- 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
Big Ben © Simon MacMichaelHit-and-run laws give drink-drivers incentive to flee crashes where they have killed people, says MP
An MP has said that the law provides an incentive to drivers who are impaired by drink or drugs to flee the scene of crashes.
Christina Rees, the Labour MP for Neath, told a House of Commons debate yesterday that motorists who had killed or injured someone in a crash could be tempted to drive away from the scene to avoid being tested for drink or drugs.
Speaking in a debate scheduled by the Backbench Business Committee, she said: “It is no surprise that those in favour of a change in the law say that there is a perverse incentive for a driver who is under the influence of drink or drugs to leave the scene of a traffic collision, thereby avoiding a drink and drugs test by the police.
“If they hand themselves in to the police later, they cannot be tested because of the time that has elapsed and are likely to avoid a more serious offence or penalty.”
Yesterday’s debate was held after two petitions posted to the Parliament website on the subject of penalties faced by hit-and-run drivers each reached 100,000 signatures, meaning they would be considered for debate.
“I met the petitioners virtually last week and listened to their heartbreaking stories, which reduced me to tears,” Rees said.
“I cannot image the pain they have gone through and are still going through. They have come to Parliament today. I met them again this afternoon and they are in the Public Gallery this evening.
“I cannot pretend to understand the depth of their grief, but I commend their courage and tenacity in wanting something good to come out of their grief.”
Peter Dowd, the Labour MP for Bootle, spoke of how his daughter had been killed by a hit-and-run driver last year while she was riding her bike.
“My 31-year-old daughter, Jennie, was hit by a car just over 100 yards from my house 13 months ago,” he said.
“The driver drove off, came back to look at the scene, and drove off again. My daughter died nine days later.
“The driver received a 12-month custodial sentence for careless driving but is now appealing that sentence, as it is, I think she believes, disproportionately hard.”
He asked whether “At the very least – the very least – sentencing guidelines need a full, thorough and substantial review, to assure families left bereft that justice is done?”
Ms Rees replied: “Sometimes words are not enough to express what you must be going through and what you have been through. I completely agree – completely agree.”
Ben Bradshaw, the Labour MP for Exeter, said that punishment for road traffic offences “does not fit the crime” and that sentences for those convicted are “scandalously low.”
“Offenders all too often get off with a paltry fine, a suspended sentence or a ridiculously short driving ban, if they get a ban at all, while the loved ones of the victims are left devastated and grieving for the rest of their lives,” he said.
He urged the government to “bring forward the full review of road traffic offences and sentences promised nearly eight years ago,” to “address the scandalously low maximum sentence for hit and run,” and to “look again at how, far too often, drivers get away without a driving ban by pleading exceptional circumstances.”
In reply, Andrew Stephenson, Minister of State at the Department for Transport, insisted that “The government take road safety seriously.”
“Let me be clear: any death or serious injury on our roads is unacceptable, and our deep condolences go to victims and their families,” he said.
“We understand the tragic circumstances that have led to the petitions and to the concern that, in some cases, something is perhaps not working with the law.
“Although we must do all we can to improve the safety of our roads, we must also be careful that we do not make any rash decisions that could ultimately make things worse, or create other unforeseen effects, in a rush to resolve problems with the way in which the law currently operates.”
Regarding the specific issue of hit-and-run cases, he said: “In the case of failure to stop and report, we know that in a small number of cases the failure to stop may be related to an event that leads to death or serious injury to another person, but we must not forget that in the vast majority of cases convictions for failing to stop involve low-level traffic incidents such as hitting a wing mirror on a narrow street.
“It is only in an extremely small number of cases that there may not be any other evidence to connect the death or serious harm with the driver who failed to stop, meaning that the only offence that they have committed is that of failing to stop and report.
“I understand the concerns that have been raised about the matter, which has previously been brought to the attention of my Department. However, increasing the maximum sentence for failing to stop and report, even in a limited scope where there has been a serious or fatal injury, cuts across the basis for that offence.
“I must stress that the offence of failure to stop and report is designed to deal with the behaviour relating to the failure to stop; it is not provided as an alternative route to punish an offender for a more serious but unproven offence,” he added.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Owd Big 'Ead 2 hours 24 min ago
If penalty points don't work, how about sending her to prison for 12 months instead. That should get the message across, surely?
- jamesdg73 2 hours 51 min ago
Not sure, the statement indicates the recall is across the EU region so should include the uk....
- TheBillder 4 hours 10 min ago
It was a really good segment on Woman's Hour and certainly made me think. My instant (erroneous) reaction was to wonder why this could be a gender...
- chrisonatrike 4 hours 13 min ago
Polis Scotland. "Well we asked the registered keeper but they said they had no memory of the incident. Mind how you go..."
- ktache 4 hours 16 min ago
Norm always insisted on safety glasses on his New Yankee Workshop, and would always use a pushing stick, even showed how to make one.
- chrisonatrike 4 hours 13 min ago
Utter piffle as usual. Action Man's pants don't come off at all, whereas it was a good job Boris struggled to keep his on as they were frequently...
- Cugel 5 hours 23 min ago
Ha ha - yes - I have the Mr Grumpy T-shirt, which I wear more & more....
- Groadie 6 hours 22 min ago
Of course there are contraflow schemes elsewhere, and no doubt they are considered acceptable practice in whatever design guidelines there are......
- Ride On 6 hours 40 min ago
Heavy rain combined with dark reduces drivers visibility dramatically I try and avoid that....
- Cba2make1 6 hours 50 min ago
I think, unless there's some collusion between testers within the UCI and certain teams or riders; it isn't entirely clear when they will or will...
Add new comment
21 comments
“I met the petitioners virtually last week and listened to their heartbreaking stories, which reduced me to tears,” Rees said.
Blimey, we found a good one!
In reply, Andrew Stephenson, Minister of State at the Department for Transport, insisted that “The government take road safety seriously.”
“It is only in an extremely small number of cases that there may not be any other evidence to connect the death or serious harm with the driver who failed to stop".
Normal service resumed!
In many (I believe now most) US states a failure to stop is regarded as the same as a refusal to take a drink/drugs test, i.e. a de facto confession of DUI and that's automatically added to the charge sheet. Simple, logical, common sense - probably not got much chance of making it onto the statute book over here any time soon then.
“In the case of failure to stop and report, we know that in a small number of cases the failure to stop may be related to an event that leads to death or serious injury to another person, but we must not forget that in the vast majority of cases convictions for failing to stop involve low-level traffic incidents such as hitting a wing mirror on a narrow street.
“It is only in an extremely small number of cases that there may not be any other evidence to connect the death or serious harm with the driver who failed to stop, meaning that the only offence that they have committed is that of failing to stop and report.
--
seems quite simple, just as death by dangerous driving carries a diferent penalty from dangerous driving, then there needs to be an offence of failing to stop when someone is injured. i.e anyone who is in accident where someone is seriously injured, and they do not call the emergency services, the charge needs to reflect that.
This needs to be a different offence from failing to stop as it pertains to minor scrapes to parked cars. (probably wouldn't happen if the public highway was not used for strorage of personal property), because to an extent the MP is correct you cannot have a sentancing structure that covers both scratching paintwork, and enying someone crucial medical attention by silence against the same offence.
I'd really like someone - anyone - to be counting these. Being able to say "in actual fact, of the x incidents last year there were y instances where the driver left the scene and z of those lead to deaths" is the only way to fight through such bland statements. I know Bez was doing this a while back. I appreciate it'd be a major undertaking though. There are various data sets (e.g. UK road safety data here) but even where you get that most are deliberately limited e.g. the road safety data is coded*. Unfortunately the bureacracy tends to be very wary of doing this as it can as easily be used to challenge you or show up your failure as to "prove" your effectiveness. For more information it's necessary to do news / court searches, which then have to be evalutated, correlated with the other data etc. Obviously for anything in court that could be years after the incident.
Campaigning needs both the human stories (which we did at least get in parliament) and some figures. Visualisations of this (examples 1, 2) can also be powerful but again rely on data.
* Elimination of the "narrative" aspect of these inevitably means it's harder to use these for anything other than the narrow purposes each data set is conceived for. It can also lead to mistakes / conflation of multiple aspects into a single category which might not be the most significant. Or indeed be a way of sweeping stuff under the carpet.
As others have said, I think the minister is - to be extremely charitable - accidentally confusing / conflating "I scratched some paintwork" with "I hit someone and claimed it was a deer / sack of potatoes / said I couldn't remember and drove away". As we've read here it's not even the case that all such people are obvious wrong-uns, armed with bad attitudes, tons of previous and intoxicated. Not that that should be the most important thing although it makes a huge difference to your chances of being convicted of anything.
This chap's an MP but he sounds like he's about as minded to change anything as the mandarins in his department.
Agree with all that if we could only shift this to be considered from a health and safety viewpoint or as we do rail transport etc. things would improve. Motoring occupies such an exceptional place in culture / is such a "normal" activity that's a real stretch though.
I wonder what the penalty would be for a workplace incident, where someon was clearly acting contrary to their training and the legislation and someone was seriously injured, AND THEN they turned their back on the injury rather than calling for an ambulance?
"“It is only in an extremely small number of cases that there may not be any other evidence to connect the death or serious harm with the driver who failed to stop, meaning that the only offence that they have committed is that of failing to stop and report."
And if the failure to stop and call and ambulance is a significant factor in the death? I don't think it's right to refer to this as 'the only offence' as if it's something rather minor like illegal number plate text.
No one means to hit someone with a car (well almost no one) even though they have made a decision to drive somewhat carelessly, but failing to stop leaving someone lying in the road dying to avoid coming to the attention of the police is a deliberate decision and it shouldn't be tolerated.
If the workplace incident involves a vehicle on teh highway, pretty much no difference.
Legislation is available for vehicle-based injuries and death to be treated as a HSAW matter (even if the victim is a member of the public). The authorities invariably choose not to refer these incidents to the HSE, cos when it's a vehicle, its just an accident innit.....
Personally I'd start by referring any commercial vehicle inidents to the HSE in teh interim. Then look to shaking up the entire application of road laws.
I expect these will be the recommendations of the review of the road safety that we are waiting for
except if it was a forklift in a warehouse, or a dumper on a construction site, where 'accidents happen' would not be an acceptable attitude to vehicular injuries.
But on the public highway.....anything goes.
Precisely. The distinction is completely illogical.
I was looking for this the other day and can't find it but there was a good article examining exactly this (possibly from Bez?). As I recall it was looking at a railway worker in a collision accessing / leaving the railway site - you might think he was still "working" but I think that was the technicality which was used to say "nothing to see here" e.g. "although in an official vehicle, wearing uniform and possibly being payed for the time this was on the public highway, so...". Compare and contrast with if he'd been in an accident actually on the railway - which would have triggered a proper investigation.
"He urged the government to “bring forward the full review of road traffic offences and sentences promised nearly eight years ago,” to “address the scandalously low maximum sentence for hit and run,” and to “look again at how, far too often, drivers get away without a driving ban by pleading exceptional circumstances.”
In reply, Andrew Stephenson, Minister of State at the Department for Transport, insisted that “The government take road safety seriously.”"
This brief exchange sums up perfectly the current government's attitude; we said we'd look at this eight years ago, and although we've done sweet fa since then apart from introduce a new law of causing death by dangerous cycling, shut the f*ck up and go away. We haven't managed to get all of our money offshored yet, so please wait a few more years, and then we'll text you from the Virgin Islands where one of our very own has just negotiated very favourable terms for us.
Until then "The government take road safety seriously." Not seriously enough to actually do anything, but seriously. Not seriously enough to finish the process they started eight years, EIGHT YEARS! ago, but seriously.
In other news, a government spokesperson said "You're only pedestrians and cyclists and you can jolly well go and do one."
Mmm - yeah - doesn't appear to be any danger of that.
Peter Dowd, the Labour MP for Bootle, spoke of how his daughter had been killed by a hit-and-run driver last year while she was riding her bike.
“My 31-year-old daughter, Jennie, was hit by a car just over 100 yards from my house 13 months ago,” he said.
“The driver drove off, came back to look at the scene, and drove off again. My daughter died nine days later.
“The driver received a 12-month custodial sentence for careless driving but is now appealing that sentence, as it is, I think she believes, disproportionately hard.”
His story was only posted a few weeks ago. I don't think it included that the perpetrator was now appealing the custodial sentence, although when you look at others, the fact it is actual jail time for carelessness does look "disproportionally hard".
Surely you need a MINIMUM sentence for hit and run, not a maximum. There is no reasonable excuse for a hit and run, so I would suggest a minimum sentence of 5 years in prison. That, plus consecutive sentences with any other conviction should provide a suitable deterrent. Maybe throw in a 10 year driving ban to help focus minds...
The difficulty is that there is no offence of 'hit and run'.
There is Failure to Stop which unfortunately is required to cover a huge range of offences from scratched paintwork to leaving someone dying in the road.
The answer is to vastly increase the maximum sentence and accompany that with robust sentencing guidelines.
The maximum sentence for 'Failure to Stop' needs to be higher than the maximum sentence for any driving offence in order to remove the current incentive to leave the scene.
My concern would be it doesn't diminish the "dangerous driving" charge e.g. you're essentially forced to choose one. I haven't been back through all these cases to check but it does seem that if you're actually charged with dangerous you are not also (ever? often?) charged with failure to stop. (Yes - I am aware that there have been cases prosecuted on both causing death and causing injury, so those two can go together).
I just think that an new change wouldn't be given as serious penalties and that if it's easier to prove (which would be the whole point) that's the one the CPS will go for. We'd end up reducing the effective penalty. On the pro side we might achieve a higher conviction rate. Depends how you feel - not very much vs. nothing?
Fundamentally the problem is with cultural attitudes to driving and the knock-on effect on the whole system for charging, prosecuting and sentencing this. The guidelines for dangerous do say that failure to stop is an aggravating factor but as we know a) dangerous driving is riven with subjective judgements (both in determining guilt and indeed sentencing) b) it's not easy to get convictions even where the CPS decides to go for it and c) it seems that the "top tier" (level 1) for sentencing this offense is barely ever applied.
Summarised : Govt says screw you we aren't changing.
Not even an MP can get justice.
Simples, just consider the failure to stop as indicative of an impaired judgement at least as serious as the impairment due to alcohol, and sanction them both the same.
Any defence to the effect that they believed they had merely hit a sack of potatoes newly fallen from the sky would automatically prove impaired judgement.
I think this might be the best route but it'd need a lot of retraining of lawyers / magistrates / judges. There are so many cases where people use what are effectively admissions of incapacity to drive as defences - and it works! Just a few from memory "I thought the safest thing was to continue driving towards the cyclists (on the wrong side of the road)" / "I have no memory of those seconds" / "The sun was in my eyes" / "I just didn't see the cyclist (visible for 20 seconds or so)" / "It was safer to accellerate" / "I have a medical condition".
I do think there's merit if it's actually possible to prove "leaving the scene" more easily that dangerous* AND the penalty was added to any "dangerous driving" penalties e.g. you got 3 years for death by dangerous (let's be realistic...) but you had another year added for leaving the scene and maybe an extra two years driving ban.
* Presumably would need to prove both "knew they hit someone / that there was an crash" and "they did actually hit". The last would be needed otherwise everyone would have to stop at the scene of any crash in case they became liable for driving away.
I think we should encourage drivers to stop at the scene of a crash and render assistance (assuming that there's no sign of emergency services) even if they had nothing to do with the incident. I'd stop short of prosecuting people that fail to stop for minor incidents that they're not involved with, but I have no problem with prosecuting anyone involved in a collision that just drives off. Claiming that you were unaware of a collision shouldn't be considered a mitigation as it implies driving without paying attention ("yeah, I had no idea that I'd hit anything, but I did have a few ales, officer").
I agree of course but I think it's a two part thing - both the new offence / emphasis and addressing the standard get-outs. We always want proof so in your example "...but I had those light ales a couple of hours back now and I'll deny it in court." It'd be great to say "no-one *has* to stop unless they are *involved*" but I'm pretty sure that would immediately run into some logic chopping in court as it stands. "OK, did any witnesses actually see my client make contact with them?" If not, not their accident so not required to stop, off scot free (as long as they remembered to clean the bumper when they got home). If there were witnesses: "we will question whether my client could have heard / seen this". And we're back to the 'I do not recall that' / "sun in eyes" defence. If that works now for dangerous driving - which it does - I don't see how it wouldn't also work for leaving the scene without some legal replumbing.