Paper to look at flexible fines

The measure was contained in the 2006 Road Safety Act, which reached the statute book in December last year, but, along with a number of other measures contained in the legislation, the Government must consult with both Parliament and the public on the detail of each proposal before using secondary legislation to invoke the new range of penalties.

The consultation document is likely to reveal the speed/points thresholds which will see a reduced penalty (two points) for motorists not far above the speed limit and a higher penalty (six points) for those who are signifi cantly above it.

The flexible points system is being seen as an attempt to diffuse anger among some drivers over the use of speed cameras and ensure that thousands of motorists are not banned from the roads for relatively minor infringements.

At the moment drivers breaking the speed limit receive three points on their licence regardless of the gravity of an offence.

Anybody who accumulates 12 points, or commits four speeding offences within three years suffers an automatic ban.

However, Meredydd Hughes, Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and Head of Roads Policing for the Association of Chief Police Officers, admits to being unsure how effective the graduated speeding penalties might be.

In an exclusive interview with RoadSafe magazine he said: "I don't know whether graduated speeding penalties will work.

"The system may be helpful; it may not. But for those people who feel it is a triumph for drivers who speed it is not. Drivers can now be banned after two speeding offences instead of four under the totting up process.

"But what is important is that motorists deserve a better deal in terms of clarity of signage on the roads and a simple fair penalty system for offences. Our current system may have its flaws but at least it is simple."

Among a raft of other measures included in the Act (RoadSafe: winter 2006/7) are plans to introduce nationwide speed awareness courses as an alternative to a £60 fixed penalty speeding fine.

Clock change attempt fails in House of Commons

The Energy Saving (Daylight) Bill failed to secure either Government backing or the 100 votes required to enable it to proceed to its next Parliamentary stage. The backbench Bill, proposed by former Conservative minister Tim Yeo, would have put the country on British summer time plus an hour in the summer and Greenwich Meantime plus an hour in the winter for an experimental period. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has been at the forefront of a longrunning campaign for lighter evenings all year round, which it says would save about 100 lives and prevent 300 serious injuries annually.

Fines ahead for failure to renew insurance

The measures, which will go out to consultation in the spring, are designed to reduce the £500 million annual toll of uninsured drivers involved in road crashes.

There are an estimated 1.5 million uninsured drivers in the UK and those who fail to pay the fines will have their cars clamped or impounded. To recover them they are likely to have to pay a release fee on top of the fine and prove they are insured.

Uninsured drivers are 10 times as likely as insured drivers to have been convicted of drink-driving, six times as likely to drive a non-roadworthy vehicle and three times as likely to have been convicted of driving without due care and attention.

The measures, which were outlined in the 2006 Road Safety Act, are being introduced under the new offence of keeping a vehicle while uninsured. Under the legislation the onus is on drivers to prove that they are insured or have completed a statutory offroad notification form.

Life jail term threat for drivers who kill

The Crown Prosecution Service has just completed a public consultation on road traffic offences, seeking views on how offences are prosecuted and the service it offers to victims and witnesses. Any changes would effectively see many offences that have historically been viewed as minor being reclassified as serious with jail terms instead of fines likely.

Meanwhile, the Sentencing Advisory Panel has commissioned independent researchers to investigate public attitudes to sentences in death by driving cases. This consultation closes on April 19.

The CPS has suggested the worst offenders, currently prosecuted as death by dangerous driving, should instead be tried for manslaughter, which carries a 14-year jail term. The move could see drivers caught talking on a mobile phone or fiddling with an audio system convicted of dangerous driving, instead of careless driving, and being given a two-year prison sentence. But in the event of a fatality facing manslaughter charges and a longer jail term.

Ken Macdonald QC, director of public prosecutions, said: "For most people driving is an everyday activity but a moment of bad, inconsiderate or dangerous driving can have a devastating affect on peoples lives. The way bad driving is dealt with is a matter of great public concern and I am determined to ensure that we offer the best possible service."

Legislation governs the charges open to the CPS for road traffic offences. But, within the parameters laid down by Parliament, there are areas where CPS policy can have a clear effect on the way cases are dealt with. The areas on which the CPS consulted included:

• What sort of behaviour or actions by drivers should constitute dangerous driving and what should constitute careless driving?
• What information do victims and victims' families want and when do they want this?
• How should cases involving the death of a family member or close friend be prosecuted?

The responses will form the CPS public policy statement on bad driving as well as CPS revised guidance in 2007.

Road safety campaigners say they are 'fed up' with killer drivers 'getting off' with a low charge and sentence even though they have driven recklessly and blatantly put other road users lives at risk. Consequently, they want tougher charges that will stick in court and appropriate sentences that will send out the message that dangerous driving will not be tolerated.

Meanwhile, results of the public opinion survey, to be carried out by the Institute of Criminal Policy Research at King's College, London, on behalf of the Sentencing Advisory Panel, will be considered alongside written responses and used to inform the Panel's advice to the Sentencing Guidelines Council.

The Panel submitted earlier advice on sentencing for the offence of causing death by dangerous driving to the Court of Appeal in 2003 and this has since been used to guide sentencing for that offence and also for the offence of causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs.

However, the maximum sentence for both offences has now been increased from 10 to 14 years' imprisonment and these guidelines need revision, says the Panel.

In addition, the Road Safety Act 2006 created two completely new offences - causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving (maximum penalty fi ve years' imprisonment) and causing death by driving: unlicensed, disqualifi ed or uninsured driver (maximum penalty two years' imprisonment). The new offences are scheduled for implementation this year.

Panel chairman Professor Martin Wasik said: 'These are among the most difficult sentencing decisions which judges have to make. Public perceptions about appropriate punishments for driving offences are often said to be at odds with sentences handed down by courts. For this reason the Panel wanted to explore in some detail attitudes about these offences. In particular, we are keen to test public opinion on the difficult balancing exercise that needs to be carried out when sentencing an offender who had no intention to cause harm but whose actions have resulted in death.'

It is the Panel's belief that 'where the level of carelessness is low and there are no aggravating factors, even the fact that death was caused is not sufficient to justify a prison sentence'.

The Panel has suggested a sliding scale of punishment according to the seriousness of the offence and the number of 'aggravating factors'. For example, if there were no 'aggravating factors' the driver could escape with a community service order, one 'aggravating factor' could merit a ninemonth sentence, two an 18-month sentence and three or more a minimum of three years jail. 'Aggravating factors' could include, for example, using a hand-held mobile phone while driving and speeding.

MoT extension plan 'could cause 150 extra deaths'

The plans to scrap the annual MoT on cars over three years old emerged as part of proposals to cut red tape across Government by 25% - and save companies and motorists millions of pounds in MoT bills. The MoT shake-up was singled out as one of 10 major reforms.

The idea, which has emanated from the Treasury, follows MoT schedules in many European countries where an inspection is required only every other year and on vehicles over four years old.

The MoT Trade Forum has forecast that if the move to a twoyear check is adopted and delayed by an additional year there will be up to 150 more road deaths per year and a further 1,400 major injuries and 11,000 slight injuries as a result of more crashes.

TyreSafe, formerly the Tyre Industry Council and the UK's leading tyre safety organisation, called the idea 'a serious retrograde step' and said it could increase the number of road crashes, notably skidding accidents in the wet.

Defective tyres - having a tread depth below 1.6 mm - says TyreSafe, are a contributory factor in many road accidents particularly on wet roads.

A spokesman said: "Any change to the annual MoT check could increase the number of vehicles on the road with badly worn or illegal tyres."

According to the latest figures from the Department for Transport, almost one in three vehicles fail the MoT with more than 7% of cars failing the annual inspection because of tyre problems.

Research by TyreSafe estimates that 12% of vehicles on Britain's roads have at least one defective tyre, and a further 12% have at least one badly worn tyre.

The spokesman added: "Many drivers do not routinely check the tyres on their vehicles, and the MoT test is the only time the tread, sidewalls and pressures of tyres are examined. For this reason, TyreSafe is strongly opposed to extending the period between tests."

The Treasury says that consultations will take place with the police and road safety groups before any changes are introduced.

The recommendation was one of the proposals from a Government commissioned report by Lord Davidson into the implementation of European Union legislation in the UK.

The changes to the MoT could, it is claimed, result in savings of around £465 million for businesses and consumers.

The report said: "Given that the frequency of vehicle testing is among the highest in the European Union and that cars have changed a lot since 1968 [when the MoT system was established], it could be argued that UK drivers face unnecessary costs by comparison to their counterparts in other member states."

Visit www.tyresafe.org for further details

Warning over responsibility for unroadworthy cars

Law firm Mace & Jones say the introduction of the Corporate Manslaughter and Homicide Bill will particularly have far-reaching implications for the UK's four million small firms.

In total there are some three million company car drivers and a further five million employees who use their own cars on work-related business.

Craig Blakemore, commercial dispute resolution partner at the North West-based firm, says it is vital that employers fulfill their legal obligations by ensuring that all vehicles, whether company-owned or employee-owned, are roadworthy and correctly insured.

He said: "Whether an employee is driving a company car, a vehicle purchased through a cash-forcar scheme, or using their own car for business purposes, the new legislation will make it the employer's responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is roadworthy.

"The new legislation will mean that the organisation, or a senior individual within the organisation, can be prosecuted for management failures that lead to the deaths of employees."

The Bill proposed that companies found guilty of someone being killed as a result of the gross failure of its senior managers, for example in the use or maintenance of vehicles, could be subjected to an unlimited fine.

Mr Blakemore said that it was particularly important that the safety of all vehicles was monitored by employers.

He said "Employers should regularly check private cars used for work related journeys, as well as company cars, for roadworthiness and safety.

"A significant amount of corporate mileage is undertaken each year in private cars. It is likely that the private cars will be significantly older and have been serviced less frequently than the company owned cars. Employers affected by this Bill should look to act sooner rather than later and seek advice if they are unsure about any of their duties or obligations regarding vehicle usage."

Checks that employers should undertake might include ensuring that:

• Employees holds a valid licence to drive the vehicle
• Cars are roadworthy and have a current MoT (if more than three years old)
• Vehicles are insured for 'business use'
• Cars are regularly serviced.
• Employees are carrying out basic maintenance checks on oil, water, washer fluid, tyre pressures and tyre tread depths on a regular basis.

The Government remains committed to steering the longawaited Bill through Parliament even though it was defeated in the House of Lords over the Home Office's refusal to extend the new law to deaths in prison and police cells. At the time of going to press Home Secretary John Reid was considering his next step in his plans to make it easier for companies to be prosecuted following a fatal accident.

EC outlines new safety measures

The EC says that 'significant progress' has been made on improving European road safety over the last 30 years. During that time traffic on European roads has tripled, while the number of casualties has halved. Nevertheless, latest figures show that about 41,600 people were killed on European roads in 2005.

While the Commission believes that an effective road safety strategy should be based on a combination of improvements in vehicle technology, road infrastructure, driver behaviour and enforcement it has called for a total of 11 safety-related actions.

They include:

• The mandatory fitting of electronic stability control (ESC), Isofix child restraints and seat belt reminders and obligatory daytime running lights for new vehicles
• The retro-fitting of mirrors to HGVs
• An investigation into the costs, benefits and feasibility of introducing emergency braking systems in vehicles (particularly heavy-duty vehicles)
• The continuing of efforts to promote the development of active in-vehicle safety systems in the framework of the 2020 Intelligent Car Initiative
• Adoption of the 3rd eSafety Communication aiming at full deployment of eCall - the SOS emergency service call-out system - from 2010
• Member states to further improve the enforcement of bans on drunk-driving, enforcement of speed limits, enforcement of motorcycle helmet use and to promote and enforce seatbelt use.

New calls for drink/drive limit cut

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents said the figures for the campaign carried out in England and Wales showed far too many people were ignoring the safety messages and putting themselves and others at risk.

Duncan Vernon, road safety officer for RoSPA, said: "Reducing the drink-drive limit from 80 mg to 50 mg would save around 65 lives and 230 serious injuries on Britain's roads each year. Between 50 mg and 80 mg you are two to two-and-a-half times more likely to be involved in an accident and six times more likely to be in a fatal crash than with no alcohol in your system."

As a result of police action at Christmas and New Year more than 9,600 drivers will probably lose their licence and many of them may lose their job as well.

Mr Vernon added: "Although there was a slight fall in the percentage of people who tested positive, the reduction is still not good enough when 560 people were killed in drink-drive-related accidents in 2005."

The anti drink-drive campaign, which ran throughout England and Wales for the whole of December, saw 145,867 drivers breath tested - the greatest number to date - of whom 9,658 tested positive (6.6%, down from 6.9% last year). The total number of breath tests carried out on drivers involved in collisions that resulted in injury for the 2006 period was 12,494 of whom 915 tested positive (7.3%, down from 8.6%).

Fit to drive tests were carried out again this year as part of the national campaign. Fit tests were conducted on 666 drivers who were suspected of being impaired while driving under the influence of drugs. A total of 251 drivers were arrested for drink or drug impairment offences (37.68%).

<< Back to contents page

• < previous article
• |
• next article >