Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Simplify and improve the legal definitions of unsafe driving says Cycling UK

Cycling UK campaigning to end road traffic injustice

Cycling UK has called for clarity on the legal definitions for unsafe driving, renewing its call for the Government to undertake an urgent review of road traffic laws. “Every death or serious injury is a tragedy but too often families are also being let down by loopholes and a legal system that victims and bereaved relatives don’t think treats road crime seriously,” said Duncan Dollimore, the charity’s head of campaigns.

“Road crime is real crime,” he added, “and today we’re calling on the Government to take action and carry out the full review of road traffic offences, as it promised four years ago.”

Cycling UK says significant improvements could be made by addressing three key areas:

  • By simplifying and improving the legal definitions of unsafe driving behaviour
  • By increasing the use of driving disqualifications and closing the ‘exceptional hardship’ loophole
  • By increasing the current six month maximum prison sentence for drivers who fail to stop

The campaign is being supported by Brake, the road safety charity, and Roadpeace, the national charity for road crash victims.

If you agree with the campaign and want to add your voice, you can do so here.

Cycling UK points to two prominent cases which it says highlight the need for a review.

In 2015, cyclist Lee Martin was killed by driver Christopher Gard who was texting at the wheel of his van. Gard had been convicted of using his phone while driving on six previous occasions but had been allowed to keep his licence.

In 2014, Michael Mason died after he was hit from behind by a driver on Regent Street in London. The driver claimed she didn’t see him.  After the police declined to charge her, a private prosecution was brought for causing death by careless driving.

After the driver was acquitted, Mason's daughter, Anna Tatton-Brown, said: "It seems that failing to be aware of what’s in front of you while you’re driving is an acceptable mistake, not careless, and that no explanation for that failure is necessary.”

Earlier this month, the Department for Transport announced it was opening a consultation into new offences of causing death by careless or serious cycling.

Cycling UK believes this is merely tinkering around the edges of road safety and that the Government should use the opportunity to fulfil its commitment to a wider review, promised in 2014.

Dollimore said: “Since the Government made that promise, it’s estimated that over 1,800 pedestrians have died on Britain’s roads.

“In 2016, the last full year we have full casualty figures for, 445 pedestrians died in collisions with motor vehicles, and three in collisions with cyclists, but the Government plan to review cycling offences and ignore the main cause of road danger.

“This is a serious issue being overlooked by the Government, especially when you consider that in the last ten years 99.4% of all pedestrian deaths involved a motor vehicle.

“It’s time the Government took this problem seriously and ended the injustice suffered by far too many families who are being let down by the system.”

Cycling UK has released a video to coincide with the launch of its campaign, and is urging as many people as possible to take action by following its campaign action.”

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

12 comments

Avatar
Bob's Bikes | 5 years ago
0 likes

Perhaps I should clarify my comment, scrap driving with undue care and attention because the wording between the two offences is so wooly and vague making it easier for the CPS to cop out and go for the lesser offence than prosecute properly.  I also agree with others here that driving offences should be judged by a panel of experts rather than a jury of (poss) biased car drivers thinking that could have be me being prosecuted for a (in their minds) trivial offence.

Avatar
Bob's Bikes | 5 years ago
3 likes

It's quite simple really, if you are not in perfect control of your vehicle and aware of everything going on around you. You are a dangerous driver.

Avatar
fukawitribe replied to Bob's Bikes | 5 years ago
1 like

Bob's bikes wrote:

It's quite simple really, if you are not in perfect control of your vehicle and aware of everything going on around you. You are a dangerous driver.

That just makes everyone, in or on any vehicle, a dangerous driver.

Avatar
Hirsute replied to Bob's Bikes | 5 years ago
0 likes

Bob's bikes wrote:

It's quite simple really, if you are not in perfect control of your vehicle and aware of everything going on around you. You are a dangerous driver.

I stalled the van I hired on my first short trip in it. By your definition, that makes me a dangerous driver.

Avatar
vonhelmet replied to Hirsute | 5 years ago
2 likes

hirsute wrote:

Bob's bikes wrote:

It's quite simple really, if you are not in perfect control of your vehicle and aware of everything going on around you. You are a dangerous driver.

I stalled the van I hired on my first short trip in it. By your definition, that makes me a dangerous driver.

Hell, I’ve been known to stall my car three times just trying to reverse into my own drive.

Avatar
Pushing50 | 5 years ago
1 like

Both forms signed and sent with a link put on my Strava club page for others to do the same if they feel necessity and conviction to do the same.

Avatar
Pushing50 | 5 years ago
8 likes

I am thinking of lobbying the LTDA to get their influence behind this campaign and also Ms Alexander and Mr Briggs. I am counting on their support for these changes.

Avatar
davel replied to Pushing50 | 5 years ago
2 likes

Pushing50 wrote:

I am thinking of lobbying the LTDA to get their influence behind this campaign and also Ms Alexander and Mr Briggs. I am counting on their support for these changes.

Well, it'll expose their hypocrisy, if nothing else (and we all know it won't do anything else because their support won't be forthcoming). Twats. 

Avatar
the little onion | 5 years ago
10 likes

There is already a clear, objective minimum competency of driving - unfortunately, it is only applied when taking a driving test, but seems to be totally irrelevant once a driving license has been granted. As others have pointed out - dangerous driving should be defined as "would driving of this standard lead to a failed driving test?"

Avatar
Grahamd replied to the little onion | 5 years ago
2 likes

the little onion wrote:

There is already a clear, objective minimum competency of driving - unfortunately, it is only applied when taking a driving test, but seems to be totally irrelevant once a driving license has been granted. As others have pointed out - dangerous driving should be defined as "would driving of this standard lead to a failed driving test?"

Seems entirely reasonable, all we need is the CPS to have some expert driving examiners turn up in court and say so, with the judge instructing the jury to heed the expert view; add presumed liability and we would be getting closer.

 

Avatar
WiznaeMe | 5 years ago
9 likes

There should be no jury trials for Careless Driving.  Scotland doesn’t use juries for offences of this gravity.

Careless driving should be renamed to underline the risks the driver took with the safety of others.  Perhaps Unsafe Driving.

Offending motorists should be asked, “would you expect to fail your driving test if you drove in that manner”. If the answer is yes then the driving was unsafe.

 

Avatar
ktache | 5 years ago
4 likes

It is my belief that the arbitrary definitions of careless and dangerous should not be left to the "competent" drivers on the jury but more to minor and major faults in the driving test.

I have added this comment to the stock letters generated by CyclingUK as well as a request to please make our roads safer.

Latest Comments