- 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
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
- levestane 5 min 57 sec ago
Good to see the advertising algorithms are working well.
- jaymack 12 min 43 sec ago
A 5* 10/10 review for an inner tube that costs nearly thirty quid? The shark has been jumped.
- webbierwrex 18 min 28 sec ago
Absolutely my thought, title could equally read "Politicians willing to lie in election campeign to gain votes". ...
- Surreyrider 34 min 52 sec ago
On infrastructure - a lot of it is pointless as it doesn't connect places. ...
- Secret_squirrel 2 hours 43 min ago
Those calipers arent the prettiest. Makes them look like Post-mount.
- Dnnnnnn 3 hours 26 min ago
I'm all for a much more socialist approach to the sorts of things you mention, where there are clear market failures and a need for decent...
- David9694 3 hours 27 min ago
Zorbing balls - if it saves just one life
- 11waterloo 3 hours 33 min ago
12 corners in just over 2km is a terrifying prospect if it rains!
- chrisonabike 4 hours 32 sec ago
I think it's:...
- NeilBedwin 4 hours 19 min ago
As it's often said -'the way to justify the building of a bridge is not too count the number of people swimming the crocodile infested river!'
Add new comment
51 comments
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.
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.
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.
Sadly prevention rather than cure is more expensive and to degree, difficult to quantify the overall success for cost. I do agree entirely but we do live in a world of cure rather than prevention
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?
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????
Prevention is actually significantly cheaper than the cure in most instances.
I wish i had a lass slap my backside ! sorry sidetracked there
Every single study/analysis I've seen on preventative programmes, of varying kinds have shown a large net benefit to society.
Better grade schools = Net benefit
More socialisation activity (think youth clubs) = Net benefit
Better skills training for school leavers = Net benefit
The cure is very expensive, prevention is ROI positive.
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.
*laughs at the last post*
Where to start, where to start.
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
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.
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.
Exactly - a few thousand quid to a youth club or youth sports group can save millions even if those youth groups keep just two or three youths out of trouble. Add up the cost of social workers, prison and all that and compare those costs with the benefit of having those same youths earning money and paying taxes and it makes sense.
I live in an area with some deprivation. Our cycling club attracts a lot of lads from tough backgrounds and we've managed to keep a few out of trouble. The social benefit that has for all is enormous. It's just a pity the government doesn't recognise how important investing in youth facilities really is.
Looking wider afield, prevention is better than cure on the road too.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pages