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.”
51 thoughts on “Longer sentences for banned drivers who kill or injure other road users”
If they simply changed from
If they simply changed from sentences running concurrent to sequential, a lot of these under-sentencing malarkey would go away.
Then simply stack the offences, get a verdict on each, and put the scum away.
This seems to completely miss
This seems to completely miss the point. Surely we should be jailing people for driving whilst disqualified *before* they kill or injure someone?
How about a change in
How about a change in prosecutions so we see more people banned from driving for life?
kitkat wrote:How about a
The law is supposed to provide a sentence then once completed, the person is deemed to have served their punishment and hopefully learnt there lesson.
Having strong incentives to not break the law will always work much better than life times bans which may drive those affected to intentionally subvert the law.
Eitherway, the law seems to have become toothless with regard to such issues
SB76 wrote:kitkat wrote:How
I see no problem with lifetime bans. This the removal of a ‘privilege’ not a ‘right’.
No-one has the ‘right’ to a driving licence and the quicker Parliament and the Judiciary realise this the better.
kitkat wrote:How about a
My heart agrees with you but my head doesn’t. I am all for really tough sentences but the trouble with the “banned for life” recipe being widely used is that it removes any incentive.
Probably most people that get banned take it on the chin and observe the ban. They do so because ultimately they want to drive again legally. They may also have an epiphany about what their driving habits are. they will have to sit an extended test and they will be paying huge insurance and coming to the attention of the police again for anything at all will be a miserable experience. So a ban may actually work in most cases.
But if large numbers of people are banned for life, ie all hope of ever driving again is removed then the likely outcome will be a good deal of disregard. They probably will drive. They’ll drive some dangerous old shit heap that they can abandon anytime they want. It won’t be registered to them, they won’t be insured, they won’t be stopping for the police, they are unlikely to drive with any care at all. You can’t ban them any more. You could imprison them but then you have to catch them and they won’t be pulling over.
It’s a nice idea banning people for life. I’d rather see more custodial sentences for offences that would get anywhere near that kind of ban anyway rather than just driving bans. But it may have unforeseen consequences of an increasing number of completely outlaw drivers. No licence, no tax, in a £100 car they are prepared to run off and leave if they have to.
That may not be so good.
Why is killing with a car
Why is killing with a car treated differently from killing with any other blunt object?
Just typing the sentence
Just typing the sentence ‘driving whilst banned’ seems so absurd, but I suppose of they’re caught doing it and thrown inside it is better than getting points and a ban on a license which they’ve already lost…ahhh the whole scenario is just wrong!!
gareth2510 wrote:Im shocked
10 years in prision if they get caught might. In truth surely the key is education and a sufficient penalty BUT the morons have to be willing to change their attitude
It would make sense to
It would make sense to introduce compulsory re-testing for anyone who gets more than 12 points or who is banned. And before anyone says it, there are plenty still driving out there with 12 points or more.
Belaroo wrote:It would make
It makes sense. You might go further and say licenses only last for a period of time before they have to be renewed and a refresher test must be taken.
People require licenses for other dangerous items such as flying aeroplanes and guns. But those licenses do not have a unlimited lifespan and I think the evidence is that automobiles in the UK kill far more people than guns or aeroplanes put together.
Too little too late, the
Too little too late, the horse has already bolted.
When will we see ALL driving offences taken seriously before they are able to do anything even more dangerous?
Answer: Never.
So the increased sentence
So the increased sentence only applies once the banned driver has killed someone.
No doubt it was easier to pass this as a law but I do not think this will deter anyone and no length of sentence will bring a person back.
They need to push further now and make it law that anyone caught driving without a license will also get a prison sentence otherwise the license is meaningless.
yes … how do you get away
yes … how do you get away with more than 12 points AND still keep your license !!!!!!!!!!!
Quote:So the increased
Exactly. It’s completely missing the point.
One of the examples cited involves a driver who had already been convicted of driving whilst disqualified 11 times. This new law wouldn’t have prevented the deaths that he eventually went on to cause.
There was an excellent suggestion made here a week or so ago that driving disqualifications should essentially be suspended sentences: drive whilst banned and serve the rest of your ban inside.
The answer would be to send
The answer would be to send more people to jail, and for longer periods. In addition make prison a less welcoming place to be. Of course it is cheaper to watch people being killed on the roads everyday than it is to lock up a criminal in HMP The Ritz. Yes, I have seen the inside of one of the newest prisons and its luxurious.
dreamlx10 wrote:The answer
Prison is an expensive option and bear in mind that while in there, people don’t earn anything to pay for their families or pay taxes, becoming instead a burden on the state. Some of those in prison may not have been paying taxes anyway, but by no means all.
OldRidgeback wrote:
Prison is
S’all about the money….for shame
ct wrote:OldRidgeback
And quite often dont learn anything either. It isnt always the most sensible option but must be there and usable when the case requires it.
SB76 wrote:ct
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.
OldRidgeback wrote:SB76
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.— OldRidgeback
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
SB76 wrote:OldRidgeback
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.— ct
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— OldRidgeback
Prevention is actually significantly cheaper than the cure in most instances.
SB76 wrote:Sadly prevention
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.
jacknorell wrote:SB76
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.
dreamlx10 wrote:The answer
I have sympathy with your first two points but not the third. I don’t demand people in prison be made to suffer, I just want them kept away from me for a reasonable length of time. As driving bans are apparently almost unenforcable*, the only time I can be sure a dangerous driver isn’t out there menacing people is when they are banged up. But I don’t feel any urge to brutalise them while they are there (which may just make them worse).
*though surely some way can be found to improve this situation?
dreamlx10 wrote: Of course it
On average I bet a person would pay more tax if they die naturally than it costs to imprison someone for driving whilst banned.
Or to put it another way – dead people don’t pay tax either.
Quite a small step forward,
Quite a small step forward, won’t make much of a difference, but a good idea in terms of natural justice, I think.
Although I do feel we have to
Although I do feel we have to be careful how the law sentences drivers who kill others in accidents. I do feel that leniency has to be given to many drivers who cause accidents and kill or badly injure other road users etc. If a genuine accident has happened then I personally wouldn’t want someone to be punished for an accident for example skidding on ice and not being able to stop etc.
Where the car driver has been banned but then still continues to drive, I feel that 6 or even 10 years is not enough especially in the high profile cases which have been mentioned.
A ban is a ban break the ban face harsh consequences. !
It is good to see the law slowly but surely starting to wake up to the issues and making sure people are punished for dangerous driving.
Speed limit in towns should be 20mph and cars should be designed so it is easy to drive at that speed in towns.
We should have cars that drive themselves NOW !
I have huge sympathy for any
I have huge sympathy for any family that has been affected by death or injury resulting from a road accident whilst on a bike.
However, I am of the belief that only those who pose a danger to society should be behind bars. If a driver has killed or seriously injured a person by accident and is truly remorseful, then I believe a long term or lifetime driving ban should be given.
Still those that repeatedly break this ban and do pose a danger on the roads should be locked up.
However, I am of the belief
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?
Am I the only one reading
Am I the only one reading this as we have banned you from driving but we know that regardless of that you will drive anyway so you better watch out, because if you kill anyone we will be really cross and lock you up…so just go careful and drive safe (even though you’re banned).
There’s still a twisted logic
There’s still a twisted logic in our society that assumes that have a driving license is a necessity to earn a living and this prevents the law-makers from applying the full weight of the law to those that kill and maim.
Grayling is a frickin’ idiot
Grayling is a frickin’ idiot if he thinks this tinkering will halt the slaughter of cyclists on the roads. Not only this but he gives me the creeps. The point is drivers who seriously injure or KILL whether licensed insured etc or not should face lengthy driving bans or life bans which begin when they have served their lengthy prison sentences i.e. 10 years, yes 10 years if they kill. Does he think we cyclists are mugs believing that what he is proposing will make our journeys any safer? Of course it won’t, not a jot of difference. If he does then he’s a bigger fool than he already is. It is business as usual AFAIAC. The government won’t lock these dangerous fuckers up for a long time as it costs money and the prisons are already full to bursting. Why not give them a life time driving ban and a bicycle and tell them to get riding preferably on a busy A-road with lots of trucks, WVM and buses on? This should scare the shit out of them, hopefully. They might even get killed which would be a plus. Taste of their own medicine …………..
Still lame. To choose to
Still lame. To choose to drive whilst disqualified is to choose to stick your middle finger up to society and put your own interests ahead of every other road user. Getting disqualified in the first place is incredibly tricky, no traffic police, cameras turned off and apathetic courts accepting all manner of lame excuses.
On top of all that to then get behind the wheel when you’re clearly a menace to society is surely akin to roaming the streets with a shotgun taking pot shots at people.
Disqualified means no insurance is covering you, so your victim is also faced if they survive with the farcical and over burdened motors insurance bureau who look to pay out less than the typically menial sum already allocated for serious injury.
Ten years will rarely be given, out in 4 at the most so in reality nothing much will change. Is this really the best we can do after all the lobbying and heart ache?! Poor Mr. Grayling, must try harder.
Can’t see anything changing,
Can’t see anything changing, there may be allowances for more severe sentencing but it will be down to the judges to determine the sentences and therein lies the problem for us simple people. We will still not be able to get our heads round killers walking free or undue leniency.
antonio wrote:Can’t see
No It’s not for judges to determine the sentences. It’s for judges to apply the appropriate sentences set out in the sentencing guidelines. There is a some judgement required to match the guideline sentence to the individual circumstance but that’s a narrow path. They then have to set out in writing why they applied the sentence guidelines in the way that they did. If they go beyond the guidelines or make perverse judgements then they set themselves up for an appeal.
It is a myth often expounded here that judges and magistrates are the problem. I don’t think they are. The court procedures are well regulated and in court there’s a professional on either side making sure the proceedings are by the book.
The problem exists above and below the court level.
1 The police may not report correctly, may not collect evidence properly.
2 The CPS may not charge correctly or may decide to charge for a definite conviction for a lower offence rather than mess their figures up by pushing for a higher offence and having more acquittals.
3 Parliament sets and defines the laws and the sentences to be applied and the circumstances to be taken into account for sentencing and charging.
Because it’s a judge or a magistrate that delivers the decision they tend to be the focus for blame. But all they do is ensure that the trial is fair. That the burden of proof matches the charge laid by the CPS, make sure the evidence collected by the police and others is appropriate according to law and if a conviction is the result then they apply the sentence which was set by Parliament and guidelined by the sentencing council.
This does seem like a step in
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
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…
farrell wrote:Do these new
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.
There are some really unlucky
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.
stumps wrote:There are some
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????
mrmo wrote:stumps wrote:There
I wish i had a lass slap my backside ! sorry sidetracked there 😀
I am genuinely interested as
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.
arfa wrote:I am genuinely
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.
*laughs at the last post*
*laughs at the last post*
Where to start, where to start.
I have no issue with a
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”
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
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.
It was Helen Pidd, Northern
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
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
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.