We’re still in thrall to the car – to judge by the lenient sentences for reckless motorists Reports from the frontline of the war on motori

Hello everyone
welcome back to our channel

Today we'll talked about
Opinion

Pity the poor, oppressed driver forced to share their roads with the rest of us

Catherine Bennett




We’re still in thrall to the car – to judge by the lenient sentences for reckless motorists

Reports from the frontline of the war on motorists have made distressing reading for some vehicle owners. With low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) surviving both physical and media assault, improved protections for pedestrians and cyclists in a revised Highway Code will weaken still further, they discover, a right to road domination long understood to be, if not divinely ordained, something even better: unassailable.

Howls of below-the-line outrage in traditionally motor-friendly media confirm that views on road use can still, given the number of cycling and walking motorists, be startlingly tribal. To make vulnerable road users safer, as the government intends with revised hierarchy at junctions, appears for the extreme motorised group to be a more grievous insult to their status, if possible, than the sight of a straggly planter where there was formerly a Land Rover’s right to roam.

What, after all, is the point of a massive city-based 4x4 if it must now give way, as in the revised regulations, to a cyclist enjoying the right to ride safely in the middle of the road, or to go first at a junction? The rage is near palpable. “Goes against the natural order of things,” offers one Telegraph reader. “Cyclists and pedestrians will die clinging on to their rights, while ordinary citizen motorists will rot in gaol at the taxpayer’s expense.”

What next for an oppressed and often unloved group whose only fault, beyond the environmental damage, is their involvement in the majority of vulnerable road user deaths? Could they soon face prison sentences for simply being a bit pissed and turning a car over? Permanent driving bans for, say, killing someone or quite reasonably driving over an extra-irksome cyclist? It may be some comfort to these persecuted drivers that UK targets for road casualty reduction were abandoned back in 2010. That Grant Shapps, the transport minister, introduces himself as a “petrol-head”. And whatever excruciating junction-based humiliations may lie ahead at the hands of pedestrians and cyclists, terrible drivers can still, as demonstrated last week, hope for leniency in the courts.

In the first of two cases that could, equally, have been designed to frighten potential cyclists off the roads, a Mr Alan Moult, aged 73, was jailed for chasing after a cyclist (including along a pavement) then running over him with his Land Rover Freelander. His victim, who had annoyed him, was fortunate to survive injuries including a fractured pelvis, torn genitals, six broken ribs and a punctured liver.

By itself, a dashcam recording in which the cursing Moult’s wife screams at him to calm down, makes a powerful case for acknowledging that cars, like kitchen knives, are murder weapons in the wrong hands. Since Moult’s conviction was for causing serious injury by dangerous driving, he was jailed for 18 months and chastised for behaviour that was “grossly disproportionate”. Locals can expect to see him back in his Freelander, a lifetime ban having presumably been judged over-harsh, after a three-year disqualification.

A reluctance to impose long bans seems to have coincided with the 'stagnation' of UK road safety.

In what can’t have been the best promotional week for Land Rover (an angry Range Rover driver was also charged for “nudging” Insulate Britain protesters), another prominent customer, the minor celebrity and driving ban veteran Katie Price, received a suspended sentence for driving when uninsured and disqualified. She was under the influence of alcohol and cocaine. The judge also imposed costs of £213, and