Letter to Alistair Darling

Mr A Darling Secretary of State for Transport Department for Transport Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU

13 January 2003

Dear Mr Darling,

I can see that you are in an awkward position. Transport in the UK is in a difficult state, and the refusal of individuals to take responsibility for the consequences of their own choices makes the Government a target for the press and special interest groups. How is it your fault if two thirds of journeys under two miles are made by car? Those car drivers, selfish though they may be, are voters.

It is not, however, particularly surprising that car drivers feel immune from any responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Take the case of Peter Williams, a 22-year-old cyclist who was killed in January 2000 after a driver hit him with her wing mirror. He fell under the wheels of a following vehicle.

The driver admitted driving without due care and attention but was fined just £200. No penalty points were applied despite a history of offences which would have meant an immediate ban under “totting up.” Phillip Judge, Chairman of the Bench in Cheltenham, said a driving ban would prevent her from taking her children the two miles to school and therefore cause too much hardship.

The idea that punishments should not cause hardship to the offender is a new one to me.

Nor is this unusual. 25-year-old Carl Fox from Doncaster was killed by a driver travelling at 46mph in a 30mph zone. The driver was fined £100 and three penalty points. And Peter Longbottom, a racing cyclist of international repute, was held to have contributed to his demise by using a flashing rear light. Your department has figures showing that these, while technically illegal, are three to five times more visible than a steady light.

And more recently 17-year-old Jason Salter was knocked off his bike and killed by a woman who chose to try to overtake in the face of oncoming traffic, necessitating her passing far too close – a situation familiar to and dreaded by any regular cyclist. This triumph of impatience over respect for human life netted the driver a whopping £135 fine (less than the cost of a bicycle) and just six penalty points.

These verdicts, incredible as they are, highlight the fundamental truth in motor offence sentencing: the punishment is related to the degree of negligence, not to the outcome. But negligent discharge of a firearm carries heavy penalties, despite the fact that firearms fatalities are rare. Motoring fatalities (as you will be well aware) are not. Potters Bar, tragic though it was, equalled death toll inflicted by cars in a single day. Or rather, by drivers of the cars: let’s not forget that most car crashes are caused by driver error. The motor car is the single most dangerous object which most people will ever use in their lifetime.

A driver who is drunk faces an immediate twelve month ban, no questions asked. And rightly so – drunk drivers are more likely to kill. So why is there no mandatory ban for negligent drivers who actually do kill? This seems perverse. It is clearly too much to hope for that drivers who kill through negligence will routinely be sent to prison (although I suspect this would exert a dramatic influence on driving standards), but is it really so much to expect that a drivers whose selfishness deprives someone of their life should not be allowed to drive home from court? The phrase “adding insult to injury” fits well here, I think.

Yours sincerely,

Guy Chapman Cyclist and motorist.

Response: I did receive a response, some months later. It was essentially a form letter including the document "Tomorrow's Roads - Safer For Everyone" which sets out a strategy for making the roads safe for everyone by, basically, removing everyone who is not in a motor vehicle. Well, that's not what the stated aims are, but all the practical measures listed in the document work to that effect. I'll be discussing this in due course.