Overhaul of road safety laws ‘much overdue', experts say
Ministers are considering cutting the drink-drive limit in England and Wales and introducing mandatory eye tests for older drivers, according to The Times.
The proposals, set to be published as part of a road safety strategy in the autumn, also include tougher penalties for uninsured driving and failing to wear a seatbelt.
On Britain's roads last year, 1,633 people were killed and almost 28,000 seriously injured in traffic incidents, and numbers have remained relatively constant following a large fall between 2000 and 2010.
Edmund King, AA president, said: 'The time has come for a bold and proactive approach to road safety.
'This strategy is much overdue as road deaths have plateaued over the last decade.
'We believe these new measures will not only modernise our approach to saving lives but also provide renewed momentum in making our roads safer for everyone.'
Vision checks for older drivers and targeting drink and drug drivers are 'practical steps that can make a real difference', he said.
But failing to introduce limits on new drivers transporting peer-age passengers for six months is 'a major oversight', he added.
IAM RoadSmart director of policy and standards Nicholas Lyes said: 'Given progress on reducing fatal and serious collisions has stalled in recent years, we welcome the UK Government's ambition to publish an updated road safety strategy with the reported measures being a step in the right direction.
'While many drivers over the age of 70 are safe and competent, health issues and confidence can have an impact on driving abilities, so it is sensible to review whether changes need to be made.
'We would also support reducing the drink-drive limit in England and Wales alongside measures to target drug-driving, however these would require significantly more backing for roads policing teams to effectively enforce new laws.'
A Labour source said: 'At the end of the last Labour government, the number of people killed and seriously injured on our roads was at a record low, but numbers have remained stubbornly high under successive Conservative governments.
'In no other circumstance would we accept 1,600 people dying, with thousands more seriously injured, costing the NHS more than £2 billion per year.'
Meanwhile, the number of people killed in drink-driving incidents has risen over the past decade, reaching a 13-year high in 2022 and prompting concern that existing road safety measures are no longer working.
Under the plans being considered by Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander, the drink-drive limit in England and Wales could be cut from 35 micrograms of alcohol per 100ml of breath to 22 micrograms.
This figure would be in line with Scotland – which cut its drink-drive limit in 2014 – and the rest of Europe, where no other country has a limit as high as that in England and Wales.
The UK is also one of only three European countries to rely on self-reporting of eyesight problems that affect driving, leading ministers to consider compulsory eye tests every three years for drivers aged over 70 and a driving ban for those who fail.
Other proposals are reported to include allowing the police to bring prosecutions for drug-driving on the basis of roadside saliva tests rather than blood tests as increasing numbers of drivers are being caught with drugs in their system.
The Labour source added: 'This Labour Government will deliver the first road safety strategy in a decade, imposing tougher penalties on those breaking the law, protecting road users and restoring order to our roads.'
The strategy is due to be published in the autumn, and all proposals will be subject to consultation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
14 minutes ago
- The Guardian
What will happen to people arrested on Palestine Action demonstration?
The consequences of being arrested for expressing support for Palestine Action could be 'life-changing', one of those detained during Saturday's protests, Sir Jonathon Porritt, has admitted. While the former government adviser said that he had carefully deliberated over a decision to take part, the road ahead for the more than 500 people arrested on Saturday involves possible criminal charges, court cases and convictions. Ultimately, custodial sentences of as much as 14 years could be imposed. Those whose details could be confirmed were released on bail to appear at a police station at a future date. The police will be sending case files to the Crown Prosecution Service, as it has already done in the case of at least 26 others who were arrested at previous protests in support of Palestine Action. All those arrested have now been released under police bail, with the main condition being not to attend any future demonstrations aiming to overwhelm the criminal justice system in protest at the proscription of Palestine Action by the British government. They will be asked how they plead and if it is not guilty they can elect for a trial before a magistrate or, more likely, a district judge. The majority of the 522 people arrested in Parliament Square – in most cases after displaying pieces of cardboard saying 'I opposed genocide, I support Palestine Action' – were detained under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This is the 'lower level' part of the act, which means those who are charged will be tried in a magistrates court rather than a crown court. Some have been charged under the more serious section 12, which means they could seek to have their case heard in front of a jury of their peers at a crown court. The prosecution could also seek to have the trial heard there. Defend Our Juries, the organising group behind the protest, has said it won't be recommending what people do, as they have already participated 'at huge personal cost' but it will be 'providing the information'. There is a scenario in which court trials do not happen, if the co-founder of Palestine Action is successful in a legal challenge against the home secretary's decision to ban the group under anti-terrorism laws. Given that most those arrested on Saturday will be investigated under section 13 of the terrorism act, they could well walk free from court. They face a maximum sentence of six months' imprisonment or a fine of up to £5,000 or both, while magistrates will also take into account factors such as good character. More than half of those arrested on Saturday were also aged 60 or over. Those arrested under the more serious section 12 of the Terrorism Act face a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison if convicted. However, such individuals could end up being tried before a jury in a crown court. In recent cases under section 13, people charged with supporting Hamas, including displaying pictures of hang gliders such as those used in the 7 October 2023 attack on Israel, were given absolute or conditional discharges. Will a jury drawn from their peers be more likely to sympathise with those arrested on Saturday? Those involved in organising the protest are confident that the British public is on the same page as them. The impact of such a conviction would be felt in everything from employment to travel. Many of those arrested are retired and, while they do not have a job to lose, the possibility of being unable to get a visa to go abroad might weigh. However, the consequences are starker for others arrested on Saturday including health workers and doctors. There was an organised 'health block' of 13 medical professionals – including an obstetrician and gynaecologist, three other working doctors, a number of nurses, and retired doctors. Alice Clack, a senior obstetrician and gynaecologist in the NHS, said: 'If doctors are charged with a crime we have to self-report to the GMC [General Medical Council], who then have a look at the crime in question and decide whether to refer it to the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service. 'Then, someone could expect to be suspended or they could be erased from the register. That is the possibility.' As for seeking future employment, recent legislation largely reduced the period of time during which those convicted of most crimes must declare a conviction. However, while it reduced the period of time during which an individual must declare a conviction, it does not apply to terrorist offences – which never become spent.
BBC News
14 minutes ago
- BBC News
Work to repair Salisbury's 'killer kerb' to begin
Work to repair a kerb which has reportedly been struck by multiple vehicles is to start next week, Wiltshire Council has 35cm (13in) 'trief' kerb in Fisherton Street, Salisbury, is designed to protect pedestrians by stopping vehicles mounting the Council said it would replace the section that has been damaged by vehicles striking it despite an audit not raising any concerns about the use of the kerb had been listed as a tourist attraction on Google Maps and has had multiple Facebook pages dedicated to it. Several residents told the BBC in July that the "killer kerb" was creating a "hubcap graveyard" Geddy Porter said he had fixed damage to cars which had hit the said repairs could cost thousands. "We've had a few customers who have done the same thing - all on the bottom edge of the cars," he said. In addition to repairing the kerb, the council said a bollard would also be installed at the corner of the footpath to stop drivers making the turn from South Western Road from striking repair work is due to take place from 18 to 26 August with temporary traffic lights installed during that Martin Smith said: "This is a key junction providing access to the railway station and city centre with approximately 11,000 vehicles passing under the Fisherton Street railway bridge each day."It is important that the infrastructure installed at this location supports pedestrian safety, especially with the recent opening of Fisherton Car Park for rail customers, which has increased footfall in the area."
The Guardian
14 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Palestine Action co-founder accuses ministers of making defamatory claims
The co-founder of Palestine Action has accused ministers of making false and defamatory allegations about the banned group and contradicting their own intelligence assessments in an attempt to justify the arrest of more than 500 people. The government has come under pressure to justify the detention of 532 people arrested over the weekend under the Terrorism Act – half of whom were 60 or older – on suspicion of showing support for Palestine Action. The number of people arrested for peaceful protests, together with the images of older people being led away and the demands placed on the criminal justice system have led many to call into question the criminalisation of so many people. On Monday, a Downing Street spokesperson responded by saying that Palestine Action, which last month became the first direct action protest group to be banned, was 'a violent organisation that has committed violence, significant injury, extensive criminal damage'. The home secretary, Yvette Cooper, told the BBC that Palestine Action 'is not a non-violent organisation' and claimed that court restrictions meant people 'don't know the full nature of this organisation'. But Huda Ammori, co-founder of Palestine Action, said: 'Yvette Cooper and No 10's claim that Palestine Action is a violent organisation is false and defamatory and even disproven by the government's own intelligence assessment of Palestine Action's activities … 'It was revealed in court during my ongoing legal challenge to the ban that the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre's (JTAC'S) assessment acknowledges that 'Palestine Action does not advocate for violence against persons' and that the 'majority' of its activities 'would not be classified as terrorism'. 'Spraying red paint on war planes is not terrorism. Disrupting Israel's largest weapons manufacturer, Elbit Systems, by trespassing on their sites in Britain is not terrorism. It is the Israeli Defense Forces and all those who arm and enable their war crimes who are the terrorists.' JTAC, a government body based within MI5, produced a secret report on 7 March which was disclosed in the high court. While recommending banning Palestine Action, JTAC said the group 'primarily uses direct action tactics', which typically resulted in minor damage to property. 'Common tactics include graffiti, petty vandalism, occupation and lock-ons,' it added. Defend Our Juries, which has organised multiple demonstrations, including Saturday's, in support of Palestine Action, also highlighted Whitehall officials' description – again in documents revealed in court – of a ban as 'relatively novel' as 'there was no known precedent of an organisation being proscribed on the basis that it was concerned in terrorism mainly due to its use or threat of action involving serious damage to property'. A Defend Our Juries spokesperson said: 'It is despicable that under political pressure, Yvette Cooper is now actively misleading the British public about the nature of Palestine Action, knowing that if people come to their defence to counter her disinformation, she can have them jailed for 14 years [because they could be deemed to supporting a proscribed group].' The group said many hundreds of people had already committed to the next protest, which is likely to take place in early September and will be on an even larger scale. Uncertainty remains over the status of charges and prosecutions. Tom Franklin, chief executive of the Magistrates' Association, said: 'Based on the information that we currently have, and the statement put out by the Metropolitan Police yesterday, it could take days and possibly weeks for decisions to be made on whether or not to charge any of those arrested over the weekend. Many of these cases may also be heard in the crown courts, rather than magistrates courts.' Magistrates courts hear less serious cases although some charges under section 13 of the Terrorism Act are 'either way', meaning the defendant can choose whether to be tried before magistrates or a jury in the crown court. The Defend Our Juries spokesperson said: 'Personally I would go to the crown court because I know where the British public is, both on the genocide in Gaza and secondly on the British government's support for it, and thirdly on people not being allowed to express their opinions.' However, they added that they expected most charges to be laid under section 13, which are all heard in the magistrates courts, as the criminal justice system would not be able to cope with so many jury trials.
