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 (link is external).

“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.”

https://road.cc/content/news/call-tougher-sentences-motorists-driving-larger-cars-303769

Sriracha | 4043 posts | 9 hours ago
7 likes

Nearly fell off my chair reading the article! I'll believe it when I see the actual sentences being handed down. A shame that will be too late for the recent tragic case of the wankpanzer launched into a primary school garden tea party.

Avatar
Rendel Harris | 5336 posts | 1 hour ago
4 likes

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.