Return to: Home | Politics | Environment

14 comments from readers

jeff baker
20 April 2007 at 18:32

Mark Lynas is completely on the button with this article. The media need to get behind the campaign to bring justice to the excessive number of car crash victims and highlight the extent of this carnage when compared to other crimes. Jeff Baker Exeter

Liz Voysey
21 April 2007 at 15:57

Thank you Mark for this. Seeing that someone does really "Get it " is very helpful.

When the Governent took the crime of killing with your car out of "Criminal Law" and put it into a "Special Category of its own". It intitiated the beginning of the end for Justice for the innocent victims who are kiiled on our roads. There are 3,500 deaths on our roads each year. That equates to a 9/11 every year or 12 plane loads of holdiay makers. Yet less than 300 of the drivers responsible for the deaths are charged with more than "Careless Driving" and so their cases are not heard in Crown Court where the sentence can be as high as 14 years imprisonment. Its only when you become involved in this farce of a Justice System do you realise that when a driver is charged with "Careless Driving" at NO POINT IN TIME are the consequences of his criminal act taken into account when sentencing. Magistrates are there to supposedly hear Minor Offences only and this charge falls into this catagorey even when a driver has killed someone because the death is legally totally errelevant. The Magistrates must not take it into account that the driver has caused a death and the details of the victim are not even recorded in the Courts records. It is as if the victim never existed. In the case you mention about Robert Harris. Not one penalty point or £1 of his fine was for the killing of those innocent people. In the eyes of the Law they were of no consequence. (see legal guidelines for the CPS http//cps.gov.uk/legal/section9/chapter_b.html)

As you rightly say "Top Gear" and J.Clarkson have a huge responsiblity when producing their show. They are selling a dream which irresponsible drivers will try to emulate with no regard for other people or the law. There is no balance within these programmes to address road safety. When he comes out with flippant comments about Richard Hammond surving his crash and it not being related to speed he seriously crosses the line. The Press and media also have a huge responsiblity when reporting road crashes.

The constant refererence to a crash or collision as an "Accident" is most inappropriate and a deeply upsetting term to the bereaved families of road crash vicitims. They are never accidents! To add even more pain if this were possible these life altering and devasting crashes are tucked in with the travel news just before the weather update. Often with a cheery smile the presenter will report of an "A" and with an apologetic voice advise the poor motorists that they may be late for work or home for dinner because a road has been blocked because of a crash. Reported only as a mere inconvenience to other road users. However, the main news will always report in detail about a train crash or plane crash., not an "A" or as heard recently the crash of a ferry boat into a yacht. The number of casualties and fatalities will be mentioned and names and places. The next few days will see the scene swampted with investigators, Victims support personal ,lawyers and the like and be discussed for days and weeks. Someone will be held accountable and charged. This will of course reflect the seriousness of the gross negligence or crimanality of the accused. Reports will be published listing many changes in proceedure and law to make sure the tradegy is not repeated. Whereas if simlar circumstances prevailed when the perpetrator was a driver of a ton of metal called a car it would be a quick observation. Pushed through to the CPS. They would opt for the lowest charge they thought they could away with so as to ensure a conviction saving time and money. And anyway its only one more death on the roads. "NEXT!".

If you think I sound bitter and twisted and manic you are absolutely right. My 19 old daughter was killed by a driver who crashed into the back of her stranded car in broad daylight on a straight strech of dual carriageway doing over 80 mph. Apparently he didn't see her hazards, the brake lights of the other vehicles who managed to negotiate round her and the flashing headlights of the oncoming vehciles. He was charged with "Careless Driving" and got a £300 fine and 7 points on his licence. Not even a ban. I have been comapaigning for the last 3 years for offences and sentences that will punish and deterr but still we wait. Well all I can say is to all you politicians and Whitehall lackies you want to pray it never happens to you.

Liz Voysey Dereham

Bridget M J Wall
21 April 2007 at 19:16

I agree with Mark Lynas

Please allow me the opportunity, which I have been denied thus far, to enlighten you as to how the Crown Prosecution Service and the Legal System fails the Innocent Road Crash Victim and the bereaved parents and families of the Innocent Road Crash Victims. The innocent victims who are blameless and who have been contributing to society and who have everything to look forward to have been horrifically and violently killed in an unprovoked attack, by another road user who used their vehicle as a lethal weapon whilst committing criminal offences and Playing Russian Roulette with innocent lives.

I speak from bitter experience in the failure of the CPS to present the true facts and actually mislead and withhold vital information together with the Police, so as to prosecute for a minor offence and give impunity to a killer, which prevented a Death by Dangerous Driving prosecution and Perverting the Course of Justice Prosecution and possible a Gross Negligent Manslaughter prosecution.

My only son, Adam aged 24, had his precious young life suddenly, horrifically, brutally, and violently wiped out by a van driver who pulled out of a junction in front of Adam as Adam rode his motorbike on Monday 4th November 2002. The police told me that Adam had done nothing wrong and that he was blameless. I was told that the driver who caused the crash and killed Adam was to be prosecuted. We, the parents and families of the innocent road crash victims, believe that justice will carried out and the killer will be prosecuted for causing the violent death of an innocent unsuspecting human being as a result of this killer driver’s criminal act.

I was due to go into hospital the same date as Adam’s Inquest and asked the police officer should I postpone my hospital admission, but I was told by the police officer that the Inquest was ‘just a formality and I did not need to be there’. (He failed in his duty by not informing me how important the Inquest is or that it could have been postponed). And at that time I had believed in Truth, Justice and Protection of the Law for the Innocent, but I was in for a rude awaking!

The day of the First magistrates’ court hearing, having had to find our own way to the Court building, my sister and I then had to look on a board for the room and time of the killer’s hearing. We had to find the room and seat ourselves – No Assistance offered. Adam’s killer driver failed to attend the 1st Hearing, and although it is supposed to be against Court Rules, he sent a fax to say he would not be attending. Not a thought from this killer driver for me sitting in the Courtroom. Not the actions of a sorry man! No explanation was given to me as to why he was not attending. I had no idea what was going or indeed anything about the CPS, as the CPS person did not have the manners to speak to me or inform me as to court procedures. In fact I had assumed the Clerk was the solicitor.

At the 2nd hearing, on 13th March 2003, I was still unaware of the CPS representative. Adam’s killer was prosecuted for “Careless Driving”, fined £180 and 6 penalty points. No one explains about court procedures and what is going to happen in court. No one is there in the courtroom to look after us. You sit there, in the courtroom, in a living nightmare not believing this is really happening. You hear the killer’s solicitor talking about this driver (killer) needing his licence and trying to reduce the fine of £180. You are waiting for the magistrate to say Adam’s name and this man is guilty of causing Adam’s horrific death. I wanted to scream, but was too traumatised to do or say anything. I could not believe that the magistrate did not mention Adam’s name. The magistrate did not acknowledge that Adam’s death had occurred. (Yet on jury duty, one is given help in abundance, information and even expenses!!!!!)

I was to find out months later that is normal practice in the magistrates’ court:

· To Treat the Death of the Innocent Road Crash Victim as Irrelevant

· Not to take the Death of the Innocent Road Crash Victim Into Account

· There is no obligation on the magistrate to Acknowledge the fact that the Death of an Innocent Person has occurred and they do not have to Mention the Innocent Person’s Name

· The Death of the Innocent Victim is Not Even Recorded –

· In the eye of Our So-Called Law the Innocent Blameless Road Crash Victim did not EXIST.

· And to add insult to the above mockery of truth, justice and protection of the Law, We, the bereaved parents and families, of Innocent Road Crash Victims are NOT Afforded the Right of Appeal. And NO Right of Appeal even though the Truth had been withheld and we had been mislead.

· This must be the greatest injustice and a violation of Human Rights and everything that our forefathers fought for in wars. Freedom, Liberty, Equality, Justice – All of which are continually violated, used and abused when it comes to Innocent Road Crash Victims.

Having taken Adam precious young life, this killer walked past me in courtroom so complacent and arrogant followed by his wife and son without an apology for what he had done. Showing no remorse or shame, the arrogant killer who walked free from court – posed for the newspaper photographs outside the court.

I found later that the killer’s excuse for not attending the 1st hearing was he had to find character witnesses. I have since found out (through research) that the killer should not have been allowed an Adjournment as an Adjournment is only allowed if it is in the interest of Justice. Searching for character witnesses is not in the interest of Justice – he had over Five months to do this. A reporter at the farce of a hearing, seeing how distressed I was and that I had no idea what was going on, gave me information on Brake and RoadPeace Road Safety charities – through their literature I found I could purchase Adam’s police and inquest reports (the killer receives his free). Adam’s post mortem report, I obtained free of charge.

Can you imagine reading these Reports (although I only read bits, as it was too awful) Seven Months following Adam’s horrific, Brutal, Violent Death – The following vital information was withheld from me:

· The killer driver pulled out of a junction and did not use the junction correctly and drove into Adam. Adam was riding his motorcycle, which had twin headlights on.

· Having caused the crash, the killer drove off and did not stop to help Adam This killer driver, without a though and with a blatant disregard for an injured Human Being, left Adam lying horrifically injured, helpless and unprotected in the middle of the road. He carried on but had to stop due to his damaged van.

· A witness following Adam jumped out of her car and waved down a lorry to prevent the lorry from running over Adam as Adam lay helpless. Adam did not lose his life instantly as I had been told.

· This killer driver, by his own admission, was wearing defective glasses.

· The killer driver was on his mobile to his wife around the time he killed Adam.

· The killer did not even have the decency to telephone the emergency services to get help for Adam.

The Killer driver’s despicable, cowardly, heinous crime of leaving Adam lying helpless and unprotected in the road is Perverting the Course of Justice and with all the other criminal offences, he should (if there was such a thing as Truth and Justice and Protection of the Law) have been charged with Gross Negligence Manslaughter – or the very least Death by Dangerous Driving.

Adam was left lying alone in the road for three hours. I was denied being with Adam and holding Adam in his last minutes. This is also a continuous torture, knowing Adam was so near me and I could not be with him so that he was not alone and was with someone who loved him.

During the killer’s farce of a police interview when asked who serviced his van, the killer replied he did and that he was running the van into the ground. He also failed to mention that he had a weekend business and well as his weekday work.

And When I eventually spoke to Peter Tidey from the CPS on 29th April 2004, having first contacted CPS H.O. in London and they wrote to Peter Tidey only then did he agree to a very brief meeting. When I asked, amongst all the other offences Adam’s killer had committed, why he had not charged the killer driver for leaving Adam in the road. His crass unfeeling reply was, “Well Mrs Wall, it would not have altered the outcome would it”. Meaning that it was OK for the killer not to stop, as Adam would have not lived. What a crass callous insensitive remark for a professional to make

To add insult to the overwhelmingly, unimaginable suffering, our grief is all the more compounded because we, the bereaved parents and families of Innocent Road Crash Victims, are not afforded the Right of Appeal. We have no Right of Appeal even though many of us had no idea what happened to cause the crash/collision or what the killer had done until we are able to PURCHASE the Police and Inquest Reports, but we cannot purchase the Reports until after the court hearing. But the killer who was given impunity and was prosecuted for a minor motoring offence only, is able to appeal. There is no other criminal act, which does not hold the person who has caused the death of another responsible.

Now that the new offence of ‘Death by Careless Driving’ (when it comes into force) is to be Triable either-way, there is no doubt in my mind that most prosecutions will remain in the Magistrates’ Court. The Magistrates’ Court deals with MINOR OFFENCES. This indicates that the horrific death of an innocent as a result of the criminal act of another road user is trivialised and classed as a minor offence and not afforded the same consideration as other killings. How can the horrific death of an innocent person be classed as minor offence just because it has occurred on the road? Road Crashes, as a result of the criminal motoring offences of drivers who cause the death of an innocent person – is a crime against the person with the vehicle used as a lethal weapon and should be Indictable only as it is with other Deaths.

All road users have a right to use roads and pavements without feeling intimidated and endangered by other road users Criminal Anti-Social Bad Driving Behaviour. We must all be aware of the fact that we are in charge and responsible for a potential lethal weapon – for our vehicle is indeed a potential lethal weapon. It is like taking a gun and running amuck in streets full of innocent people. When you put other road users in danger – your vehicle becomes a lethal weapon – And once you Break the Law -– you have crossed the line – You are now a criminal driving a lethal weapon, which could kill or maim innocent unsuspecting people who are unable to defend themselves against such a powerful weapon. Let us be very clear that when you sit behind a steering wheel, or any mode of transport, you have a responsibility and a duty of care to other road users – This means taking responsibility to drive carefully and to be accountable for the consequences of your actions. Criminal Anti-social bad driving behaviour is playing Russian Roulette with other peoples lives. ----

We hear headline news of guns and knives being used as lethal weapons to kill people, But the Lethal Weapon most frequently used in causing horrific, violent Deaths, maiming and injury to unsuspecting innocent men, women and children is ROAD VEHICLES, OUR MODE OF TRANSPORT. This is a vicious crime against an innocent unsuspecting person. Using a Gun, or a knife or a VEHICLE to KILL or injure innocent people is and must be classed as violent CRIME AGAINST THE PERSON. We cannot begin to address the growing culture of Anti-Social behaviour including the use of knives and guns by the young, until we admit that there is an urgent need to address the faster growing culture of Criminal Anti-Social Bad Driving Behaviour.

At present out of the 3,300 people killed on the roads, less that 250 go to Crown Court and these are mainly drink/drugs related. The remaining over 3,000 – if there are charges brought at all – prosecutions are summary charges of ‘careless driving’, which are heard in the magistrates’ court as a minor summary motoring offence – Where the killer driver is given impunity – no charge for causing the Horrific, Violent Death of Innocent Man, Woman or Child In the magistrates’ court.

Road Safety research shows that – the number of deaths on UK road each year is equivalent to the combined total of: -

5 Locerbie disasters

plus 142 – Hatfield train crashes

plus 50 – Paddington train crashes –

plus the Concorde disaster in Paris

Or the equivalent in Road Deaths Each Year on the UK roads of:

A – 9/11 in deaths Each Year

Or 62 – London bombings in Road Deaths Each Year

Or 26 – Crashed Jumbo Jets, full of passengers, in Road Death Each Year

But although road deaths make up the largest group of Violent Acts Against the Person – because of political brainwashing, they are shamefully ignored as NOT Real Crimes, trivialised and generally ignored. Added to this around 320,00- people maimed and injured on the UK roads every year. There would be public outcry if this were happening to other modes of transport – Trains, Ships or Aircraft, but it seems that Road Deaths are to be accepted.

PLEASE NOTE – You may not realise that by using the word ‘accident’ (the ‘A’ word), when referring to Road Traffic Collisions, you are making the assumption that it was without apparent cause, which is misleading. (Journalist are told not to use the ‘A’ word as it is misleading). ). The word ‘accident’ (in this context) is in fact incorrect, inappropriate, grossly misleading, deeply offensive, deeply distressing and is unintentionally belittling the devastation suffered by families of Innocent loved ones cruelly and needlessly killed or seriously injured in Road Traffic Crashes (RTCs), caused as a result of the criminal actions of another road user.

I do realise that the public do not have any idea of how distressed and offended we feel when we hear ‘road accident’ (the ‘A’ word) instead of Road Traffic Crash. Road Traffic Crashes are lumped in the travel section and trivialised as an inconvenience to other road users and holding up traffic. If Road Traffic Crashes were given the same respect, importance and consideration as other crimes against the person and of Rail Crashes and Air Crashes the public would be informed immediately that the crash had occurred, of causalities and kept updated, as we should be when people have been killed or injured in horrific, violent and brutal circumstances. The correct term, which is the term used by the Emergency Services, is Road Traffic Crash/Collision (RTC

Bridget M J Wall - Norfolk

mitchy
24 April 2007 at 13:40

I totally agree with Mark on this issue. As a driver and cyclist myself, I think motorists have it way too easy, doubtless influenced in some way by the car manufacturing multinats; profits over lives. As anyone who has cycled to work on a regular basis will know, motorists more often than not have no regard for you whatsoever, and you take your life in your hands cycling on the road. My own personal observations of 4x4 drivers seem to indicate this careless mentality is even more prevalent among their numbers. It seems that driving a vehicle based on a light truck chassis seems to instill a sense of invulnerability in people, and a total disregard for other road users, especially those smaller than you. It seems that unless drivers also cycle at times themselves, they are unable or unwilling to see things from a cyclists's perspective, ie: roads are deathtraps. I reckon all drivers should, as part of their driving test, be compelled to cycle in heavy traffic, as an educational excercise. Perhaps a taste of their own medicine will open the eyes of these irresponsible people?

Admin
26 April 2007 at 11:23

From Letters to the Editor...

By advocating stiffer sentences and lifetime driving bans Mark Lynas does not go far enough in challenging our attitudes to motoring.

Driving bans continue to be flouted by many of those who kill on our roads. When I suggest that anyone who disregards a driving ban should suffer the "throw away the key" treatment I'm not referring to car keys. An analogy exists between the American Constitutional view on gun ownership and the attitude of most of us towards a person's "right" to drive a motor vehicle; it is pre-supposed that each artefact is an essential life accessory and that the majority of humans are psychologically suited to being in charge of these potentially lethal devices at any time. Just as there are a few individuals who are deranged by violent films and videos there are many who are corrupted by the Jeremy Clarkson syndrome. Our culture needs to recognise that a driving licence is a privilege and that a car is a mode of transport, not an expression of the persona or an instrument of competition or status. This is unlikely to happen so long as most cars continue to be massively over-powered.

Fortuitously much dangerous driving leads to neither death nor injury yet it goes virtually unpunished and even unrecognised so that the offender can go on to kill at a later time. Lives could be saved if behaviour that shows disregard for human life were treated as though a life had been taken. Generally the law deals ineffectively with dangerous drivers. When a pair of joyriding killers can walk free laughingly from court because each has declared that the other had been driving then the law is an ass.

Ray Brown

Pete Wadsworth
01 May 2007 at 11:09

Oh. My. God.

This unbelievable drivel - so much so that there isn't enouh space on the internet for me to satisfactorally express what utter garbage has spewed from this bloke's fingers.

Unbeliveable.

Mark, you are a disgrace to journalism.

Rixington
01 May 2007 at 11:10

I do not agree with Mark Lynas which means no-one will ever see this comment ,but here goes anyway:

1) Motorists pay for the roads so if you don't drive then don't complain about the cost (we pay more than the government spends on roads so we subsidise public transport).

2) The biggest risk on the roads is the I-POD (you know the one being worn by the pedestrian paying no attention to traffic; people thinking a car can stop as quickly as a pedestrian need education not no cars.

finally, you tell me how the world would work with no cars, but then agina answers is not the work of the activist, rhetoric is!

RMH
01 May 2007 at 13:18

Mark, why do you bother? This is the most one-sided piece of pointless tripe I've ever heard. In certain circumstances (such as those illustrated by Bridget M J Wall above) the full weight of the law should be brought to bear on the perpetrator. There is no excuse in situations like that. The Rhyll Cycling Club example is woefull in terms of accuracy; would you like the driver to keep an eye on the group of cyclists ahead of him, or be on the look out for a substance that is nigh on invisible when travelling in a car? It's your choice. You make it sound as if he made a concious effort to hit the group of cyclists!! Yes he was charged for having bald tyres but that would have had little/no bearing on his ability to control a vehicle on black ice.

I will stop now because I don't feel there will be any point in continuing this critique of your poor effort at journalism.

My condolances to those that have been wronged by the justice system. BUT, this kind of journalism will not help remedy the situation. GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT. Oh yes, how do you get to work each day Mark?

SimonInnes
01 May 2007 at 13:33

Agree with Pete,

The last time I checked, professional journalism required research before puting pen to paper.

This is the most spurious one-sided tripe I have read in a long time.

I could walk out of my front door and kill the next person I see with a hammer. Does that make all joiners dangerous criminals?

215cu
01 May 2007 at 14:20

I'm sorry but I do not agree with the premise of this article. Essentially, this article is skewed to make the facts fit the assertion. In short, irresponsible journalism.

I would like to redress the balance.

Firstly, this country economic health relies on moving people and good around the country, without that, we'd be in serious economic trouble. It is the government's failure alone over the last ten years to change our behaviour.

Also, taxes and duties on private and commercial motor transport equate to in excess of £40bn a year of which motorists see less than £6bn for the upkeep of the roads. This government has done more to curtail road building than any other, the resultant congestion makes roads more dangerous not safer.

Next, road safety. Our roads are amongst the safest in the world, joint top with Finland at 7.6 deaths per BILLION of kilometres travelled. If our roads are deathtraps, they are amongst the safest deathtraps in the world. In terms of accidental deaths, there are more accidental deaths at home or communal areas, so on the premise of the author, are we going to criminalise homeowners too?

In terms of child deaths in road traffic accidents, Department of Transport figures for 2004 show that 109 children where killed on UK roads either walking or cycling, 2,896 were seriously injured and 14,239 slightly injured. It is the second biggest killer to childhood cancer for 5 to 14 year olds. Our record is not good within Europe and more has to be done.

To villify motorists is to villify the very people that can help the most to lower these numbers further. To actually propose the removal of habeus corpus to motorists is bordering on the fascist. The vast majority of motorist drive in a safe and considerable manner. There are irresponsible motorists that are punished by the law. However, the writer of this piece seeks to criminalise accidents. Accidents, due to human infallibility do happen and where a driving offence does occur then it is the specific offence and the associated tariff that must be looked at. The gentleman that killed the cyclists was not speeding and he was exercising due care and attention. The driver hit black ice on tyres below the legal minimum. His offence was failure to keep his car properly maintained. Hitting black ice is a nightmare scenario for any motorist, even with a totally legal car, it is near impossible to control a car properly, black ice cannot be easily detected and there is very little training given to drivers in terms of how to mitigate its effects.

What is required are higher standards of driver education, motorists are not unreasonable animals, 9 out of 10 drivers support 20mph speed limits around schools, for example. Drivers undergo a difficult driving test, one of the most difficult in the world including a written exam on the rules of the road.

The law certainly does not favour the motorist, to maintain a vehicle on the road requires one of the strictest examination in Europe. Road traffic laws are numerous and in conjunction with road calming measures, average speeds in built up areas have decreased as have accident rates.

Neither is excessive speed a major contribution to road traffic accidents. Losing control, failing to look properly, turning or manoeurving properly all score higher than exceeding speed limits.

By placing our faith in the false assumption that speed kills (it might but there are other more contributory causes) we have abdicated policing of our roads to yellow boxes rather than a visible and preventive Police presence on our roads. Certainly a presence that could censure behaviours like those listed above.

In terms of pedestrian road safety, campaigns must target children specifically and more is being done to reduce injury and death. Again, education to observe traffic properly must be taught in schools and youth clubs.

Lastly, blaming Top Gear and Mr. Clarkson is frankly laughable. To suggest that people cannot make a distinction from driving around a track and driving on our roads is to suggest people do not take responsibility for their actions nor driving safely seriously. This fits with the belief system of the frankly pathetic authoritarian left that seeks to ban what it cannot control and make people's lives difficult because they will conform to their will.

Graham Bell
01 May 2007 at 17:24

Mark Lynas has shown such contempt for the truth with this article in order to promote his obvious anti-car agenda that he would be more appropriately named Mark Lyingarse.

He’s obviously been studying the Josef Goebbels propaganda manual because like the other Eco-Nazis he uses very much the same tactics against car drivers that Hitler’s Nazis did against the Jews.

With Hitler’s Nazis it was ‘the evil Jews will steal and eat your children’. With the Eco-Nazi’s it’s ‘the evil car drivers will mow your children down’ with Lyingarse even listing the numbers of child pedestrians killed and injured next to the number of children deliberately murdered as if the two were directly comparable.

Then there’s Lyingarse’s statement that ‘in 2005 671 pedestrians and 148 cyclists were killed by drivers’ – again, written in such a way as to imply that every one of these tragic deaths was some deliberate act on the part of drivers. And that every death or serious injury on the road is the fault of a car driver.

Obviously I wouldn’t expect someone like Lyingarse to let facts get in the way of his twisted propaganda, but the FACTS are that around 80% of collisions involving cars and pedestrians are the fault of pedestrians. Similarly a large number of collisions between cars and cyclists are the fault of cyclists.

Of course Lyingarse bangs on about ‘the dangers to which cyclists and pedestrians are exposed’ while completely ignoring the fact that in many cases those dangers are entirely down the cyclists or pedestrians themselves.

For example, cyclists who think that red lights, one-way streets and Give Way signs don’t apply to them and that even if they ride around in the pitch black with no lights car drivers will still be able to spot them from a mile away. Or pedestrians that are too busy talking on their mobile phones, fiddling with their i-Pods or staggering drunkenly to the next pub to bother checking for traffic before stepping out into the road.

The plain fact is that road safety is the responsibility of every road user, whether on four wheels, two wheels or two legs, and that the fault for any death or injury on our roads can lie with any of these groups, not just the one.

I think it speaks volumes about the sort of man Lyingarse is when he would rather resort to propaganda such as labelling drivers en-masse as ‘those who deal out death’ rather than present a rational argument based on truth.

I’m sure Goebbels would be proud of him.

tom
01 May 2007 at 18:37

As a young and convicted driver i am generally very quick to defend motorists and although i do not always agree with some of the lighter sentences 'handed down' by judges, i am normally on the side of the motorist. However, Mark Lynas' article has very clearly and brutally exposed a side of the legal system which has been bombarded with endless critisism regarding the money grabbing cameras and parking penalty fines, a tactic which almost too conveniently seems to overshadow the important agenda which has finally been addressed by Lynas in this article.

It is clear to everyone that there is a problem with our roads, with ever increasing numbers of motorists flooding our small, narrow and 'traditionally British' roads the accident toll will rise. This rise is the only factor which is constant and this article has made a very valid point that the law tends to take the approach that it could happen to anyone and it is rarely the drivers fault, this is entirely wrong and as a law student i find more and more examples of this attitude within case law almost daily.

I have read previous comments which suggest that road safety applies to everyone and i cannot disagree, but i feel i am in a slight minority that has the experience of 5 years as a motorcyclist, car driver and also an avid cyclist for as long as i can remember. From this experience it is quite obvious to me what the real issue of road safety comes down to, vulnerability.

Car, van and particularly 4x4 drivers are very safe in comparison to bikes, cyclists and pedestrians, this extra safety along with the extra comfort of driving are, for me, the killer ingredients.

i will end by saying be careful to cyclists and bikers, 4x4's are now issued with blinkers as standard(as you probably already know) and also be careful to 4x4 drivers, because if you are involved in a near miss with a biker you will more than likely end up with a boot print in your door and a missing wing mirror!!!

Thank you mark, for a very much enjoyed and thought provoking article.

20 May 2007 at 10:03

most hearty congratulations to the author.

in kolkata in india earlier this month a young man killed a school child with his car. this was after his neighbours had lodged a complaint with the police earlier that he was a dangerous driver. but the police had not taken action. the car is a deadly weapon and must be seen first and foremost as that

Paul
25 May 2007 at 16:46

I am in complete agreement with this article. I detect that the tide is starting to turn and that general opinion will soon recognise the truth of the danger posed by motorised vehicles to vulnerable road users. About time too.

Like many cyclists, I also drive regularly. I do not live in London, but in many years of commuting daily by bike I have yet to see a cyclist jump a red light, ever. Those identifying themselves as drivers practically foam at the mouth at the thought of a cyclist doing that, but are apparently unperturbed by the thought of the many drivers who, far more dangerously, speed, chat on their mobiles, fiddle with the radio/satnav, drive aggressively, and generally cause far more danger to their fellow road users than any cyclist or pedestrian I have ever seen. The reason they can get away with this is that law breaking by drivers is endemic and therefore disregarded, and the legal system treats the whole matter just as lightly.

Apparently 60 or so people killed every week on the roads is a price worth paying so long as none of those comfortable and well protected drivers are inconvenienced.

I take the point that most drivers do not set out to cause death and injury. But, insulated in their vehicles, many have a casual disregard for the safety and wellbeing of more vulnerable road users.

This must change.