MPs from across parliament came together today to call for urgent changes for the victims of road violence, telling a Westminster Hall debate about harrowing cases of road violence from across the United Kingdom and urging action such as compulsory re-testing for disqualified driving, ensuring that exceptional hardship truly is exceptional, thorough investigation of major collisions, escalating penalties for repeat offences and more.
The debate was attended by 15 MPs and followed on from the report launched in September 2023 by the All Party Parliamentary Group for Cycling and Walking (APPGCW) which outlined recommendations to improve safety on Britain's roads, and was sponsored by British Cycling and Leigh Day law firm.
Opening the debate, the APPGCW's co-chair Selaine Saxby, Conservative MP for North Devon, raised the key recommendations of the report, such as compulsory re-testing for disqualified driving, ensuring that exceptional hardship truly is exceptional, thorough investigation of major collisions, and escalating penalties for repeat offences.
She also referenced the 2021 campaign, supported with more than 167,000 signatures on a petition calling for 'Ryan's law' and named after Ryan Saltern who was killed by a hit-and run driver, calling for the widening of the offence of 'death by dangerous driving' to include failure to stop.
Described as "powerful", Saxby's opening speech told the debate that driving should be viewed as a privilege, not a right, and questioned whether it is right that if you kill someone when driving that you should ever be allowed to drive again.
APPGCW treasurer, Labour MP Fabian Hamilton, raised the case of Ian Winterburn, a cyclist killed in 2017 by a driver turning across his path on the A6120. Hamilton has previously raised the case in parliament, saying Mr Winterburn's family had been failed by West Yorkshire Police, the coroners and the justice system.
> Leeds MP calls for government action after cyclist's death highlights justice system failings
The 51-year-old driver involved had previously served a 14-month suspension for a drink driving offence, and was sentenced to a four-month suspended prison sentence, a £200 fine, 200 hours of community service and a two-year driving ban.
Other MPs, including Wendy Morton, Paulette Hamilton, James Wild and Jonathan Gullis told of other relevant cases. In Morton's case this involved recalling the death of an 18-day-old baby in her constituency, an incident which saw the driver responsible handed a sentence considered unduly lenient.
The APPGCW has committed to continuing to campaign on the issue and said it will work with RoadPeace to raise awareness more widely.
Responding to the debate, shadow minister Bill Esterson and Guy Opperman, on behalf of the government, addressed what they had heard. Opperman said is it a cross-departmental issue and explained that he had been the victim of a road traffic collision while cycling in London in 2019.
On the issue of compulsory re-testing, the minister confirmed the last update to the guidance on this was 2015 and this is something that is being looked at. With regard to increasing the sentence for dangerous driving, he noted that there is a case for reviewing sentencing and updating guidance accordingly.
On exceptional hardship, the minister reminded that losing your licence in itself is not a hardship and that it must be truly exceptional, while it was noted that many members referred to the fact that driving is a privilege and not a right during the debate.
On the issue of consistency in the investigation of road traffic collisions, Opperman said there are efforts from chief constables to change this and that he would encourage the Home Office to take this forward.
"This is a work in progress, I totally accept this," he said. "This is a work in progress on a cross-departmental basis, I can assure the Honourable Lady (Selaine Saxby MP) and this house that we will be meeting as the three key departments to try and drive forward an integrated policy on all these matters. It is not for one department to fix this, it is on a cross-departmental basis."
Saxby added: "Today was an important opportunity for members across the house to raise the issue of road traffic offences and the justice system. The stories we heard are a stark reminder of the avoidable tragedies that occur every single day on our roads.
"We need to see progress on some of the key recommendations from our report, to ensure that the severity of the punishment for committing acts of road violence matches the awful outcomes. I will continue to work with colleagues on a cross-party basis and look forward to following up with the Ministry of Justice, Department for Transport and the Home Office."
Add new comment
8 comments
It cannot be just that road danger and the resulting death and serious injuries are assessed as traffic violations out of proportion to the harm caused would be generally; grievous bodily harm, manslaughter and murder.
Firearms offences are regarded as an aggravating factor in sentencing yet motor vehicles seem to reduce the sentence. How can a 1000kg+ object not be regarded as a deadly weapon given the kinetic energy involved...
One vehicle driven into a group of people is fully capable of killing as many as a 9 round clip for a pistol.
Sentences must properly reflect the harm to the victims and not imply that it is sufficient for suspension of driving privileges is dealing with that harm when it is only preventing future harm.
Good to see MPs of all colours recognising that driving is a privilege and not a right, but only 15 MPs bothering to show up is pathetic given the number of people each year are KSId.
The problem is that when you decimate local buses, price people out of trains and ensure the roads remain too scary for most people to want to try cycling, you end up with many places where people are dependant on cars; they see driving as a "right" as it's intertwined with how they partake in society. This attitude then gets reflected in the police and justice system because those working in these services are also probably dependant on cars.
We desperately need tougher sentencing for bad drivers, but the transport network needs to encforce the notion that motorists are there by choice and privilege too.
"Yes Minister! We should deliberate for another decade, because we are clueless about the impact on society. Yes, yes, only a tad over 250,000 people have been KSI'ed in the last ten years, but that's the price the voters pay for being allowed to drive even though a third wouldn't drive a nail in safely."
Well, this would have been un-necessary if the comprehensive review of road law, promised by this government so many years ago, had actually taken place.
Never mind, I'll be writing to my MP, the Right Honourable Mark Harper, Secretary of State for Transport, suggesting that for once in his life, he pulls his finger out and actually does something.
But more in hope than expectation.
While you're there can you ask him where the money for active travel has gone in England / Wales, and also when they're going to get the Road Safety Investigation Branch up and running...?
My recent discussion with the Leader of Dartford Council revealed that Active Travel money and action is optional and he didn't accept as necessary.
Specifically he said that only separate infrastructure did the job so he had to refuse the Active Travel initiative.
Doing AT well in a few pathfinder Councils seems to be impossible as very little for everyone is fair but ineffective!
Active Travel England should be setting best practice but I see none...
Seems - just like Local Sustainable Travel Funds, and before that Cycling England, and before that the National Cycling Strategy Board ... it may either be doing its job too well (making waves) or not well enough (e.g. gradual change, in due course) *. Perhaps like the others it will be allowed to wither away by defunding / dilution of responsibilities. Or will be shut down ("we have to make hard choices and deliver for the taxpayer / our priorities are growth to bring prosperity to all / we are on the side of the motorist ..."). Governments don't read their own documents any more than we read old newspapers...
I'd love to believe the next government - if it turns out to be of a different hue - would mark a change in approach. However AFAIK it's unlikely the Greens will pull of a landslide. And national politics being as is who really knows if they'd really shift the dial in that improbable event? Truss tried to get radical and even with a large majority and a very familiar brand didn't outlast the lettuce (thankfully).
* Swap these according to taste or cynicism.
'Saxby added: "Today was an important opportunity for members across the house to raise the issue of road traffic offences and the justice system. "'
"The debate was attended by 15 MPs .."
so important that 640 or so couldn't be bothered to turn up.