Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Back to news
news
Crime & Legal
Government
MPs to debate killer hit-and-run drivers after petitions hit 100,000 signaturesBig Ben © Simon MacMichael

MPs to debate killer hit-and-run drivers after petitions hit 100,000 signatures

House of Commons debate will take place on Monday 15 November
by Simon_MacMichael
Thu, Nov 04, 2021 14:58
11

Members of Parliament will debate hit-and-run drivers who kill other road users later this month, with two petitions on the subject passing the 100,000-signature threshold needed for the issue to be considered by the Backbench Business Committee.

It has now been confirmed that the debate will be held on Monday 15 November. Debates tabled by the Backbench Business Committee, whether as a result of application from an MP or following a petition, often take place in Westminster Hall rather than the main chamber of the House of Commons.

They do however provide an opportunity for MPs to raise their own concerns on the issue being debated, and are attended by a minister to give a response on behalf of the government, as well as proceedings being broadcast live on the UK Parliament YouTube channel.

The earlier of the two petitions, posted by the parents of two young men who were killed while riding motorbikes by drivers who fled the scene, closed in January this year after being hosted on the Parliament.uk website for six months, and attracted 104,324 signatures.

The petition said: “The maximum penalty for failure to stop after an incident is points and a 6-month custodial sentence. Causing death by careless/dangerous driving is between 5-14 yrs. The sentence for failing to stop after a fatal collision must be increased.”

The second, which gained 167,640 signatures, closed in September and called for the introduction of what was termed “Ryan’s Law” – named after Ryan Saltern, who was left to die by a driver who struck him in his vehicle then fled the scene.

> Government rejects “Ryan’s Law” petition on killer hit-and-run drivers

That petition called for the definition of causing death by dangerous driving to be widened to include “failure to stop, call 999 and render aid on scene until further help arrives.” 

Once petitions hosted on the Parliament website reach 10,000 signatures, the government is obliged to give a response to the issues raised therein, and in the case of these two petitions, those came from different government departments – the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) for the former and the Department for Transport (DfT) for the latter.

Much of the wording of both responses was identical, or as near as makes no difference, with each stating that “the offence of failing to stop should not be used to punish an offender for a serious, but not proven, offence.”

Both highlighted that the vast majority of failure to stop cases relate to what were described as “low level incidents,” giving the example of a driver clipping the wing mirror of another vehicle in a narrow street, typically punishable on conviction by a fine.

The two responses acknowledged that in more serious cases that attracted charges such as causing death by dangerous or careless driving, failure to stop would be considered as an aggravating factor by the courts as an aggravating factor.

They also pointed out that where a motorist had taken steps to avoid detection, that could amount to perverting the course of justice, for which the maximum penalty on conviction is life imprisonment.

In its reply to the Ryan’s Law petition, the DfT added: “The Government takes this issue seriously. The Department for Transport is looking into the issue of such incidents of failure to stop resulting in death or serious injury, and exploring whether there are further options that can be pursued.”

Ryan's Law
hit-and-run
House of Commons
Simon MacMichael

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.

Add new comment

11 comments

Avatar
eburtthebike | 2 years ago
7 likes

"In its reply to the Ryan’s Law petition, the DfT added: “The Government takes this issue seriously."

So seriously that they've shelved the review of road law which would have examined this issue, along with the hundreds of others that allow dangerous, callously indifferent to the safety of other people, drivers.  I look forward to the usual weasel words of support followed by complete lack of action that this government is justly famous for when asked to provide justice for vulnerable road users.

Avatar
chrisonabike | 2 years ago
5 likes

Quote:

The two responses acknowledged that in more serious cases that attracted charges such as causing death by dangerous or careless driving, failure to stop would be considered as an aggravating factor

They also pointed out that where a motorist had taken steps to avoid detection, that could amount to perverting the course of justice, for which the maximum penalty on conviction is life imprisonment.

I'm grateful ("so 'umbly grateful") that this is actually being discussed by important people - and that might actually be the end itself.

However the government's responses to the petition were exactly the "we have a name for it so therefore we have managed the issue" blindness / brush-off I've mentioned before.

Can anyone point to any actual instance of a lying motorist getting sentenced to anything near life because of trying to avoid detection ("perverting the course...")? What about evidence this has actually been taken as an aggravating factor? Far as I can see it's more the other way e.g. I panicked so I drove off - I was in such shock...

Avatar
brooksby | 2 years ago
4 likes

Problem is, has a hit-and-run driver personally affected Johnson or his friends'n'relations?  If not, then nothing will change.

Avatar
Jenova20 replied to brooksby | 2 years ago
4 likes

brooksby wrote:

Problem is, has a hit-and-run driver personally affected Johnson or his friends'n'relations?  If not, then nothing will change.

 

He's a cyclist himself, so I expect he'd like this law if it hits his desk.

Problem seems to be the big one with sentencing: No UK Government likes increasing prison places since it's a stick used to beat them with by campaigners and the opposition - while the public just want dangerous people behind bars...But increase sentences and you need more prison places, and more prisons - And then come the comparisons with nearby countries and the amount of prisoners they have...And the further issue that no one wants a prison near them, so NIMBYers push back on this too, and it just gets shelved.

Avatar
brooksby replied to Jenova20 | 2 years ago
3 likes

Jenova20 wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Problem is, has a hit-and-run driver personally affected Johnson or his friends'n'relations?  If not, then nothing will change.

He's a cyclist himself, so I expect he'd like this law if it hits his desk.

That's very optimistic of you.

Avatar
Richard D replied to brooksby | 2 years ago
6 likes

brooksby wrote:

Jenova20 wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Problem is, has a hit-and-run driver personally affected Johnson or his friends'n'relations?  If not, then nothing will change.

He's a cyclist himself, so I expect he'd like this law if it hits his desk.

That's very optimistic of you.

Bung him £100k and you'll be sorted, though.

Avatar
Jenova20 replied to brooksby | 2 years ago
0 likes

brooksby wrote:

Jenova20 wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Problem is, has a hit-and-run driver personally affected Johnson or his friends'n'relations?  If not, then nothing will change.

He's a cyclist himself, so I expect he'd like this law if it hits his desk.

That's very optimistic of you.

All it needs is for someone to propose a law change and I expect he'd be for it. The problem is that I expect most MPs will ignore the issue again after the debate is over.

Avatar
kil0ran replied to Jenova20 | 2 years ago
7 likes

Doesn't need to increase the prison population. Longer bans backed with a custodial sentence if caught driving whilst banned are sufficient. It's more important to many victim's families that the perpetrator is prevented from killing/harming someone else rather than banging them up, which is a blunt, expensive solution.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to kil0ran | 2 years ago
2 likes

kil0ran wrote:

Doesn't need to increase the prison population. Longer bans backed with a custodial sentence if caught driving whilst banned are sufficient. It's more important to many victim's families that the perpetrator is prevented from killing/harming someone else rather than banging them up, which is a blunt, expensive solution.

There's also the chance that some victims may survive if they are rendered aid, so there could be less prison sentences given out as in theory there should be less deaths.

To be fair, the actual numbers of people that the law would affect are small, but it's stupid that currently there's a perceived incentive for not stopping and rendering assistance.

Avatar
Jenova20 replied to hawkinspeter | 2 years ago
1 like

hawkinspeter wrote:

kil0ran wrote:

Doesn't need to increase the prison population. Longer bans backed with a custodial sentence if caught driving whilst banned are sufficient. It's more important to many victim's families that the perpetrator is prevented from killing/harming someone else rather than banging them up, which is a blunt, expensive solution.

There's also the chance that some victims may survive if they are rendered aid, so there could be less prison sentences given out as in theory there should be less deaths.

To be fair, the actual numbers of people that the law would affect are small, but it's stupid that currently there's a perceived incentive for not stopping and rendering assistance.

Rendering assistance is basic human decency; even if it's just asking if someone is okay and calling an ambulance for them.

Avatar
Jenova20 replied to kil0ran | 2 years ago
0 likes

kil0ran wrote:

Doesn't need to increase the prison population. Longer bans backed with a custodial sentence if caught driving whilst banned are sufficient. It's more important to many victim's families that the perpetrator is prevented from killing/harming someone else rather than banging them up, which is a blunt, expensive solution.

Threats with prison need to be backed up with prison places, or it's an empty threat.

Latest Comments