|
Please find enclosed my responses to your consultation. In 2003 the EU proposed halving the number of people killed on the roads by 2010 (COM(2003) 311 final). This seems more ambitious than the UK government's targets. It seems ridiculous that if you hit somebody in the face for their mobile phone you will almost certainly face a custodial sentence. However hit or even kill somebody with a car and you would currently be extremely unfortunate to face a custodial sentence. Given a choice I would much rather be hit in the face for my phone than hit by a car whilst cycling my bicycle. It would almost certainly take me weeks or possibly years (maybe even never) to recover completely from being hit by a driver whilst cycling. Accidents are either "intentional" (i.e. driving too fast or recklessly) or "unintentional" (using a mobile phone, listening to the radio, looking after child passengers). In both cases an injury or death will almost certainly have occurred - especially serious for a non-vehicular road user. Obviously the driver responsible for the intentional accident is far more culpable and should be punished more severely. But do not forget that the primary responsibility of a driver is to drive the vehicle in a safe manner. It is not to drive it as fast as possible, conduct business via a phone (hands free or hand held), listen to the radio, engage in conversation with passengers, attend to child passengers - only to drive safely. I think that drivers hitting non-vehicular road users should face heavier penalties than drivers involved in collisions with other vehicular users. These could be both in terms of custodial sentences and pecuniary fines. Obviously drivers responsible for injury (slight or serious) or death caused intentionally should face even heavier penalties. I think that in the case of collisions with non-vehicular road users there should be no need for the victim to prove negligence. The negligence of the driver should be assumed unless it can be proved that the non-vehicular road user was negligent. This would make it easier for the non-vehicular road user to obtain compensation. This in itself would force drivers to be more considerate and careful of non-vehicular road users. It would also (hopefully) slow most of them down in built up areas. The current ethos on the roads is "speed is king". It is fair to say that most drivers (especially in low speed zones [20-40mph]) speed with impunity (government statistics and research makes this evident). This means that in low speed zones most drivers are not law abiding but are in fact law breaking criminals! They treat the speed limit as a minimum rather than the maximum it is! Because of this ethos drivers regularly overtake non-vehicular road users irrespective of whether it is safe or not to do so (e.g. on blind bends). Frequently the overtaking driver fails to leave sufficient space between his car and the non-vehicular road user. On rural roads drivers appear to assume that just because the speed limit is (generally) 60mph then that is a safe speed to drive at even when it obviously too fast (e.g. a twisting road)! 99.9% of the time most drivers get away with unsafe/dangerous driving practices but it is that 0.1% instance that leads to a tragic outcome. "Sorry" is too late in that instance. All road users should be able to use the roads free of fear and anxiety. |