- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- 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
- Tubeless valves
- 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
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
OPINION
How do we put a stop to road violence and curb excessive car use? Look at how we dealt with guns
Sun, May 04, 2025 12:00
22
Child walking in front of SUV (credit: Clean Cities)Hampstead Heath on a winter’s day. The low sunlight glimmers through bare trees, reflecting off frozen lakes and ponds above the smoky city. The air is filled with the sound of gunfire: pistols, rifles and shotguns going off at such frequent intervals that, according to one eyewitness, it seemed as though ‘there were as many guns abroad as birds’.
I’ve not picked an odd venue to pitch a novel about a Russian invasion. This in fact was the exact scene in December 1818 when, according to romantic poet John Keats, he and some dozens of other men were to be found shooting at birds on the Heath. The poet himself, best known for rhapsodising about a songbird, shot a ‘Tomtit’ – or a blue tit to you and I.
Surprising as it may seem to a modern reader, the sight and sounds of dozens – perhaps hundreds – of armed men in what is now one of London’s biggest parks was hardly remarkable, except as a grand day out. The reason for this is that it had simply never occurred to anyone to use a gun as a weapon of mass murder. It was not until the pistols act of 1903 that the sale of guns (as opposed to the possession of such) was specifically restricted.
Similarly, people had been driving cars for decades with hardly anyone intentionally driving them into crowds, bar one or two isolated incidents. In recent years, though, the weaponisation of cars has become a depressingly regular occurrence. In 2025 alone, Germany has experienced two such attacks. The US, which normally makes headlines for gun murders, has seen five separate incidents of cars being deliberately driven into crowds. In the UK, two pedestrians were injured in a deliberate ramming in Luton, following several other attacks over the last few years in Birmingham, Soho and Westminster. So frequent have vehicular rammings become that I’d argue they’re almost normalised. Note how quickly the Vancouver attack, which killed eleven, dropped out of the headlines. A similar attack the same month in Ontario barely made the international news.
Of course, cyclists don’t need reminding that cars are potentially lethal, even when driven responsibly. But just as with guns, there’s simply no way to put this genie back in the bottle; even if it were desirable to return to the days of casually shooting wildlife in London parks, it’s simply impossible. Similarly, now that people know that cars can be used this way, there will always be some violent, disturbed individuals who choose to do just that.
But we should not accept this as simply a fact of life in the same way we accept other forms of car harm. Rather, we should copy the approach we’ve taken to firearms. The use of guns as weapons of mass murder led us to heavily restrict licences and to ban certain types of gun, such as handguns and automatics, entirely. There’s no reason we shouldn’t take the same approach to cars now they’re being used in the same way.
Just as people with criminal records rightly find it more difficult to acquire a gun licence, judges should be given the option of revoking the driving licences of people with a history of violence, and those convicted of being members terrorist groups. While it’s probably impossible to entirely stop this type of attack taking place, the consequences could be mitigated if car manufacturers were required to adopt safety features, such as height limits for bonnets as well as speed restrictions and weight limits. Simple physics deems that an SUV driven at 80mph is many times more destructive than a micro car driven at 55. Meanwhile, urban planners should consider the possibility that cars can be used in this way as part of overall plans to shift away from car dependency.
For too long, governments have been slow to mitigate car harm, too beholden to a false idea of the median voter as an unreconstructed petrolhead. The use of cars as murder weapons should be a wake-up call.
Frank Podmore was born in London and is still there and alive at time of writing. He mostly writes poetry but occasionally blogs about cycling, too, an activity he enjoys on the grounds that there will never be a self-driving bicycle. He prefers cycling on flat surfaces because none of his bikes have enough gears for an incline. He lives on a hill.
More Opinion
Latest Comments
- chrisonabike 9 hours 28 min ago
True. But a with so many things it's probably the thousands / millions of much smaller contributions from the rest of us which really tip the...
- WhichWayNow 10 hours 2 min ago
I had some rim brake CLX50 in 2017 that had 21mm internal width. Very few wheels are coming with a 21mm internal width these days. That's why I...
- Another_MAMIL 11 hours 3 min ago
Is this Rapha jacket for poor people? No respectable cyclist would pay anything less than £410 for a jacket......
- kingleo 12 hours 4 min ago
Trying to distract attention away from the road users who do most of the killing and injuring: car drivers.
- LeadenSkies 12 hours 57 min ago
Wogan Junior's comments show the dangers of leaving far too much money to your kids. The bloke thinks he is somehow a celebrity. He wishes. Don't...
- check12 13 hours 8 min ago
hopefully your site doesn't break like the British cycling site did this weekend after what looks like an update gone wrong for logins
- j4m1eb 13 hours 14 min ago
I was amazed that it was included in my membership and to top it off somehow I manged to pay via my iphone and therefore paid £3.99!
- Slartibartfast 13 hours 24 min ago
"For the first time ever – probably because it was cold – Parthena-Rose was wearing her helmet and body protection in the car, which may have saved...
- bornagainbiketart 14 hours 13 min ago
Another vote for Osprey here. I commute with an Osprey Metron 24L backpack and love it. Don't want to go back to panniers. It's so comfortable I...
Add new comment
22 comments
I think a better analogy would be smoking where a powerful business group distorted research findings and lobbied governments successfully convincing them that they needed the tax revenue. They combined this with clever advertising and product placement to allow them to to continue to profit from causing a huge number of preventable deaths.
Compare and contrast with motoring.
I think this is a better fit indeed - more "ubiquitous" although it's easier to see how people realised that smoking wasn't actually a "need". And there seem to be fewer campaigns against the practice of driving itself. (Maybe exceptions in say in 1920s America or the Netherlands in the 1970s?) There have always been (small) groups who felt for a variety of reasons that tobacco was "the devil's weed".
Also noting how as smoking was declining and the importance of dissuading children from starting was clear, some bright spark in the industry came up with e-smoking (vapes). Which just happen to come in lots of "candy" flavours... I didn't check the numbers but for some time there have been lots of cheap disposable vapes dumped around areas kids hang out.
Of course that has nothing to do with e-vehicles of all kinds which simply reduce all the ills of existing ICE vehicles...
I think there's a problem with the cars/guns analogy that we can see by looking at America, where they haven't taken steps to restrict gun use despite an obvious need. Partly due to the gun lobby – users, manufacturers and retailers, partly due to the almost sacred, mythologised status they give guns. Unfortunately, both the lobbies and the sacred status apply to cars in the UK; and in almost every other country worldwide.
That said, which car-death problem are we tackling here? Terrorism or crashes? Because they are separate problems, albeit some solutions (such as vehicle design) would be effective for both.
Copying the approach to guns into how car use is controlled would mean that very few would be allowed a car. Those who were allowed a car would, in most cases, only be allowed to use them in very restricted circumstances (closed-road car club, on private land, etc.). Cars would also be restricted to very low power and speed items, just as no ordinary member of the public is allowed to buy a tank or a machine gun.
In short, copying gun controls is in no way a means to reduce car-murder and maiming in any practical fashion.
There's certainly scope, though, for reducing the lethality of cars themselves. Not just banning SUVs but applying far lower speed limits over far more roads and reducing the power, top speed and other features of cars that invite drivers to be irresponsible. There's no need for screens full of info or car phones that still work when the vehicle is in motion. There's no need for the ability go faster than the fastest speed limit. No need for silly acceleration ability. Etc..
There's also large scope for limiting poor driving by means of forcing drivers to pay attention, to steer and brake properly, not to speed, to slow when it says SLOW on the road and to do other necessary driving tasks that many currently ignore. Car tech can be arranged so that failure to look through windscreens for more than one second or to wander out of lane or to fail to acknowledge a pedestrian crossing coming up, etcetera auto-stops the car. Drivers will soon get used to it, as the car behind hoots them back to adherance to requirements so they can GET OUT OF MY WAY!
Ignoring the firearms side * I don't think this will be "a wake-up call" at all. Although acts of terrorism and (random) murder are extremely salient it seems we're comfortable with a certain level of "road death" because "we have to drive" / "how will our goods / ambulances get to us". Even in the UK (which has very low levels of death and injury in global terms). Folks like e.g. Roadpeace have been good on this.
I think a completely different perspective from our current one (legalistic / exhortational) is indeed needed. (And in reality our safety improvements have stalled.)
BUT I think it would be advantageous to go beyond just "it should be safer!" - we should be looking at "what are our public space is for" and "what do we want our transport systems to deliver".
I think we also have to look at "and how do we get there from here" e.g. what gets and maintains mass support for any system. (This needs long-term political support, which needs growing public support...)
The most promising practical ways forward I've seen are a) as outlined by Chris Boardman in some of his recent talks (e.g. here - long form). And b) by looking at places where in fact the transport system has been transformed to shift some journeys (and some public space) away from private motoring. Sometimes from a higher "base" but sometimes a very low one.
Those transformations tend to work with a different perspective. So less "legalistic" and "personal responsibility" focus (although that does not mean abandoning personal responsibility!) but more broad "public health" / "health and safety" focus e.g. Sustainable Safety.
The UK has achieved its safety improvements partly through general worldwide improvements in "in-car safety", safer infra for motorists and improvements in emergency rescue and trauma care. And largely at cost of convenience for vulnerable road users. So more "road safety" but in fact a
* Not a great comparison here I think - if only since we're probably at the current peak of motor vehicle ownership and use. And while people are ideologically attached to the ideas of "freedom" that both guns and cars promise, the use of motor vehicles is far more "normal" and perhaps embedded in culture.
Although cars don't have their own US constitutional amendment... And noting that "badges of rank / status" is a thing. Perhaps carrying a sword (gun) is in fact as important as riding a horse (driving a nice car) in some cultures, regardless of the more utilitarian considerations?
EDIT - I actually think that "how we dealt with guns" is not in fact a good model for transforming our streets and roads all. We didn't actually need to shoot things - or even kill things at a distance - at all. It was culturally important but in many ways it was something we could just stop doing, with little consequence. (Probably various mass conflicts - "industrial warfare" - changed our relationship with weapons also...)
You could say we don't need cars either ... but (unless we move online to an extraordinary extent) we will probably "need" transport to some degree. And (outside of the centres of the densest cities) there will remain a substantial demand for a private transport mode.
Do we want to drift into a world of corporations effectively owning what was public space via robotaxis (and all the other possible consequences of that)? If not we need to take (national, local) control of our public spaces - the alternative perhaps looks a bit like this (with lots of these in urban spaces).
I think guns have some, admittedly fairly niche, uses (e.g., if you're a farmer who doesn't want your crop destroyed, guns may well be your best option). I also think the sporting uses for guns are fair, even if they're not a 'need'. So, I think the analogy with cars is quite strong, even if not exact: cars have a limited use case (more uses than guns, granted), and can also be fun and entertaining. But, unfortunately both can be very dangerous, too. Since we've had a lot of success in the UK at curbing dangers from guns, we should at least consider a similar approach to the dangers of cars.
TL/DR: I don't think driving (and thus the danger from driving) is best tackled by regulation or "we just don't have the need / fancy doing it these days" * - which I think was the case for shooting. True - some mass shootings did indeed spark changes in regulation by the government (here, here). But I think those were at points on a much reduced - and maybe still declining - trend of gun use / ownership and feeling of "need" (happy to be corrected here).
For driving? Not so much - we already made things "very safe" so people just see this as "stop the terrorists" rather than "... we all can't have nice things".
While the demand for driving is not inelastic it is much greater and sustained and there's no political room to simply say "you can't". Much different than a changing "hobby" (yes... I know in the US it may be seen - by some - as far more than that! But in the UK opinions have been more fluid I think). And I think that where people have got to a better place it has been by providing safe and attractive alternatives. That was not so much the case with shooting AFAIK.
So ... I just don't see these two as particularly similar. (In fact - it went the other way in e.g. the US where growing casualty numbers from motor crashes and public protest prompted ... the criminalisation of walking e.g. here, here!)
Perhaps a better analogy might be "how we've reduced industrial accidents"?
AFAIK (I'm no expert) actual "need" or even demand in the UK for guns is ... basically the military, the police and (in a very distant third place) "sports". (Leaving aside the idea of "self defence" which thankfully there seems little demand for in the UK).
Owners of airports or farmers may dispute this ... but are not mechanical or electronic scarers / barriers for things like foxes / poisoning or digging up the homes of unwanted wildlife / general change in landscape vastly more significant in controlling negative effects here that individuals armed with weapons anyway? Plus shotguns are AFAIK the easiest firearms to get in the UK.
Sports is still possible - albeit far more difficult now for pistol shooters and concepts like "recreational machine guns" or "fun introductory artillery pieces" don't exist in the UK.
Contrast: most UK adults (3/4 in last transport survey) have a driving licence. Granted - we don't all necessarily own a car or even regularly drive. But across all ages about 60%+ of trips are by private transport (cars basically).
* Without the primary effort being the provision of alternative modes of transport. That is possible - though very difficult - and there are even examples "from nothing" e.g. Seville. But I don't think these changes came about by primarily by "but dangerous so more regulation".
Two cultural sacred cows in one article? This one will definitely lead to "engagement"...
Increase in vehicle ramming attacks is arguably a "side effect of success" - it has become a lot harder to launch mass casualty terror attacks as explosives and firearms (in the UK) are more difficult to get. (Edged weapons are still an option but probably harder to generate mass casualties with).
Certain amount of truth to this, definitely! But I was surprised by how many of these attacks have happened in the US, where there's been very limited success at preventing mass shootings.
True - but perhaps the sad truth is that "mass shooting" is as easily dismissed in the news cycle there as "road crash" is here? Perhaps for a terrorist it simply isn't the most salient type of attack any more? And perhaps also it is still easier (even in US) and/or requires less skill to kill lots of people in a short period by using a motor vehicle rather than small arms?
Whatever is this article??
Have you met my friend knife crime and the many deaths/murders/injuries/muggings caused by it? banning guns hasnt solved a thing because on the face of it the Justice system is too weak to deal with it and mayor of london thinks its just all part and parcel of living in a big city and ignores it.
Then Frank Podmore should know more about the rise in knife related crime seeing as he's in the thick of it.
But this doesnt solve the problem does it?? Criminals should be kept in prison where they belong. The general public/law abiding citizens shouldnt be punished for the criminals crimes by having their rights and freedoms taken away or restricted. Speed restrictions?? Urban planners taking into consideration about cars being used as weapons? In that case why dont you just say that you want the army to move in and build vehicle checkpoints on the corner of every street?
Last i checked it was 2025. Not 1943
Banning guns hasn't stopped knife crime, but it has more or less stopped *gun* crime - which is the point!
Criminals, even violent ones, are generally released from prison. The question is, what happens next? We don't let violent people have guns, and we limit what those guns can do, so doing the same with cars (which can be as dangerous as guns) is not wildly different, and certainly doesn't amount to armed checkpoints!
London, by the way, is not the warzone the media make it out to be.
But knife crime would be a much better comparison than gun crime, because both knives and cars are everyday tools in a way that a gun is not.
And whoosh! there goes the point way over your head, with stalks flying off your straw man. For the benefit of driver distractors, we have gun control in this country. It's not perfect, but you do have to cross a rubicon from casual to hardened criminal to possess and use one.
We don't, in the UK have a right to bear arms, we gave that up - if you as a nation live by the gun, you, or lots of your citizens, die by the gun.
You allow cars to proliferate, you get more deaths by cars - 1,600 or so a year. That seems like a common-sense position to me.
The idea of "common sense" is going to become more prominent in the localities where Reform has been successful. We may begin even to find out what it means, or more likely that it doesn't mean any particular thing as a shared basis for making political choices and trade-offs.
Following last week's election results, I may write again more fully in the next few days in the right column, in Lincolnshire, Staffordshire, and Cornwall Reform have now got the Captain's armband - they now have some executive, not just representative roles. No sign of a Trump chilling effect in these localities.
It's a privilege of being the opposition underdog to easily criticise and rabble-rouse from the sidelines - now you have to decide what you (and the people around you) actually believe in, beyond the idea that everything in our lives will somehow be better if we have fewer immigrants.
Remember, this is the party of no more cycle lanes, no more 20 mph, and might well rip some existing ones out "except where safety is critical" - I'd say safety was critical everywhere, but who am I? Whether the "but come down hard on rule-breakers" will ever happen is another issue - the start-point for that is that you have to believe that dangerous or careless driving are wrong, all of which I think they are shakey on.
What I'll never get over is that people (many of whom I suspect don't enjoy the best of health, nor wealth) are voting for a party that doesn't care whether they live or die. The Reform position nationally is "pay up if you want to be made well".
duplicate post
Duplicate post
Duplicate post
Minor pedantry - understand what you mean but I would say people in the UK have a right to keep and use firearms in a somewhat similar to they do to drive a car - they just require a licence to do so. Certainly there are differences (which might be more "qualitative" in the view of more permissive places) e.g. you can buy a car without a driving licence, cars are more "shall-issue" rather than "may-issue" etc.
Of course firearms are much more strongly controlled e.g. the types that can be owned by most people, where they can be kept and used, there may be ammunition ownership limits etc. (Although again there are analogues for these in the motoring domain).
Knife crime deaths 2024 in the UK? 263. Vehicular deaths? 1,607 (Estimated). 392 of those were pedestrians, and 83 cyclists.
When also considering offences / incidents, the numbers get a bit more scary: Knife: Approx 60,000 (50k in E&W, 10k Scotland); Vehicle 130k.
I put these together from a mix of Google info (knife crime) and official Gov stats (Reported road casualties in Great Britain, provisional estimates: year ending June 2024).
SO as usual, in spite of the noise, vehicles continue to be by far the most lethal thing around.
OK, anyone who tries to use that "part and parcel" quote against Khan marks themselves out as ignorant or biased or both. Khan said that "Preparing for terrorist attacks is all part and parcel of living in a major city" - ever since the right have tried to say that means he's blase about terrorism, do you want a mayor of a major city who doesn't prepare for terrorist attacks?
Khan has dedicated well over £150M to anti-knife-crime initiatives even though throughout his tenure the Met budget has been slashed by politically-motivated cuts from central government.
Did you know that the number of murders in London has been lower in every year of Khan's tenure, 2016-present, than it was in every year from 1990-2008 (with the exception of 1996), even though the population has increased around 30% in that time? Not bad for a Mayor who allegedly ignores crime.
Nice line by the way, "Criminals should be kept in prison where they belong." Then going on to assert that, "Last i checked it was 2025. Not 1943." [sic]
Well, kiddo, last I checked we had moved on from 1868, when criminals were last imprisoned and transported, effectively for life. Is there no room in your worldview for rehabilitation?
"Speed restrictions?? Urban planners taking into consideration about cars being used as weapons?" Sorry to disappoint but this is already a reality. I cite anti vehicle measures at key areas in London as well as the lack of litter bins in many city centres (lest they be used to conceal explosive devices) to name but two such counter criminal measures.
Oh, and the Army gets a capital A, it being a proper noun and all.