New driving rules could see thousands banned, with new tests for over 70s
According to The Times, the new laws are expected to reduce the drink-drive limit in England and Wales to 22 micrograms, the same level as in Scotland, from the current limit of 35.
It comes as serious casualties from road accidents have increased 20 per cent - with 28,000 badly injured last year. That was the highest since 2007.
READ MORE: Drivers urged to fill up tanks with petrol and diesel before Monday
READ MORE: Morrisons to axe 54 cafes in UK in blow to customers - full list
The new plans could include a ban for all drivers over 70 who fail a compulsory eye test. The UK currently relies on older drivers reporting themselves if they believe they are not safe to drive. There could be new medical tests for older drivers in a bid to detect conditions such as dementia.
There could also be new drug-driving rules, such as making roadside tests using saliva admissible in evidence. And there could be criminal penalties for driving without insurance, and new rules to tackle plates that cannot be read by speed and ANPR cameras.
A government source told The Times: "It cannot be right that one person is killed or seriously injured on our roads every 18 minutes. Just think of the impact on those people and their families. We cannot sit by and simply do nothing."
New rules are expected to be published this autumn ahead of a consultation before they are passed into law. Edmund King, the president of the AA, said: "It is in everyone's interests to tackle road safety and bring the levels of death and serious injuries down significantly."
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.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
14 minutes ago
- New York Times
Crystal Palace, UEFA and CAS: What now for the club, the manager and players?
Three months after winning the FA Cup, Crystal Palace finally know which European competition they will play in this season. Confirmation came just before 11:30am on Monday morning, but it was not good news. Palace will be in the Conference League. After UEFA's Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) ruled Palace were in breach of multi-club rules and demoted them from the Europa League, for which they had qualified courtesy of that FA Cup win, the club appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). But after a hearing last Friday, CAS communicated on Monday that they had upheld the original decision. Advertisement With that news came anger and fury from the Palace supporters, and bitter disappointment for those at the club. The initial decision had felt, chairman Steve Parish said, 'a terrible injustice'. This, too, will feel that way. Less than 24 hours earlier, they had celebrated winning a second trophy in three months after defeating Liverpool in the Community Shield at Wembley. This was a brutal return to earth with a bump. Regardless, the ramifications of the UEFA and CAS rulings could be far-reaching across the club. First, it's worth clinging to a small positive. While they will not be admitted to the Europa League, it should not be forgotten that Palace will still be embarking upon their first campaign in European competition. Amid all the understandable doom and gloom and disappointment, that is a small chink of light for all involved. They have not yet given up on this case, either. Not necessarily in the hope they could yet secure a reprieve and a return to UEFA's second competition, but they might explore suing their former major shareholder, John Textor, who has since sold Eagle Football's 43 per cent stake in the club to Woody Johnson. If that were to happen, they would seek to recoup their extensive legal costs and look to claim damages for the difference in prize money between the Europa League and Conference League. Roughly speaking, the overall prize pot for teams competing in the Conference League (€285m; $330m) is around half that of clubs in the Europa League (€565m). It should also be noted that Palace would have qualified automatically for the group stage of the Europa League. By dropping down into the Conference League, they must now beat either the Norwegian side Fredrikstad or Denmark's Midtjylland — currently going head-to-head to reach the Europa League — in the Conference League play-off round to reach the group stage. Their opponents are likely to be Fredrikstad, who are 3-1 down from their home leg. Their point of contention is primarily that Textor did not act when UEFA's email was received by Lyon and missed by Palace. Had he done so, Palace argue, he could have placed his shares into a blind trust ahead of the designated deadline of March 1, and both sides would be competing in the Europa League. Advertisement Textor is relaxed about any legal action that may come his way, but, regardless of the success, it demonstrates the strength of feeling around the situation and reiterates that sense that everyone around this situation feels as if they have been wronged. 'I remain stunned by UEFA's decision to ignore all of the evidence and the on-pitch result to demote Crystal Palace from the Europa League,' he told The Athletic. 'The rule is clear: a (blind) trust is only needed if there is decisive influence. If I had decisive influence, then you would have already seen Eagle Football players on the ground at Selhurst Park, but after four years of ownership, there is not one example of multi-club collaboration on the Palace roster. 'Unfortunately, the insanity at UEFA will be resolved, and we will come to learn of their remedy as the 'Crystal Palace rule' in 2026, but that will be tragically late for a community that deserves better.' That the final outcome came after winning the Community Shield is all the more galling. UEFA's ruling was delivered two months after the FA Cup victory — a period that should have been one of celebration, but which became sullied by the anxious realisation that there could be an issue just days after that success. Palace deserved to have been able to enjoy their outstanding achievements for longer and without the next chapter being shaped by decisions made in a courtroom rather than on the pitch. There is also a sense of deja vu to all this. After finishing third in the top flight in 1990-91, they were denied what they thought would be a UEFA Cup place in the final weeks of the campaign. English clubs had been banned from European competition following the Heysel disaster in 1985, with Liverpool handed an extended ban. However, Liverpool's ban was lifted a few weeks before the end of the campaign, meaning Palace missed out. Advertisement This time they will compete in a lesser competition than the one they had anticipated — if they emerge successfully through the qualifier — but it is still almost as agonising. Palace will, eventually, seek to draw a line under this saga, however hard that may be, and move on with Johnson as the fourth principal owner, and look to be strong on the pitch across four competitions. For some of Palace's key players who have been in demand this summer, playing in a third-tier European competition may not be especially attractive. Striker Jean-Philippe Mateta in particular is eager to play in the Champions League, while it could now prove more difficult to keep hold of Eberechi Eze and captain Marc Guehi, both of whom are likely to feel they should be showcasing their talents in Europe's most prestigious competition. Glasner did not rule out the departure of either player this summer in his pre-match Community Shield press conference, while Parish conceded after the game that they might have to sell Guehi, who is out of contract next summer. The CAS ruling will not help their cause in that respect. 'We'd have to,' Parish said when asked if they would sell Guehi should an acceptable offer be made. 'For players of that calibre to leave on a free, it's a problem. We had one bid (last summer), but Joachim (Andersen) went (to Fulham instead) and we couldn't afford to lose both defenders. 'We had another bid in January, but that was a difficult situation as well. The player had a point of view on that one. We'll have to see what happens, but it needs a new contract or a conclusion of some kind.' That said, no Palace player has as yet walked into the club and demanded a move on the back of the CAS decision. Palace would play an additional six games, guaranteed, if they emerge through their Conference League play-off fixture, but travel is likely to be more onerous, with trips to distant parts of Europe due to the calibre of teams involved. Chelsea, last year's winners, took an inexperienced squad to Almaty, Kazakhstan, last December for a group game against Astana in the competition. But even they found recovery time and performances affected back in the Premier League. Palace, in contrast, boast a far thinner squad, and the extra travelling may put significant extra pressure on their Premier League performances. If they enjoy a run deep into the Conference League, which is plausible, that additional load will surely take its toll. Glasner has called for at least two more signings after a 'passive' window, and, while he is content to work with a smaller squad, it does feel as though Palace require further reinforcements to provide proper strength in depth — and should any important players leave, then it will become even more essential. Advertisement 'It helps if players are in early when you start pre-season because you have time to train,' Glasner said on Friday. 'After this, training has more or less stopped, and it's just games. It makes it harder to integrate players. This is what we missed (by not making early signings). But I never complain, it's in the past, I can't complain. 'We definitely need two more players. One at the back, one in attack. We have good numbers, good quality, good competition. Challenging players for the top level is what we need.' Palace's transfer activity has been hindered by all the uncertainty this summer. Prospective signings would have sought clarity and certainty before committing. Their financial position is also awkward, with Parish saying the club is still paying off transfer fees for players signed in previous seasons, cautioning against lofty expectations for a host of new arrivals as a result. It seems clear that Glasner will have to work with only a small number of additions to his existing squad. 'If we had four more players, I don't know what we could achieve, but it's not as simple as that,' Parish said. 'We have a lot of outgoings this year because we're paying a lot of transfer fees for players we already have. We'll do whatever we can. 'At some point, you have to recycle your squad or you're pushing off problems. We'll do everything we can in the next few weeks to give ourselves the best chance. I'm aware we're in four competitions and it's not going to be easy. 'Maybe Ismaila (Sarr) will go to the Africa Cup of Nations (in December). We're trying to cope with all those things. But the amount of money we have isn't infinite.' Glasner's approach to management is focused. He tries to stay in the moment and avoids looking too far back or ahead, preferring instead to scrutinise variables he and his team can control. That will be the way forward for him now. There will no doubt be disappointment, particularly given he won the Europa League with Eintracht Frankfurt in 2022. He has a track record in that competition, but he is extremely ambitious and has belief in his staff and his players. His mindset will now be on trying to win the Conference League and improve on last season's 12th-placed Premier League finish. It may be more challenging now for Palace to convince players to join, particularly if they are competing for those players with teams in better competitions. But there are still draws, with Glasner as good a sales pitch as any, and the excellent spirit within the dressing room that has been cultivated since his arrival. Advertisement Given that Palace are generally targeting younger talents with a view to developing them, that calibre of player may still be enticed by the opportunity to compete in Europe, even if it is in the Conference League. Despite the disappointment, Palace will be one of the strongest teams in the Conference League and among the favourites to win it. To go all the way, lift another trophy, and qualify for the 2026-27 Europa League would be the perfect response to being denied what they believe was their rightful place. Nothing, surely, would stand in their way. Spot the pattern. Connect the terms Find the hidden link between sports terms Play today's puzzle
Forbes
44 minutes ago
- Forbes
The Impact On Organizations Post Trump's DEI Executive Orders
The Impact On Organizations Post Trump's DEI Executive Orders getty A major change in U.S. policy is forcing many organizations to rethink their commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. In January this year, President Donald Trump signed two executive orders that formally reversed federal DEI mandates. These orders directed agencies to dismantle internal DEI offices, eliminate DEI training programs, and withdraw equity-focused funding, calling such efforts 'discriminatory' and 'ideologically driven.' For over a decade, DEI has influenced the way teams are built, people are supported, and communities are included in decision-making. It drove innovation, improved team performance, and helped people from overlooked backgrounds feel seen, heard, and included. Trump's new orders push back against DEI, replacing it with 'merit-based' hiring, raising concern about what's lost in the process. The shift left many teams unsure of how to move forward, especially those who've built their culture around inclusion. Organizations are reassessing policies, directing legal and cultural shifts, and working to preserve inclusive values even as federal priorities move in a different direction. Trump's move to dismantle DEI efforts began with two executive orders signed within days of taking office, setting off immediate ripple effects across federal agencies and beyond. These orders marked an aggressive reversal of long-standing federal policies , affecting not just government operations but also private contractors who rely on government partnerships. Executive Order 14151, titled "Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing," directed the termination of what it calls "discriminatory programs" going by the name of diversity, equity, and inclusion. The order instructed agencies to shut down DEI offices, cancel equity-centered grants and contracts, and eliminate DEI performance requirements for employees, contractors, and grantees. Federal agencies were given broad mandates to dismantle these programs "to the maximum extent allowed by law." Executive Order 14173, "Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity," took a different approach by revoking several prior orders focused on equal employment opportunity and workplace diversity. This order directed agency heads to submit reports by May 20, 2025, identifying "the most egregious and discriminatory DEI practitioners" in their sectors and outlining specific steps to deter DEI programs that might constitute illegal discrimination. A third order, Executive Order 14281, signed in April, aimed to "eliminate the use of disparate impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible." This targets a legal theory that holds employers liable for policies that disproportionately affect protected groups, even without intentional discrimination. The administration frames these changes as a return to "merit-based" hiring, arguing that identity-focused practices are discriminatory and unlawful. However, the orders don't define "illegal DEI," creating uncertainty for organizations trying to understand what's permissible. This ambiguity has prompted many companies to scale back or completely eliminate their DEI programs, even as legal challenges to the orders work their way through the courts. The effects of Trump's executive orders are moving beyond policy changes into measurable workplace outcomes. A July 2025 survey from , of 965 U.S. companies with active DEI programs before November 2024, reveals the tangible consequences organizations are facing. The numbers show immediate shifts in hiring and retention patterns. One in five companies has eliminated DEI initiatives entirely, with 74% citing the changed political climate as their primary reason. Among companies that cut programs, 57% report hiring fewer people from underrepresented groups. The decline is particularly pronounced for women of color (37% decrease), LGBTQIA+ candidates (33% decrease), and men of color (33% decrease). By comparison, only 12% reported decreased hiring of white men. The workplace culture impacts are equally significant. Nearly half of the companies that reduced DEI efforts report declining employee morale, while 36% struggle with retention of diverse talent. Leadership representation has also shifted, with 30% noting fewer people of color in leadership roles and 24% reporting fewer women in leadership positions. Perhaps most concerning, 18% of organizations report increased incidents of workplace discrimination or bias following DEI program cuts. 25% acknowledge reputational damage, suggesting the changes extend beyond internal operations to external perceptions. The survey reveals divided opinions among business leaders about these changes. Some view DEI elimination as removing divisive elements, with one respondent noting it "restored a sense of fairness." Others express disappointment, with leaders describing the loss of "safe spaces" and being worried about being "worse off as a company." These patterns suggest the executive orders have created a ripple effect that extends across public agencies, private companies, nonprofits, and educational institutions. The changes are reshaping not just policies but fundamental aspects of how organizations attract talent, build leadership, and maintain workplace culture. The executive orders affect government agencies, federal contractors, private companies with federal funding, nonprofits, and educational institutions tied to federal grants. Even organizations without direct contracts are experiencing ripple effects as partners and industry peers adjust policies to comply. Organizations that eliminated DEI programs report widespread morale issues. Employees who valued these initiatives feel abandoned, making them more likely to seek opportunities elsewhere. Recruitment has become more challenging, particularly with younger workers, while unclear communication about policy changes has damaged internal trust. Companies that cut DEI programs are losing employees , especially women, black professionals, and other underrepresented groups who prioritize inclusive workplaces. Hiring for these groups has slowed, and fewer younger candidates are applying. Internally, trust has weakened, opportunities feel less equitable, and problem-solving has suffered due to reduced diverse perspectives. Without DEI initiatives, companies struggle to attract diverse talent. Skilled candidates who value inclusion often bypass employers that don't demonstrate clear commitment to equity, intensifying competition for talent in an already tight market. Stepping away from DEI can damage both public perception and internal culture. Externally, organizations may appear out of touch, hurting brand image and stakeholder trust. Internally, the absence of DEI structures can allow bias or discrimination to go unchecked, weakening morale and creating unsafe work environments. Some companies, like Meta and McDonald's, have scaled back DEI programs amid political pressures. Others, including Costco, Apple, and Microsoft, maintain their inclusion commitments. Cutting DEI risks backlash from progressive employees, investors, and customers, while maintaining programs may provoke conservative opposition. Organizations must navigate these competing pressures, particularly as black consumers' buying power is projected to nearly double by 2030, underscoring the business case for inclusion. The Trump administration's executive orders have created significant uncertainty for organizations across all sectors. Federal agencies are intensifying enforcement of civil rights laws, potentially creating legal risks for companies that maintain DEI programs. This has left businesses facing a difficult decision. Some are dismantling programs to avoid potential scrutiny, while others are maintaining their diversity commitments despite the political shift. Organizations don't have to navigate these changes blindly. Clear, honest communication with employees and stakeholders helps maintain trust during this transition period. Companies should continue focusing on essential practices like fair hiring, equitable career development, and respectful workplace policies, regardless of what these efforts are called. Legal reviews of existing programs can help identify potential compliance issues while preserving inclusive practices. The key is balancing political realities with organizational values and goals. Companies that stay committed to inclusion, even if they rebrand their approach, can continue attracting diverse talent and driving innovation. Those that abandon these efforts entirely risk losing valuable employees and damaging relationships with customers and stakeholders who value diversity. Success requires both flexibility and strategic thinking. Organizations that communicate transparently, review their policies carefully, and maintain inclusive cultures will be better positioned to weather this period of change while keeping the benefits of diverse, engaged teams.
Bloomberg
2 hours ago
- Bloomberg
South Africa's DA Sees Ruling Coalition Weathering Latest Rift
South Africa's second-biggest party reiterated its intention to remain within the fractious coalition government, saying its continued participation had the backing of most of its members and should boost its support in next year's municipal elections. The 10-party coalition was formed 13 months ago after the African National Congress failed to secure a parliamentary majority in a national vote for the first time since apartheid ended in 1994. The ANC has since clashed repeatedly with the Democratic Alliance, its main rival, over policy and appointments, raising doubts over whether the so-called government of national unity will remain intact.
