- 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
SUV driver harrassing cyclists“Dangerous driving is a choice”: Cycling and walking MPs call for tougher sentences for motorists driving larger cars, as well as strict enforcement of speed limits
Motorists who commit driving offences while behind the wheel of larger, heavier cars should receive tougher penalties, with the size and weight of the vehicle seen as an “aggravating factor” when it comes to sentencing, a new report by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Cycling and Walking (APPGCW) has advised.
The cross-party group’s report, set to be published tomorrow morning, also calls for speed limits to be strictly enforced, with the current tolerances for inaccurate readings scrapped, along with recommending that anyone who is banned from driving for a period should be forced to undertake a fresh driving test, while criticising those who use the “exceptional hardship” excuse to avoid bans.
In June, the Sentencing Council published 12 new and revised sentencing guidelines for those convicted of motoring offences in England and Wales. According to the guidelines, which came into effect on 1 July, the status of the victim in fatal and non-fatal collisions as a vulnerable road user now qualifies as an aggravating factor for judges to consider, increasing the severity of the offence and potentially increasing the sentence, and reflecting last year’s changes to the Highway Code.
The offender’s status as a commercial driver, or if they’re behind the wheel of a heavy goods vehicle or large goods vehicle, is also now listed as an aggravating factor, recognising the extra responsibility of those driving the most dangerous vehicles.
And now, in their new report, the MPs of the APPGCW have called for the measures to be expanded to include those driving the largest and heaviest private cars on the road.
“Passenger cars vary greatly in weight so the aggravating factors should, we argue, take this into account,” the report states.
However, the recommendation has been criticised by motoring campaigners, who claim the measure would do little to make the roads safer.
“Driving a 4x4 does not make you a more dangerous motorist and driving a smaller car does mean you are safer,” Claire Armstrong of the anti-speed camera campaign group Safe Speed, told the Telegraph.
“It makes no sense to suggest that killing someone while driving an SUV is worse than killing someone while riding a motorbike.”
Meanwhile, Ian Taylor, director of the Alliance of British Drivers added: “I am not anxious to be knocked down by any vehicle. That is what they should be seeking to avoid rather than fiddling with the rules to make life more restrictive.”
According to new large-scale analysis, published last month, of more than 300,000 road collisions between 2017 and 2021, the risk of serious injury increases by 90 percent and the risk of fatal injuries increases by almost 200 per cent when a pedestrian or cyclist is hit by a pick-up vehicle.
A pedestrian or cyclist hit by a car with a bonnet that is 90cm high was also found to have a 30 percent greater risk of fatal injuries than if they are hit by a vehicle whose bonnet is 10cm lower.
In the case of a crash between a 1,600kg car and a 1,300kg car, the risk of fatal injuries decreases by 50 percent for the occupants of the heavier car, while it increases by almost 80 percent for the occupants of the lighter car.
Elsewhere, the report called for all speed limits to be strictly enforced, bringing an end to the current guidelines which advise that motorists are only prosecuted if they exceed the limit by 10 percent plus two mph, a tolerance purported to account for inaccuracies in speed cameras.
The MPs argue that the current leeway offered to drivers encourages them to ignore speed limits, with the report pointing to data from 2021 which suggests that half of all British drivers exceed 30mph limits.
“If drivers exceed posted speed limits, their capacity to avoid collisions reduces and the gravity of any collision increases,” the report says. “Moreover, if the working assumption is that one can speed (to an extent) with impunity, this fosters a belief that traffic law does not need to be taken seriously.
“We hold the view that speed limits and their enforcement represent the foundation of road justice because speeding accounts for the lion’s share of offences committed on the roads. We therefore recommend that tolerances in the enforcement of speeding be removed.
“Without entering a debate about whether the removal of tolerances would be fair or feasible, we point out that mechanisms for measuring speed are now both more sophisticated and more accurate than they were when guidance was last revised.”
The group also criticised the use of the ‘exceptional hardship’ loophole by motorists seeking to avoid a driving ban after receiving 12 or more points on their licence.
Between 2017 and 2021, almost twenty five percent of motorists who amassed 12-plus points each year escaped a ban after pleading mitigating circumstances.
“If nearly one quarter of any group is treated as exceptional, there is something wrong with either the definition of the term or its application,” the report states.
“The consequence is that many drivers who should be serving a ban are instead allowed to continue driving. This is unacceptable, first because they may pose a threat to other road users and second, because it sends a signal that the totting-up disqualification can be circumvented.”
Instead, the report recommends that magistrates should no longer be able to grant exceptional hardship exemptions for points-accruing drivers, who made be made to appeal to the Crown Court.
The report also argues that anyone banned from driving for a period should be forced to take a fresh driving test before they are allowed back on the roads.
“This report is a key step in our work to redress that balance and ensure that there is true road justice. Doing so is essential if we are to unlock the walking, cycling and wheeling potential, and reap the associated benefits of that,” the APPGCW’s chair Ruth Cadbury said.
‘’We will be campaigning hard in Parliament for change on the recommendations within the report, and welcome support from those who share our commitment to this issue.’’
Active Travel England Commissioner and former world champion Chris Boardman, whose mother was killed by a careless driver while riding her bike, added: “We should remember that dangerous driving, law breaking, and endangering others is a choice.
“The recommendations in this paper simply seek to support laws that people should already be obeying and, if implemented, these measures would only negatively affect those that break the law, especially repeat offenders.
“I know personally the horrific consequences of road danger and I think these recommendations are completely consistent with what a civilised society should pursue. No one should have to go through what my family did.”
After obtaining a PhD, lecturing, and hosting a history podcast at Queen’s University Belfast, Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.
Latest Comments
- GMBasix 14 min 23 sec ago
Scared Traveller: I hear the most dangerous thing in Australia is a spider....
- brooksby 46 min 54 sec ago
Maybe everyone will be given those blue plastic shoe covers like they wear on police procedurals?
- brooksby 47 min 29 sec ago
I'm pretty sure that an act of violence which is clearly deliberate and premeditated attracts a much harsher set of laws. An act of domestic...
- eburtthebike 1 hour 12 min ago
The Daily Mail, Telegraph and GB News.........
- Tass Whitby 1 hour 20 min ago
Still available on Amazon if anyone's keen - link is in the review.
- Benthic 1 hour 25 min ago
Not AB specifically, but that sort of thing. Focus Pocus is the most entertaining.
- Benthic 1 hour 31 min ago
That question would send Daily Mail readers into turmoil.
- Dnnnnnn 1 hour 54 min ago
Was that Marchmont? I remember a £975 Claris bike there a few years ago.
- Rendel Harris 2 hours 12 min ago
It is for four months, TrainingPeaks offers a free basic athlete account and TrainingPeaks Virtual is currently free for all users until March 2025...
Add new comment
86 comments
By rights it should be smaller? So now you're saying that everyone should be told what car they can drive, so that they have no choice at all?
Physics like the climate breakdown really is a thing. Taxing the b'jesus out of heavy, polluting or dangerous vehicles should be encouraged, they're just too hazardous. You want to drive a wankpanzer? No problem; vehicle execise duty of £3,500 p.a. You want to drive a pickup? No problem, vehicile excise duty of £3,500 p.a. Ronald Reagan was wrong about many things but he got this right, if you want to discourage something tax it heavily. Personally I believe that the public's right to a healthy environment and safe roads should be encouraged and anything that negatively impacts upon it should be heavily discouraged. Perhaps you disagree that your fellow citizens are worth it; that's your choice.
You are already effectively told what car you can drive, there are restrictions based on emissions, size, weight and safety. The idea that regulation of vehicle dimensions or emissions is somehow an attack on freedom is a silly Americanism beloved of silly people. In addition, your supposed right to drive large vehicles does not triumph over the rights of others to be safe on the road.
Just remind me again, you were the guy complaining that I followed you around? Cos it feels a bit creepy that you have to comment on everything I post.
No you are not told what to drive. As long as it is road legal, I can chose literally any car I want to drive, anywhere pretty much. That's regulations for manufacturers, not on buyers
You've completely twisted it like usual too - it's not about regulation of dimensions - there always will be big and small cars. This is about regulation and restriction on what an individual can purchase, depending on their "supposed needs" which is quite frankly authoritarian and a direct attack on personal liberty.
Not to mention, you could have a family, so you have a Volvo XC90. But then you also use the big car to commute to work sometimes. What are you meant to do then?
Just to remind you, you were banned from this site under your previous thisismyusername in part for abusing me, you returned using the username Rendel Harriz and then when you were stopped from using that you changed it to Ledner Sirrah. I think it's pretty clear to everybody who the creepy obsessive is.
I don't comment on everything you post, I just comment on the stuff that is really, really stupid and promotes car driving over alternative transport and incorporates irrelevant alt-right drivel. Admittedly that is virtually everything you post.
Weren't Road Legal known for being campaigners on wide range of civil rights issue (e.g. against driver licencing, de-restriction of the sale of fissile materials, "right to roam" legislation including access to people's closets, and the right to arm bears)?
IIRC they latterly became associated with the alt-right following incidents in which they realised that music on their website could be downloaded without bothering to pay them and an incident in which a fan's children made off with the group's friendship bands.
It's a good job that rather than focus on the substance of my comment, you choose to pick up on that comment. It seems like your conscience has been pricked somewhat. Perhaps you would now kindly "get lost" and stop bothering me.
As ever, sweetie, your own words do far more to prove what a silly little attention-seeking-previously-banned (I notice you never deny the truth about that) alt-right-pro-car-road.cc-hating troll you are than mine ever could. Get well soon.
Choice of car does affect driving style and, if course, effect of an impact, whether driven well or recklessly.
For example, we bought a 2nd hand automatic Ford Galaxy to transport 7 people plus a bag each in comfort up to 250 miles each way or tools for heavy-duty diy. It followed advice from two neighbours then another copied us. All 4 of us noted how sedate they are to drive. They encourage and facilitate a no-stress awareness of everything driving style. Easy to crawl, keep to 20mph, do economy driving near 60mpg on motorway or hold 70mph. So much easier than our previous smaller cars with small engines and higher revving with constant gear changing to hold 20, 30, 40, or 50 mph. Galaxy also takes bikes inside with seats down. We, and neighbours chose them for what they turned put to be. Some were getting rid of performance cars from before retirement and commented on change to how they drove.
I've nearly stopped cycling due to huge 4*4 vehicles filling lanes, wildly reckless ebikes and escooters, very reckless cyclists, mass cycling by people with no idea of any road discipline, pedestrians glued to phones. Walking, driving, bus, tube, train (old age travel passes) vs drag of carrying locks, using locks, attaching and detaching lights. Shame. 45 years riding, often very fast for long distances, mostly in, around, through, under, over London while obeying Highway Code and letting pedestrians cross in safety. Remember the days when just a few of us and East Ham to Central London or Horsham to Hampstead or tube East Ham to Earls Court was faster by bicycle.
Of course the past 20 years growth in bike use is good in principle. But now becoming ashamed of being labelled a cyclist as I walk with older, frailer friends and family
Personally I think the whole points system should be scrapped. If you are caught doing something that would have meant failing your driving test, you should get an automatic ban.
To drive again would require re-passing your test.
There's currently a 6 month wait to get a driving test. That would be quite some incentive to stick to the limits!
I htink there is room for a warning for speeding under certain circumstances. There are a few roads around me where the limits are ambiguous.
Perhaps a course after your first offense then you have to pass your test again.
Other offenses should have an immediate license revocation.
Exceptional hardship excuses should be banned. If you know you are completely dependant on your license for work or to care for someone or any other reason then you shouldn't have broken the law multile times.
This is extremely relevant:
I can think of places where the speed limit is unknown due to the sign being buried in shrubs.
Highways authorities do not seem to worry about this.
I am planning on taking the petrol hedge cutter out soon !
Battery powered, surely?
Personally I would keep the points system.
But courts should all but be required to order you repass your test within x months (or lose your licence). So not immediately banned, but required to prove soon that you can drive to test standard.
Equally ANY exceptional hardship should automatically include a LONG suspended driving ban. I.e. any driving offence within 10 years will result in a ban 10x as long as it would have originally been (in addition to anything else) even if the offence normally wouldn't result in a ban.
Finally, Driving while disqualified should:
Proving that you CAN drive to test standards is of no value to the rest of us, if you choose not to do so when out and about without scrutiny.
Oh dear, how are you going to police mirror checking? And ensure people indicate at exactly the right times, or even reverse round a corner correctly?
Those things, if done in a way that doesn't cause danger, are minors, not cause for failure.
And if you are caught reversing round a corner in a way that causes danger to others of course you should lose your driving license, if you can't do the simplest things safely how are you going to handle exceptional or unexpected circumstances?
I'm not a driving instructor or a examiner. But it doesn't take much brain power to know that if you don't check mirrors before setting off, it means you don't know whether it is safe to proceed or not. Therefore, it is a major not to check mirrors. Just because you might not check them and 9/10 times it's fine, the last time you may have an accident.
You also contradict yourself - you say that not checking mirrors is only a minor, not a cause for failure, but then proclaim about if you cant do the "simplest" things. Last time i checked (lol) checking mirrors was pretty simple.
Erm, because you would have pulled out/ across in front of someone and caused them to take avoiding measures , or caused a collision, or opened their door on a cyclist, or totally missed the Police Car behind with big flashing blue lights. There are lots of reasons it is obvious a mirror check hasn't been carried out.
So who would drive the taxis?
Also, compare and contrast with today's news stories about banning dangerous breeds of dogs, and the relative culpability of the dog and breed versus the owner. We can ban dogs on the basis that they can be dangerous if in the hands of negligent owners. But somehow it is outrageous to do this with motor vehicles.
Claire Armstrong's objections sound a lot like "guns don't kill people, people kill people", and "let's talk about knife crime not mass shootings" in the US.
(but we will ignore the fact that machine guns allow you to kill a lot of people easily and quickly)
I'm just waiting for "thoughts and prayers for the victims" from Claire Armstrong
Actually Claire, driving a 4x4 does, 100% make you a more dangerous motorist because the same standard of driving creates more dangerous results so, in order to be just as safe as someone driving a smaller vehicle you have to drive at a higher standard.
I'd rather see vehicle weight/engine power restrictions on drivers with points than harsher penalties for those making mistakes.
9 points or more? 100hp and 1.5t limit. No "exceptional hardship" claim. After all we limit the engine size for motorbike riders until they can prove they can operate their vehicle safely, why not limit car drivers when they have proved they cannot operate their vehicle safely?
As the article points out, Claire Armstrong's statement that driving an SUV does not make you more dangerous is factually wrong.
Good idea. Can we please also have additional and more rigorous licensing and testing requirements for people who want to drive the new behemoths? Every day on Albert Bridge I see people easing their wankpanzers through the width restrictions at a snail's pace - sometimes the passenger even has to get out and guide them through. It does not fill one with confidence that their judgement of distance is going to be any better when they pass one by at 40mph.
"Driving a 4x4 does not make you a more dangerous motorist and driving a smaller car does mean you are safer,” Claire Armstrong of the anti-speed camera campaign group Safe Speed, told the Telegraph(link is external)."
Claire Armstrong denies the physical laws of kinetic energy. But probably not surprising from someone who very likely is also a climate denier.. ..
(Presumably "driving a smaller car doesn't mean you are safer"?)
They always used to say "you might be great... but why stack the odds against yourself?"
What if my 4x4 is a Fiat Panda?
Pages