Britain can be safer without turning millions into criminals

Monday 30 December 2002 01:00 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

One prediction that can be made with certainty is that next year there will be more criminals in Britain than there are now. This is not because the country is becoming a more lawless, crime-ridden place. On the contrary, the best evidence is that the overall crime rate is falling slightly or is stable.

One prediction that can be made with certainty is that next year there will be more criminals in Britain than there are now. This is not because the country is becoming a more lawless, crime-ridden place. On the contrary, the best evidence is that the overall crime rate is falling slightly or is stable.

The main cause of the increase is the stricter interpretation of existing law, such as on speeding or truancy, or the criminalisation of hitherto legal activities, such as fox hunting.

The Government is not too worried about the complaints of minorities, such as hunters or home schoolers (or just believers in liberal education). In this it is grievously wrong, as the test of true tolerance is that of unconventional minorities. But when it comes to the majority motorist, it is a different story.

Thus the latest wheeze to try to mitigate the effects of police forces using technology to enforce the law which was previously difficult to enforce, namely on speed limits.

The Government is panicked by forecasts that 3 million people will be convicted of speeding offences next year, and is looking at plans to allow miscreants to go on a driving course rather than have points deducted from their licences. This is worthy enough, but seems like a gimmick designed to draw attention away from the central dilemma, which is whether we believe in a road safety policy that rests so heavily on the simple assertion that "speed kills".

Of course, speed is a factor in most fatal road accidents. And, although Britain has a good road-safety record, the toll of 3,450 people killed on our roads last year is far too many for our consciences to bear. Yet it must be asked whether lives are saved by fining people who speed on straight, empty roads, or whether they are in the long term put at risk by undermining support for the law.

It is unfashionable to say so, but the speed limit should be raised on our extremely safe motorways, and on many 30mph urban dual carriageways. Better matching of limits to accident risks would make it easier to shift attitudes and make speeding as socially unacceptable as drink driving. Policing the present limits is too widely regarded simply as harassment by an overweening state.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in