Sean’s family and many other people would like to see is that where drivers leave the scene, guilt should be assumed. Presently, it is up to the police to find the driver and prove fault, and then it is at the behest of the Crown Prosecution Service as to what charges will be allowed."
- Inquiry should tackle police anti-cycling prejudice, say campaigners
Laura Laker is a freelance journalist with more than a decade’s experience covering cycling, walking and wheeling (and other means of transport). Beginning her career with road.cc, Laura has also written for national and specialist titles of all stripes. One part of the popular Streets Ahead podcast, she sometimes appears as a talking head on TV and radio, and in real life at conferences and festivals. She is also the author of Potholes and Pavements: a Bumpy Ride on Britain’s National Cycle Network.
Latest Comments
- johnsonmoog 1 hour 50 min ago
So, if Jamie needs 1000mg of sodium an hour, how many hydration tabs or elctrolyte mix does he need. I see SIS a hydration tab provides 798mg of...
- S.E. 2 hours 1 min ago
My guess is that they sell mainly on the German market - feel free to correct me. That might explain why they are not "pushing" their products,...
- ktache 2 hours 26 min ago
Now Emily Chappell really liked the Lezyne , I have the HV version, good, but I find the handle uncomfortable in use. I've often wondered about the...
- biking59boomer 1 hour 33 min ago
What about this one!? Taken in Cardiff Civic Centre 1939
- Muddy Ford 2 hours 36 min ago
Charlie Alliston got 18mths and is the reference case (because there are so few cases) for all campaigns by anti-cyclists that 'cyclists are not...
- belugabob 3 hours 38 min ago
My local football practice pitches (all weather, in a fenced off area, are regularly the scene of inconsiderate parking, with vehicles blocking the...
- chrisonabike 3 hours 55 min ago
Don't forget though "Englishman's home is his castle" - which includes my rights to grow a giant curtain wall of Leylandii to "protect my privacy"....
- Spangly Shiny 4 hours 3 min ago
Assos ASOS anyone?
- chrisonabike 4 hours 16 min ago
Replace them all with Bromptons and they'd take up zero space within days or even hours, as they are all relocated elsewhere. To eBay or possibly...
- Andrewbanshee 4 hours 47 min ago
Where I live we are experiencing a lot of housing development on small and large plots of land. These developers don't seem to have problems...
Add new comment
23 comments
It is not just cyclists, it is pedestrians that are ill served by our warped "justice system" as well, it is time that bad driving became socially unacceptable.
Agree with many of the points raised here and have a sense that behaviour is improving slightly as more people take up cycling; hence there are more driver/cyclists.
The culture needs to change and that can take decades. Look at the latest Jaguar ad campaign! "Go Forth And Rule The Road", they declare
That's clearly not much help in changing driving culture.
Whilst providing Sky with support cars.... where they also want to rule the road with bikes too I suspect.
You can change the sentencing guide lines and the laws all you want but when you have a jury of fellow motorists who apply their own low standards of driving to a case, they will always, always give the driver the benefit of the doubt.
only when drink driving is involved are they like to return a guilty verdict for dangerous driving.
Sorry I disagree, most juries are directed by a Judge & it is the Judge's who need re-education. We recently had a young girl tried for dangerous driving because she pulled out without checking for overtaking vehicles resulting in the death of the driver she hit. She freely admitted that she could not see vehicles approaching on the outside because she had never adjusted the wing mirrors since she purchased her car. The Judge stated that he did not think the trial was in the public interest and in his summing up guided the jury towards a not guilty verdict. I wouldn't mind betting the same thing has happened in most cases where a cyclist has been killed and the driver acquitted including the eastbound driver who had the sun in his eyes at 7pm. It's the judiciary who need educating and dragging kicking & screaming into the 21st C not the juries.
I am entirely confused by the concept of causing death by 'careless' rather than 'dangerous' driving. Surely any action which results in the death of a third party must be deemed dangerous.
Totally agree, It's like the law itself is in denial about the dangerousness of driving a two ton lump of metal without paying attention. Both laws needs to be scrapped and replaced with something that works and recognises the seriousness of driving without due care and attention.
And danthomascyclist's post is spot on too. I really want autonomous driving to be a thing in all new vehicles so that people can be banned from driving at the drop of a hat.
The distinction between the two is defined in its accompanying law, not the dictionary. The words dangerous and careless are common adjectives, the offences of "dangerous driving" and "careless driving" each have specific definitions.
Careless driving IS still deemed to be dangerous, it's just not "dangerous driving".
The real problem is what the CPS and Juries deems "dangerous"
Arguably "Dangerous Driving" sentencing should be applied to "Careless" prosecutions
The real problem is what the CPS and Juries deems "dangerous"
Arguably "Dangerous Driving" sentencing should be applied to "Careless" prosecutions
It just seems that most drivers don't think about just how effective a killing machine a car actually is, if you walked around carrying a knife you'd be aware of it and the potential it has, whereas a knife requires conscious effort in order to kill, while a car requires conscious effort not to. One day maybe people's mindsets will shift but I think driverless cars will be more commonplace before that happens.
I honestly think this is in part due to the marketing of vehicles; that they're an escape from crowds, freedom, fun, etc. Car adverts contain people messing on with text-to-speech SMS systems, singing with friends, 'ruling the road' etc. The reality is very different to this which I suspect many people don't actually grasp. Dunno, just my theory though.
I've been thinking along similar lines for a while; it’s all empty roads in adverts and having a fun or thrilling time. Cars are supposed to be practical methods of transport - that is certainly the reason given in defence of people’s ‘need’ to use them - but the marketing casts them more as lifestyle products that you can mess about in or be excited by. Nissan even has the marketing motto; ‘Innovation that excites’, as if providing 'excitement' is what driving is about.
Years ago, before they banned tobacco advertising more generally, they initially banned adverts that made smoking look cool or desirable. I’d say there is an argument for banning certain kinds of car adverts that make driving on public roads appear like an exciting or aggressive sport in which there is no impact on other road users. Of course, this would never happen because of the dream of motoring is too fully naturalised in people’s psyche, and cars have not been marketed as 'transport' for decades.
Well to be fair, that could all be said of bikes as well...
That's not really a fair comparison though. Compared to car advertising, bike advertising is pretty minimal and primitive, and doesn't project anything like the same homongenous image of cycling as car adverts do for driving. Bike marketing simply doesn't dictate a singular 'cycle culture' in the way that car marketing dominates people's assumptions about driving.
Also, you can only really look at on-road bike adverts for comparison. Bike adverts that show the fun of mountain biking on trails are like Landrover ads showing off-road use; fine so long as they don't pretend that owning said vehicle then also gives you some kind of aggressive advantage or right to dominance on the roads. How many bike adverts have ever implied that?
Ultimately though, the effect of advertising bikes as exciting is always going to be tempered by the feeling of vulnerability on a bike versus the increasing sense of invulnerability encouraged by modern car design. The awareness of the consequences is far more apparent when you are on a bike. But a driver can really believe what the ad-man told them - and what the law doesn't appear to contradict - that the road is there's to drive on as they please.
There is no singular car culture being portrayed - that's projection.
Many mountain bike ads are full of stuff implying advantages over other mountain bikes - wouldn't be much of an advert otherwise really
"Nukeproof Pulse Comp - it's quite average"... hmmm
How many car adverts have implied some 'right to dominance' rather than similar willy waving ? I honestly don't know, can't think of one though I must have seen a few - hence the question.
I agree - but go back and look at what you said and what I said, which doesn't have much to do with this.
The ASA did ban the 'Villain' Jaguar advert which did this:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/16/jaguar-ad-tom-hiddleston-ba...
Sentencing /guidelines/ are often quite appropriate although there seems to be an overall reticence to apply these in cases involving motor-vehicles. Maybe in doing so people feel that's tantamount to accepting that all of us that drive pose a real risk to people when we do drive and so would rather let people off with a lenient sentence than accept that.
However the cases described here (and many more) are clear and overt breaches of the law and really should attract sentences appropriate for them—although the grey area between 'careless' and 'dangerous driving' does seem to confuse both sentencing and CPSs decision to prosecute. Ideally we'd look at these two offences and if they are both still appropriate or potentially can be re-worked to be more effective in both charging /and/ sentencing.
So many drivers (although I do still hope a minority) drive with a feeling of impunity; that they can behave in a completely irresponsible manner and that they will experience no consequences. This needs to end. We all, those that drive, need to treat driving as the use of potentially dangerous machinery that should be respected rather something requiring no outward care or consideration.
I don't think the main problem is with the sentences for killing someone (which are a joke). People don't set out with the expectations of killing someone, so whether the sentence is 1 year or 25 years, they're not going to expect it to apply for them. I reckon most motorists don't know what the sentence could be for death by dangerous driving.
The problem lies with the infractions at the "less serious" end of the scale. The near misses, clipped cyclists and pedestrians, the punishment passes. All caught on camera, sentences seldom handed down. These are the ones that should be clamped down on and have the appropriate "dangerous driving" punishments applied.
How many times would you need to hear a story of a friend or relative that got 9 points for a reckless, close pass of a vulnerable road user before you started to take this shit seriously?
I do agree with your points, although to cause death by dangerous driving isn't setting out with the expectations of killing somebody but is characterised by a deliberate decision to ignore the rules of the road and an apparent disregard for the danger being caused to others for the most serious instances. It also could be 'substantial risk of danger' likely to be characterised by things like excessive speed, racing against another driver or reading or composing a text message over a period of time, to things such as failing to have proper regard to vulnerable road users. All of these are part of the definition of causing death by dangerous driving, Road Traffic Act 1988 s.1.
A driver does not need to set out with the expectations of killing somebody but, by their actions, cause somebody to be killed. Further, in many cases these charges /are/ proved and a person is /convicted/ but then sentencing favours the lower end of the sentencing guidelines which could be orthogonal to other offences.
Correct but my point was that the sentences for the "death by..." offences are a red herring to solving people's behaviour on the roads. People don't ever think it will apply to them as they're too cocky to think their driving will ever kill. Hence, I think we should be focusing efforts on the less-serious end of the scale in order to change behaviour.
Indeed...and you raise a very important point that some people will drive in a dangerous manner although it's 'not a problem' unless they actually kill somebody. It's time to deal with dangerous driving even without it resulting in tragic consequences.
Sadly many driving offences are often due to ignorance on the part of the driver; not understanding how much space to give cyclists or what an ASL is etc—or at worst a deliberate anti-cycling attitude gleaned from excessive tabloid reading. In any event, these people need to receive guidance to reduce that ignorance. For many of us we learn these things while learning to drive and on throughout our driving career but for others it relies on a system of jurisprudence to produce laws governing the parameters of their actions. If you're a person unable to fully understand why you shouldn't close pass somebody—aside from the fact they really shouldn't be behind a wheel—then maybe the only course of action is to prosecute with enough of a sentence for that person to be able to learn this.
Too often sentences are handed down based on the rule that was broken, not the consequence of that infraction. If you aren't paying 100% attention to the road I'm sure in the law's eyes that's "only" careless driving. But in the eyes of the people whose father you kill, that should at least be manslaughter. Murder if you deliberately changed the CD while you were aware there were other vulnerable road users around.