Sharing dangerous driving videos is ‘truly reprehensible’, PM says
Developing story first seen 2 hours ago
TikTok has said that between January and March 2026 it proactively removed 99.8% of content that violated its policies on dangerous driving, including the account believed to belong to 18-year-old Makai Saddington, one of five people killed in a car that crashed head-on into a police vehicle near Middlesbrough on Saturday. The company's response follows government pressure, with Defence Minister Luke Pollard telling BBC Breakfast that platforms "could take the content down easily and adjust their algorithms" and Prime Minister Andy Burnham calling the sharing of such footage "truly reprehensible". Officials say removal is complicated by the Online Safety Act, under which dangerous content is not automatically illegal, leaving platforms to judge whether flagged material breaches their legal obligations rather than simply their own terms of service.
PC Tom Clough, 38, and PC Matthew Blades, 37, died when a Volkswagen Passat travelling the wrong way on the A66 collided with their armed response vehicle, moments after officers had ended a pursuit of it; all five Passat occupants, including two 17-year-olds, also died. BBC Verify examined a deleted 94-second clip from the TikTok account linked to Saddington, apparently showing the car driving on footpaths and parkland in Ormesby during what looked like a police chase, with another deleted video appearing to show a separate joyride. Downing Street called the glorification of dangerous driving "utterly disgraceful" and said Ofcom has "full backing" to act against platforms failing their duties, while the BBC has also approached Meta and X for comment.
- TikTok says it removed 99.8% of policy-breaching content proactively, Jan-March 2026
- PM Burnham calls sharing dangerous driving clips "truly reprehensible"
- Deleted clips reportedly showed car linked to fatal Middlesbrough crash driving recklessly
New here? Start with this
TikTok and other platforms carry short videos of dangerous driving, sometimes filmed by the drivers themselves, which can spread widely before they are removed. This has become a pressing issue after five people died, including 18-year-old Makai Saddington, when a car being pursued by police crashed head-on into a police vehicle on the A66 near Middlesbrough on Saturday, killing two officers as well as all five occupants of the other car. Footage apparently linked to the crash and to previous dangerous driving by those involved has circulated online, prompting scrutiny of how such content is handled.
The row centres on how much responsibility social media companies bear for content posted by users, and how quickly they act to remove it. Ministers, including Prime Minister Andy Burnham and Defence Minister Luke Pollard, have criticised the sharing of dangerous driving footage and pressed platforms to do more, while TikTok says it already removes the vast majority of material that breaches its rules. The Online Safety Act, a UK law meant to make online platforms more accountable for harmful content, is also part of the debate, since dangerous driving footage is not automatically illegal, leaving platforms to decide whether it breaches their own policies.
This matters because it raises broader questions about how far tech companies should go in policing content that glamorises risky or illegal behaviour, and what powers regulators such as Ofcom have to enforce standards when platforms fall short.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those who back tougher action argue that platforms bear real responsibility when they host and algorithmically amplify footage glorifying reckless driving, since such content can normalise dangerous behaviour among young viewers and even inspire copycat stunts. Given that TikTok already removes the vast majority of flagged material, ministers argue it is reasonable to expect platforms to go further, tightening algorithms so this content is never recommended in the first place rather than relying on after-the-fact takedowns. They see clear moral urgency in a case where officers died and young people were killed, and argue government and regulators like Ofcom are right to press companies hard and hold them publicly accountable for their duties.
The case against
Others caution that platforms are being asked to police a grey area the law itself has not clearly defined, since the Online Safety Act does not make this content automatically illegal, leaving companies to make difficult, fast judgement calls about what breaches legal duties versus their own terms of service. They argue that TikTok's reported 99.8% removal rate suggests systems are already working reasonably well, and that demanding blanket algorithmic changes risks over-removal of legitimate content such as news coverage, road-safety warnings or dashcam footage used to report bad driving. There is also a genuine concern that placing heavy blame on platforms, rather than addressing the underlying causes of reckless driving among young people, may produce symbolic rather than effective policy.
More coverage
Americas Government Politics Technology Trending Weird & Viral World