THE announcement that the Ministry of Justice is to increase the maximum sentence from 14 years to life in prison for causing death by dangerous driving – in line with manslaughter – might seem like a good result.

However, the only time to celebrate is when road death has been totally eradicated; for it not only ‘crucifies’ the victim’s family, it also ‘crucifies’ the killer’s family.

Road deaths have also led to alcohol and drug addiction, and indeed suicide, and can have terrible effects on the emergency services and surgeons involved. So much so that, sick-leave and counselling has been needed.

Given that the first pedestrian to be killed by a motor vehicle was in 1896, to which the coroner said he “hoped such a thing would never happen again”, it surely makes no sense whatsoever not to use speed limiters to eradicate road death.

To make cars safer for occupants, we’ve seen every innovation, from seat-belts to crumple-zones, but they don’t protect pedestrians and cyclists. So why not progress to speed limiters?

In some countries, totally eradicating road death is within 'touching distance': Vision Zero is a multi-national road safety project that aims to achieve a highway system with no fatalities or serious injuries involving motor vehicles. Using education, engineering, (speed limiters), and enforcement, it was ‘born’ in Sweden in 1997. Since then, there have been some 40,000 deaths on UK roads.

Further, with climate change also destroying lives, the fight to reduce excessive speed and the senseless burning of rubber and fossil fuel, should surely amount to no-holds barred.

When innocent children, pensioners and cyclists have been killed by speeds as low as 20mph, and more walking and cycling is needed to combat congestion and obesity, how can we not have speed limiters?

Allan Ramsay

Member of RoadPeace